Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs ban on feeding geese, seagulls and pigeons; workshop requested
Summary
Council member Hyatt proposed tightening Surfside Beach’s bird-feeding rules to prohibit purposefully furnishing food to waterfowl (ducks, geese, swans) and other birds; council discussed escalating civil fines and the possible addition of short jail terms, then requested a workshop for further review rather than immediate adoption.
Surfside Beach council on March 10 considered substantial revisions to a local nuisance ordinance that would prohibit deliberately feeding waterfowl and other birds within town limits and impose escalating civil fines for repeat offenses.
Council member Hyatt explained changes that would make it unlawful to “purposefully furnish food to wild waterfowl, including ducks, geese, and swans, seagulls, and pigeons,” and to prevent behaviors that “create or foster any condition which results in a congregation of such birds.” Hyatt described his draft as modeled on the county ordinance and said he added an escalating penalty scheme so repeat offenders face higher fines, noting state limits on maximum fines.
Under the draft presented to council, a person who violates the article would be guilty of a civil infraction punishable by a fine up to $200 for the initial offense, with subsequent infractions escalating the fine by $100 until a maximum fine of $500. Hyatt also proposed a new explicit statement that violators “shall not be subject to incarceration,” though several council members later discussed whether a short jail term could be applied; some members argued that repeated offenders might require stronger deterrents.
Council discussion covered enforcement practicality (how police would implement the ordinance), whether pigeons and seagulls should be grouped with waterfowl, and the need to coordinate with the police chief and public works on deterrent plantings and other noncriminal remedies. Chief Mickel said he had not yet reviewed the draft and asked for more time to assess enforcement tools.
Rather than move immediately to a vote, councilors asked staff to schedule a workshop to allow police, public works and the town attorney to review enforcement details, penalties, and the ordinance text before a first reading. Council member Hyatt’s motion to proceed to first reading was ultimately withdrawn in favor of a workshop and further staff review.
Next steps
Council requested a workshop to refine the ordinance language, clarify enforcement mechanisms and discuss penalty levels, including whether to keep or change the draft’s language on incarceration. The ordinance was not adopted at the March 10 meeting.
