I'm okay with keeping a few chickens or bees. But: keeping chickens or bees is not "sustainable" by any meaningful definition of the word.

Local eggs and bee products (honey, honeycombs, etc.) are extremely abundant and easy to come by, and come from places with free-range, healthily fed and maintained chickens and modest beekeeping setups. *And*, all of these options are part of local food security.

Instead, the latest "hip fad" is like any other fad--keep a few chickens for boutique effect, spending more on maintenance and feed than the eggs save you. And--keeping the chickens mainly in coops. In other words, the chickens are treated worse than the locally available, free-range options. And the manufacture and distribution of chicken feed, coop and bee box materials, chicken crap, etc.? Don't worry, I'm sure those have no long-term impact on the ecosystem, or neighbors, or the water supply.

In other words, folks, you can buy local eggs and honey cheaply, sustainably, from the local food system, supporting local businesses and livelihoods. It's what people actually used to do.

And given a list of critical needs, not immediate and long term, why is Mayor Facebook spending time on this kind of fluff?

You missed the Mayor's press release.

There is no money for street repaving classes because that money was spent on a new class, "Keeping Yourself Amused While Waiting for a Streetcar."

Have a fresh egg sometime. It's an experience.

Have a fresh egg sometime. It's an experience.

I agree. They're available all over town, less than 24 hours old, and not refrigerated.

...keeping [urban] chickens or bees is not "sustainable" by any meaningful definition of the word

But if the point is to look sustainable, not to be sustainable, the goal is met. And I agree with the rest of your post - bottom line, the number of chickens we are allowed to keep in an urban area (5, I believe) is not enough to break even, financially or sustainably. And not only that, predation from raccoons, coyotes, and even domestic pets (my own Siberian Husky has probably snagged a dozen or so) is a big problem.

What matters more is to assure that we keep a healthy rural reserve surrounding the urban area, where real farms can operate economically and benefit everyone without imposing excessivly on our transportation infrastructure, and not be subject to excess spillover effects from the urban area. If we don't maintain that reserve, we'll continue our steady march toward getting our entire food supply from very large and very distant suppliers.

Yes and no, eco.

I think the two are rather different. We can certainly use all the bees that people can keep. The honey is just the lagniappe. Having abundant pollinators is the real reward. The more hives there are, the more resiliency we have to deal with collapsing colonies, mites, etc.

On chickens, John Rettig probably hits the most important thing (protecting farmland) but there's no reason that home henkeeping contradicts that in any way any more than home gardeners hurt local vegetable farmers. The folks who garden are the very ones willing to pay the most for good produce, because they have a much clearer understanding of what it takes to grow good produce, and people who keep hens are going to pay top dollar for good eggs when their own aren't laying enough. They are also the ones who are the first to line up to protect farmland. And the argument that it's somehow not valuable because people spend more than they save on eggs -- so?

The best security we could have is if there were lots of folks keeping hens, as was the case pretty much everywhere, not that long ago. It wasn't trendy, it was simply what you did.

Of all the things that Portland does, I think supporting some basic home economics practices like keeping hens and bees are about the most benign and potentially valuable. The problem is that anything COP does is tainted by the many world-class stupid/greedy/shady things also done (see archives here for details).

We can certainly use all the bees that people can keep. The honey is just the lagniappe. Having abundant pollinators is the real reward. The more hives there are, the more resiliency we have to deal with collapsing colonies, mites, etc.

George, the "collapsing" problem over lack of pollination is a myth. For example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507121949.htm

There isn't a crisis of need for bees.

They are also the ones who are the first to line up to protect farmland.

I strongly disagree. Portland planning efforts increasingly focus on bringing farmland (and farmable land) inside the UGB, while at the same time paying lip service to "promoting local food". So-called urban agriculture is fine, but what's really happening is more complex. Portland, once home to a strong local food system, is trying to plan its way out of a land and economic problem with boutique efforts like "four chickens" and "keep some bees". I've seen the plans, I've seen the historical effort.

The best security we could have is if there were lots of folks keeping hens, as was the case pretty much everywhere, not that long ago. It wasn't trendy, it was simply what you did.

Actually, no. Historically, chicken keeping involved only a small fraction of urban residents. As for food security, the City's both claiming to be concerned while taking concrete actions to undermine it. You can't keep chickens in a condo, and all planning efforts for density and UGB containment point to multi-story, high-density, multifamily development.

Keeping a couple of chickens and some bees doesn't really strengthen food security. In fact, in many ways they have the opposite effect, when the broader ecology's taken into effect. What *does* strengthen food security is the ability for local growers to exist and to come into existence.

And as dense urban centers continue to grow more dense and more large, eating up a wider and wider circle of resources, no amount of chickens in a back yard--even combined with other tiny efforts--is going to meaningfully support the food system.

I'm often surprised that people don't understand that a place like Portland can't sustain itself with a small area--as density increases, so does the insatiable need for resources from *outside* that dense area. In other words, the more Portland becoes dense, the more it relies on resources from elsewhere. Cities consume the region (and now globe) to death, by their very nature.

