Duck liberation

The ordinance has become controversial lately because a Bingen couple, Michelle Halbin and Oliver Pochert, recently got a duck as a pet. When the city found out about it, Halbin and Pochert were advised, to their surprise, that owning a duck was illegal in Bingen.

Well, count us as among those who believe the owners of this sweet and harmless duck should be allowed to keep their pet.

We agree that the city has good reason to monitor the types of animals people own. To be sure, the city should not allow people to set up a farm within the city limits with chicken pens and crowing roosters, for example. There can be noise, nuisance, and health issues involved with that type of operation.

Yet that is part of the point here: There are already ordinances in place that address noise, nuisance, and health, so any animal creating a problem could be regulated or barred under those ordinances.

There should be a distinction between having a pet and raising livestock. Some City Council members have wisely suggested setting up a permit system, and/or allowing just one of a specific type of animal as a pet, thereby ensuring there could be no farming or raising of animals.

That makes sense. Requiring a permit would allow the city to make sure no farming operations take hold in the city -- and we agree that raising poultry or livestock would not be appropriate within the city limits.

No one has complained about this duck. On the contrary, those living nearby have publicly expressed their support for "Duffy." One neighbor, Wendi Zeober, described the duck as "a blessing to our neighborhood."

Honestly, it is ludicrous to prohibit people from owning a waddling duck, while at the same time freely allowing other animals -- like the vicious pit bull that attacked and sent four Bingen residents to the hospital a year or so ago. No problem with owning pit bulls, but the city is going to draw the line on keeping a duck? That's ridiculous.

Times change, and outdated ordinances need to be able to adapt. Bingen's council members need to find a way to make allowances in cases such as this one.

Duffy is no public menace, and should not be labeled as a lawbreaker. The livestock ordinance needs to be changed, and the duck should be allowed to stay.

JB