Roosters: restrictions.

The bill text was reformatted from the official printed document layout (with line numbers, page breaks, and two-column formatting) to a web-based display format with navigation elements. No legislative language was changed.

The core prohibition in Section 32105(a) was narrowed. The old version appeared to ban both keeping/raising roosters above the threshold AND keeping any rooster movement-constrained. The new version only prohibits a person who exceeds the threshold (more than 3 per acre or 25 total) from keeping those roosters movement-constrained through an enclosure or tether. People can still keep roosters above the threshold as long as they are not confined in enclosures or tethers.

A new criterion (C) was added to the exhibition breeder exemption: the person must not possess more than 25 gamefowl roosters. This caps the number of fighting-breed roosters even for otherwise qualifying exhibitors.

The 4-H/FFA exemption was changed from 'State Grange' to simply 'Grange,' broadening which Grange organizations qualify for the exemption.

A new definition of 'gamefowl rooster' was added, covering breeds chiefly developed for producing fighting cocks, including American Gamefowl, Asil, and other breeds or crossbreeds intended or used for fighting.

The definition of 'rooster' was changed from meeting 'any' of the listed criteria (age 6 months, full adult plumage, capable of crowing, not a bantam) to meeting 'all' of those criteria. This narrows which birds fall under the law.

The definition of 'enclosure' was narrowed: it now must prevent 'physical contact' with other roosters rather than merely preventing 'interaction,' making it harder for a structure to qualify as an enclosure.

District attorneys were removed from the list of officials authorized to bring civil penalty actions. Only the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor may now file such actions.

When a city attorney or city prosecutor brings a civil action, one-half of the penalty now goes to the treasurer of the city (previously it went to the state's General Fund).

Two new savings clauses were added: one confirming the section does not limit enforcement of other animal protection laws (Penal Code sections 597, 597b, 597c, 597i, 597j, 599aa), and another confirming it does not authorize any act that violates those same laws.

A new Section 1 was added containing legislative findings and declarations. It states that cockfighting persists in California despite being illegal, that the three largest U.S. cockfighting seizures from 2000-2024 occurred in California, that cockfighting is associated with drug trafficking and gun violence, that gamefowl yards pose avian disease risks, and that H5N1 avian flu has killed over 23 million poultry in California since February 2022.

The rooster restriction provisions were moved from Section 28800 in new Division 12.5 to a new Section 32105 in Part 3 of Division 14.8 of the Food and Agricultural Code. Division 12.5 still exists but appears to contain only a brief section, while the substantive rules (prohibition, exemptions, penalties, definitions) now reside in Division 14.8.

Minor grammatical edits: articles were added before 'district attorney' and 'county counsel' in the penalty enforcement provision (changed from 'a district attorney, county counsel' to 'a district attorney, a county counsel').

The core prohibition changed from banning anyone from keeping or raising more than 3 roosters per acre (or 25 total) to only prohibiting the confinement of roosters via enclosure or tether when a person exceeds those thresholds. People can still keep large numbers of roosters as long as they are not movement-constrained.

A new preemption clause was added stating that the bill does not prevent cities or counties from adopting or enforcing ordinances on rooster keeping that are more restrictive than the state requirements.

The separate Division 12.5 (commencing with Section 28800) of the Food and Agricultural Code was removed from the bill. The legislation now only adds Part 3 to Division 14.8.

The definition of 'rooster' was changed from meeting any one of three criteria (6 months old, full adult plumage, or capable of crowing) to meeting ALL of those criteria plus a new fourth criterion: the bird must not be a bantam chicken. This significantly narrows which birds are covered.

A new definition of 'enclosure' was added, covering structures used for confinement including wire cages or items repurposed from other uses (water tanks, plastic barrels) that provide long-term housing for one adult rooster and prevent interaction with other roosters.

A new provision states that each day a rooster is kept in violation constitutes a distinct violation, meaning the $2,500 civil penalty can accumulate on a daily basis for ongoing violations.