Crimes Relating to Animals - Restrictions on Keeping Roosters
HB513 creates new statewide restrictions on keeping roosters in Maryland, beginning January 1, 2027, unless a person has authorization from the Department of Agriculture. The bill generally prohibits a person from keeping roosters that are movement-constrained by an enclosure or tether if the person keeps more than five roosters per acre on a single property or more than 25 roosters total on a single property. It defines key terms such as “rooster,” “property,” and “enclosure,” and includes exceptions for commercial poultry producers, certain schools, government-operated animal shelters, animal welfare organizations, and certain 4-H/Future Farmers of America participants.
The bill also creates a proof-based exception for a person who can show they kept more adult hens than roosters during the prior six months, and it allows counties to authorize higher numbers in some youth-agriculture situations. Enforcement is assigned to state or local law enforcement and local animal control authorities, with the Department of Agriculture authorized to cooperate but not required to conduct additional inspections beyond those already required by law. The Department must adopt regulations to implement the measure.
HB513 amends both the Agriculture Article and the Criminal Law Article, but the final enacted version treats violations as civil offenses rather than crimes. First offenses receive a warning, second offenses can result in civil penalties of up to $500 per rooster, and third or subsequent offenses can result in penalties of up to $1,000 per rooster. The bill also preserves the authority of counties and municipalities to adopt and enforce stricter rooster-keeping standards.
The general sentiment reflected in the legislative outcome appears strongly supportive, as the bill passed both chambers by wide margins and was approved by the Governor. The stated policy rationale is to address ongoing cockfighting concerns and reduce the spread of avian flu associated with breeding roosters for cockfighting. No committee transcript is available here, but the overwhelming votes suggest broad agreement with the bill’s animal-welfare and public-health goals.
The main points of potential contention are likely the practical limits on backyard or small-scale rooster keeping, the per-rooster civil penalties, and the enforcement burden on local authorities. At the same time, the bill contains multiple carve-outs for commercial poultry, schools, shelters, animal welfare groups, and youth agricultural programs, indicating an effort to balance enforcement against legitimate agricultural and educational uses.
HB513 adds new statewide restrictions on rooster possession and movement-constrained housing, while preserving local governments’ ability to impose stricter rules. It changes Maryland law by creating a civil enforcement framework for excessive rooster keeping, authorizing penalties and warnings, requiring Department of Agriculture regulations, and involving local animal control and law enforcement in enforcement. The bill affects poultry owners, backyard chicken keepers, 4-H/FFA participants, animal control agencies, and agricultural regulators.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, as reflected in its large-margin passage in both the House and Senate and final enactment by the Governor. The legislative findings emphasize cockfighting enforcement and avian flu prevention, suggesting the measure was framed as an animal-welfare and public-health response rather than a punitive criminal crackdown. The absence of recorded committee debate in the provided materials limits more detailed sentiment analysis, but the vote totals indicate little organized opposition at the floor stage.
Likely areas of contention include whether the limits on rooster numbers are too restrictive for small-scale owners, whether the per-rooster civil penalties are excessive, and how enforcement will work in practice for local animal control and law enforcement. The bill also distinguishes between ordinary owners and exempt groups such as commercial poultry producers, schools, shelters, animal welfare organizations, and 4-H/FFA members, which suggests lawmakers were trying to avoid burdening legitimate uses while targeting suspected cockfighting-related activity. Another possible point of debate is the Department of Agriculture’s role, since the bill authorizes cooperation but expressly does not require additional inspections.