Bird Feeding Ordinances Presentation

Bird Feeding Complaints
Addressing Public Nuisance Issues in Chandler
Neighborhoods Subcommittee
July 22, 2025

Agenda
 
• Defining the Issue
• Complaint Trends
• What Other Cities are Doing
• Enforcement Challenges
• Recommendations
• Discussion Items
• Next Steps
Goal: Equip Code Enforcement with effective tools to address community concerns while maintaining fair
and enforceable standards

Defining the Issue
 
Common Complaints
•
Property Damage: Bird droppings causing damage to homes,
vehicles, and outdoor furniture
•
Public Nuisance: Excessive bird populations creating
unsanitary conditions
•
Health Concerns: Disease transmission risks from bird
droppings and debris
•
Neighborhood Disputes: Conflicts between bird feeders and
affected neighbors
Key Issue: Code Enforcement has no legal authority to address
these complaints under current city ordinances

Complaint Trends
 
The most recent bird feeding complaint is related to all outdoor birds rather
than just pigeons. The last inspection on June 24, 2025, did not result in
opening a new case.
Calendar
Year
Total
Cases
Pigeon
Specific
% of Total
Cases
Bird Feeding
Complaints
% of Total Cases
Total Combined Cases
% of Total Cases
2023
5221
10
.19%
3
0.06%
13
.25%
2024
5669
16
.28%
4
0.07%
20
.35%
2025 (Thru
6/25/2025)
2524
9
.36%
3
0.12%
12
.48%
Total
13414
35
.26%
10
0.07%
45
.34%
Since January of 2023 thru June 25, 2025, there have been 45 combined cases,
all have been closed due to being  unfounded or by voluntary compliance.

Neighborhood Preservation Division - Code Enforcement Process
Resident makes complaint or
inspector observes violation
Complaint is logged and
given a case number
Code Inspector is assigned
case
An initial inspection is
conducted within 2 days
If violation(s) observed,
attempt contact, and Notice
of Violation issued
Property reinspected in 10-
14 days. If violation is
abated; case closed.
Otherwise, Final Notice of
Violation issued
Property reinspected in 7
days. If violation abated;
case closed. Otherwise, civil
citation/court action
initiated.
The end results benefit the
health and safety of the
entire neighborhood
With cases involving a
bird feeding dispute
between neighbors, staff
has offered mediation
services and in one case,
pigeon-proof feeders.

What Other Cities are Doing
 
City
Approach
Penalties
Requirements
Gilbert
Limited to  keeping of registered pigeons and a wild or feral
animal feeding prohibition on Public Property only
$259 - $988 civil violations,
criminal misdemeanor
option
Resident complaint
Glendale
Addresses “annoyance” including feeding pigeons on private
property and has a Pigeon-specific prohibition on Public
Property only
$50 - $150 civil violation
Resident complaint
Mesa
Pigeon-specific prohibition
$250-$2,500 civil
violations, criminal
misdemeanor option
Resident complaint
Phoenix
Comprehensive pigeon feeding ban with penalties
$150-$2,500 civil
violations, criminal
misdemeanor option
3 witness signatures for
enforcement
*Scottsdale
Addresses “public nuisance” to include “infestation” and
birds are listed as part of this definition
$250-$750 civil violations,
criminal misdemeanor
option
Resident complaint
Tempe
Covers all birds
$500-$4,000 civil
violations, criminal
misdemeanor option
3 witness signatures for
enforcement but can be
waived
*Chandler currently has similar language about “infestations” which includes pigeons but not birds in general.

Enforcement Challenges – Pigeon Specific
 
Pros
•
Preserves general bird feeding
•
Graduated penalties
•
Supports public health and sanitation
Cons
•
Species limitation (pigeons only)
•
Evidentiary complexity with mixed bird species
•
Could limit enjoyment for some residents
Pros
•
Addresses feeding on public property
•
Eliminates the need to identify species of birds
on public property
•
Supports public health and sanitation
•
Preserves general bird feeding on private
property
Cons
•
Only addresses keeping of pigeons – does not
speak to  feeding of wild pigeons on private
property (deemed civil matter)
•
Could limit enjoyment for some residents
Glendale, Mesa and Phoenix:
Gilbert:

Enforcement Challenges - Wild Birds
 
Pros
• Clear and specific prohibition
• Graduated penalties
• Supports public health and sanitation
• Eliminates the need to identify species of
birds - reduces misidentification
Cons
• Vagueness in language
• Enforcement ambiguity
• Administrative burden
Tempe:
Scottsdale:
Pros
• Supports public health and sanitation
• Eliminates the need to identify species of
birds – reduces misidentification
Cons
• “Infestation” is difficult to prove
• Only addresses feeding as it relates to
encouraging the infestation

State and County Approach
 
Arizona State Law (ARS §132927)
• It's illegal across Arizona (including Maricopa
County) to feed, attract, or entice wildlife,
except for birds and tree squirrels
o Violating individuals may be fined up to $300 as a
petty offense
State:
County:
•
The County does not prohibit feeding wild pigeons or birds, but it discourages it, especially if it
leads to nuisance conditions
•
Bird feeders are allowed, but feeders should be managed carefully—keeping seed off the
ground and preventing pest attraction
•
Property owners are responsible for ensuring feeding doesn’t create public health nuisances
(e.g., droppings, pests)

Recommendations
 
Proposed Action Items
•
*Adopt Nuisance-Based Ordinance: Follow Tempe's model
focusing on public nuisance impacts rather than specific species
•
Establish Clear Penalties: Follow Chandler’s current enforcement
practices and penalty structure ($250 - $750, 2 civil citations prior
to receiving a criminal citation)
•
*Create Witness Requirements: Implement witness petition system
for private property enforcement – define what constitutes a
neighborhood problem
•
Public Education: Launch awareness campaign about responsible
bird feeding practices
*Items requiring additional discussion

Discussion Items
 
Items to Consider:
•
Distinguish between wild bird feeding and keeping domestic or captive birds, which
could be treated differently*
•
Determine the number of witnesses required (Phoenix and Tempe require 3 but
Glendale, Mesa and Scottsdale only require 1 resident complaint for enforcement)
•
Current Chandler Code Enforcement policies and procedures only requires one
complaint for staff to determine if a violation of City Code exists
•
Clarify the criteria for waiving the petition requirement if utilized
•
Vegetation can make it difficult to attribute an excessive number of birds solely to
feeding practices
*If there is a pigeon-only code:
•
Do we provide examples or guidelines of acceptable feeders or practices (e.g., hopper feeders
with weight-sensitive perches)?
•
Do we offer education or outreach on pigeon control and alternative bird feeding techniques
before issuing fines or citations?

Next Steps
 
Immediate Actions
August 2025
• Draft ordinance language based on
Tempe model
• Legal review and consultation
September 2025
• Stakeholder engagement planning –
Discuss at Neighborhood Advisory
Council Meeting
• Council Work Session
Implementation Phase
October/November 2025
• City Council adoption
• Staff training and resource allocation
December 2025
• Community education campaign

Questions?
Neighborhoods Subcommittee
July 22, 2025