We know that Democrats hate men. They believe a man can be pregnant, be a woman, should be discriminated against. Now this hate of men has become a hate of male chickens, roosters. This is NOT a JOKE—Sacramento Democrats apparently hate male chickens.
“California state lawmakers are pushing a measure that would limit the number of roosters an individual can keep on their property. The bill is ostensibly intended to crack down on cockfighters. However, some argue that such a sweeping law would unfairly target chicken farmers and disrupt their operations.
Assembly Bill 928 would prohibit people from keeping more than three roosters per acre or more than 25 roosters total on their property. Democratic Assemblymember Chris Rogers, in partnership with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), introduced the bill as a “common sense measure” targeting the breeding and trafficking of gamefowl.
Those who keep more than the allowed number of roosters could be subject to fines up to $2,500 per day per chicken – especially if the birds are “movement-constrained.”
There is a way around this—the farmer only has to announce that the roosters are female chickens, they have transitioned!!!! Why not?
This State Bill Would Turn Chicken Breeders Into Criminals Overnight
Jeff Charles, Townhall, 4/10/25 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/04/10/california-lawmakers-pushing-bill-to-restrict-chicken-ownership-n2655211
California state lawmakers are pushing a measure that would limit the number of roosters an individual can keep on their property. The bill is ostensibly intended to crack down on cockfighters. However, some argue that such a sweeping law would unfairly target chicken farmers and disrupt their operations.
Assembly Bill 928 would prohibit people from keeping more than three roosters per acre or more than 25 roosters total on their property. Democratic Assemblymember Chris Rogers, in partnership with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), introduced the bill as a “common sense measure” targeting the breeding and trafficking of gamefowl.
Those who keep more than the allowed number of roosters could be subject to fines up to $2,500 per day per chicken – especially if the birds are “movement-constrained.”
While the bill explicitly mentions gamefowl, it also applies more broadly to all roosters except those that are exempted, such as bantam chickens.
Those who support the proposed legislation argue that it will help to crack down on animal cruelty and public health risks such as avian flu.
Critics argued that the measure unfairly targets legal and constitutionally protected practices and would disproportionately affect Hispanic communities that breed gamefowl for cultural reasons and exhibit them at poultry shows. They further point out that the bill would violate due process. Another issue is the difficulty with distinguishing between legal and illegal rooster owners – an issue that will lead to unjust prosecutions.
The bill portrays cockfighting as a multifaceted threat, linking it to other offenses, such as violence, drugs, and organized crime. It claims that despite being prohibited by law, it “continues to persist throughout the state.”
Recommended
Rogers, in a press release, claimed the bill would empower law enforcement “to address the barbaric and illegal practice of cockfighting by establishing civil penalties for gamefowl yards where roosters are bred for cockfighting.”
“This legislation will not only protect birds, it also helps address the public health risk presented by smuggled birds that have the potential to spread diseases, like avian flu, to legitimate poultry operations,” Rogers said.
The Assembly’s Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Wednesday to discuss the measure. Rogers claimed that even though cockfighting is illegal, “it continues to happen in California with alarming regularity,” a point that was countered by David Devereaux, California Association for the Preservation of Gamefowl.
“Public records and court docket show that prosecutions are very rare… only 12 arrests statewide for cockfighting-related offenses,” Devereaux said during the hearing.
Devereaux pointed out that the bill “arbitrarily targets illegal activity embraced by a constitutionally protected class by equating gamefowl ownership with criminal activity.”
He noted that the measure would unfairly impact “a largely ethnic community dedicated to the historical preservation of breeding gamefowl.”
Several California residents, most of whom were Hispanic farmers from across the state attended the hearing to voice their opposition to the bill.
Devereaux told Townhall the proposed legislation that would victimize people who keep gamefowl and other chicken breeds by levying exorbitant fines even when no crime has been committed.
He argued, “Beyond just having or breeding roosters, they have to prove the intent to use those roosters for a cockfight,” noting that the proposed law would remove the need for authorities to prove that people are keeping the birds for cockfighting purposes.
So, this proposal essentially hamstrings the ability to breed gamefowl in the first place. It eliminates basically their requirement to show intent. And the problem with that is that there is a huge contingent of a community, 90 percent of which is Hispanic, that raises gamefowl for the purposes of culture and tradition. The California APG has conducted hundreds of shows that have nothing to do with cockfighting, that merely represent and honor the tradition and history of gamefowl.
Devereaux said California lawmakers are “attempting to skirt due process and avoid the requirements that they have to show intent.”
If passed, the measure would go into effect in January 2027.
Given the few convictions for cockfighting in California, it seems unreasonable that such a law would be necessary—especially because it needlessly limits those who breed chickens for cultural purposes. Devereaux speculated that there could be other factors motivating the effort to impose this law.
“I think what’s really motivating this is the political agenda of organizations like the Humane Society that are, I think, rather radical on these types of issues and I think it’s based on a stereotype that if you were involved in gamefowl, you must be involved in cockfighting. And that’s simply not the truth. So I think that’s what’s motivating it,” he told Townhall.
The HSUS, which worked with Rogers on the bill, is a national animal rights organization claiming that they wish to protect gamefowl and other animals from being subjected to brutal treatment. Yet, the organization has assisted law enforcement in killing the birds it seizes from owners on numerous occasions.
The group helped the Grady County Sheriff’s Office in Oklahoma seize and kill 105 gamefowl previously owned by a couple suspected (not convicted) of cockfighting. The couple was never convicted of a crime. The organization also killed over 400 birds at a home in Kansas City, Missouri.
Barker further contended that “Over 50 rare and endangered breeds of chickens will face statewide extinction” if the bill is passed.
Doni Anthony, vice president of client relations and research strategy for the United States Human Defense League, argued that the bill would not only fail to protect animals but also violate property rights and other constitutional protections.
AB 928 reveals the State of California’s disturbing willingness to enable the mass killing of millions of animals at the request of so-called animal rights organizations. This bill doesn’t protect animals — it criminalizes their existence and targets the very people who care for them. It’s a calculated assault on property rights, due process, and every principle of humane treatment.
When it comes to concerns over the spread of avian flu, Devereaux noted that “there’s absolutely no scientific study that creates any connection between gamefowl and the avian influenza.”
He added: “Jesse Ortega, a certified poultry inspector for the state of California … has directly confirmed that there’s never been a single case of bird influenza in the state of California.”
“It’s conjecture with no validation or evidence,” Devereaux concluded.
The Judiciary Committee voted on Tuesday to advance the bill to the floor.
