HB0513 creates a new set of restrictions on keeping roosters in Maryland, aimed at reducing conditions associated with cockfighting and limiting the large-scale confinement of roosters. Beginning January 1, 2027, a person generally may not keep more than 5 roosters per acre or more than 25 roosters on a single property if the roosters are maintained individually and kept in a movement-constraining enclosure or tether, unless the Department of Agriculture authorizes otherwise. The bill defines key terms such as “rooster,” “property,” and “enclosure,” and it sets out several exemptions for commercial poultry producers, schools receiving state funds, government-operated animal shelters, animal welfare organizations, and certain 4-H/Future Farmers of America participants or persons who can show they kept more adult hens than roosters in the prior six months.
The bill also establishes enforcement and penalty provisions. Violations are treated as civil offenses rather than criminal misdemeanors under the enacted version, with a warning for a first offense, civil penalties up to $500 per rooster for a second offense, and up to $1,000 per rooster for third and subsequent offenses. Enforcement may be carried out by state or local law enforcement or local animal control authorities, and the Department of Agriculture may cooperate with those officials. The Department is also directed to adopt regulations, but the bill states it does not require additional inspections beyond those already required by law.
In terms of state law, the bill adds new provisions to both the Agriculture Article and the Criminal Law Article, though the operative enforcement language in the enacted text treats violations as civil offenses. It preserves local authority by allowing counties, municipalities, and other local governments to adopt and enforce stricter rooster-keeping standards. The law takes effect October 1, 2025, with the main numerical restrictions beginning January 1, 2027.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is regulatory and public-health oriented, with the stated purpose of addressing ongoing cockfighting concerns and the spread of avian flu. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no additional recorded debate or vote-based sentiment to assess. Based on the statutory design, the bill appears intended to curb abusive or high-density rooster keeping while preserving limited agricultural, educational, and youth-program uses.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly the rooster limits apply, the practical burden on small-scale keepers, and the enforcement mechanism. The bill includes exceptions for commercial poultry operations and certain educational or youth programs, suggesting lawmakers sought to avoid sweeping impacts on legitimate poultry activity. At the same time, the per-rooster civil penalties and the restriction on movement-constrained housing could be viewed as significant by backyard poultry owners, breeders, and cockfighting enforcement advocates, especially where local governments may impose even stricter rules.
HB0513 adds new statewide restrictions on keeping roosters, creating a regulatory framework that limits the number of roosters a person may keep on a property when they are housed in enclosures or tethered, unless authorized by the Department of Agriculture. It also authorizes enforcement by law enforcement and local animal control, requires departmental regulations, and preserves the ability of local governments to adopt stricter standards. The bill affects poultry keepers, breeders, animal control agencies, and local governments, while carving out exemptions for commercial poultry producers, schools, shelters, animal welfare organizations, and certain youth-agriculture participants.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate generally supportive sentiment toward animal welfare, cockfighting prevention, and disease control, especially given the preamble’s references to illegal cockfighting and avian flu. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators in the available record. The enacted text suggests a compromise approach: it imposes statewide limits but includes multiple exemptions and preserves local authority for stricter regulation.
Likely areas of contention include whether the rooster limits are too restrictive for backyard poultry owners, breeders, and small-scale agricultural participants, and whether the per-rooster civil penalties are too punitive. Another likely issue is the scope of the exemptions, especially for 4-H and Future Farmers of America participants and for persons who can document a higher number of hens than roosters in the prior six months. Enforcement authority and the potential for local governments to impose even stricter rules may also be disputed by affected property owners and poultry advocates.