But hey, if keeping a chicken makes folks feel more "green", then let them do so. It won't make things worse--but it also won't help.

eco, maybe I don't understand your position.

If you're saying that we can't solve the cancer of growth by keeping hens and bees, I agree. And, btw, Portland isn't driving the UGB extensions--for that you can thank the sprawl lobby with its 20-year-buildable-land requirement. Unless you know of some way that Portland can meet the 20 year land supply given the fantastically hyped growth numbers that they're using, how do they do it without more land? The system is set up to turn nature into subdivisions --- how do they NOT expand the UGB?

If you're saying that people who enjoy their own honey and eggs aren't better off than if they didn't have them, then I disagree. They think they are. That a few hens and bees won't solve the problem of a cancerous pro-growth mindset isn't a reason for those who are here now not to learn how to keep small poultry or to not teach their kids how to.

Portland isn't driving the UGB extensions--for that you can thank the sprawl lobby with its 20-year-buildable-land requirement.

I mostly agree. But Portland is by far the largest enactor of UGB requirements, and by far the largest urban area in the state. I don't know about a "sprawl lobby"--I think there is a large "density lobby", though.

If you're saying that people who enjoy their own honey and eggs aren't better off than if they didn't have them, then I disagree.

No, I'm not anti-enjoyment.

Bottom line here is that Mayor Creepy, aka Mayor Facebook, aka Mayor ChiMo is dithering on issues like this while the city is sliding toward municipal bankruptcy.

I strongly disagree. Portland planning efforts increasingly focus on bringing farmland (and farmable land) inside the UGB, while at the same time paying lip service to "promoting local food".

But Seldes' point was that the people who are connected to their food sources through their own efforts to raise it, are also likely to want to protect farmland - which I tend to agree with.

Portland's record is mixed on farmland protection, but it doesn't compromise the positions of individual Portlanders who think there should be more protection. And at least we're finally coming around as a region to try to start addressing it: The current effort to establish Rural Reserves is certainly a step in the right direction.

But Seldes' point was that the people who are connected to their food sources through their own efforts to raise it, are also likely to want to protect farmland - which I tend to agree with.

Adams has a garden. So does City Hall. And several groups connected to policy making--or at least the more vocal of their members--are fully on board with expansion of and use of the UGB.

And Saltzman, lord of community gardens? On his watch, the number of gardens has decreased, all while he claimed to be a champion of them.

And, I know several "backyard" growers who love the idea of a dense urban environment that grows by adding former (or potential) farmland to the urban area.

And so on.

Portland's record is mixed on farmland protection, but it doesn't compromise the positions of individual Portlanders who think there should be more protection.

Sure, of course there are plenty of people who have a garden and also want farmland protected. But I've seen, heard, and read enough to know that it's definitely not all or most of them.

I should add--George and John, you and I seem to agree on most things, but I may be more cynical about this particular effort than you, and more skeptical of what it means for ecology.

I like (and have no problem with) urban agriculture, or keeping a few chickens or bee boxes. I have several garden beds of my own, and have done a fair bit of research and writing on urban agriculture (more than just "blogging"). Throughout, I've noticed a recurring theme: "green" is somehow attainable by small personal changes, or by superficial policy "initiatives". Neither have proven true, because the underlying problem--growth and consumption--obliterate all other considerations.

I've no problem with people keeping a few hens. CoPo doesn't allow roosters, and keeping more than - I forget whether it's 3 or 5 hens - requires a permit (naturally).

Hens dispose of greens and other household vegetable matter, and so costs of feeding such a small number can probably be offset by cleaning the produce bin in the refrigerator a bit more frequently. They do need to be contained, but they also love the home coop, and will return there on their own. You can build them with wheeels, and just move the coop around the yard from time to time, and damage to the area due to overuse can be eliminated.

Before I found myself actually living in Portland itself, I had a couple of dozen each of ducks and chickens. If one is responsible and knows anything about basic management, they're easy and inexpensive. But if Saving The Planet is one's goal, then keeping 3 or 5 hens isn't going to make any dent.

I have hens; I have an entirely enclosed back yard. I started with three, the number allowable without a permit, inside the Portland city limits.

I didn't get them for 'sustainability'...I got them because I started reading the warnings on pesticides. Then, I got cutworms. I got them for insect control.

Three hens, and in one year, I got rid of the cutworms. And, all spiders below about 18 inches. Most bugs, for that matter. After chickens, hummingbirds, wrens, vireos and bushtits all returned to my back yard in large numbers.

Plus, in a little over a year, the three hens I had turned all the compost in a twenty year old compost pile and made it into friable, usable composted soil. They are now working on my yard leaves.

My chickens have become an important part of the composting cycle at my household. They, I'm told will eat most kitchen scraps....including meats. Including chicken, the buzzards. I've reduced the amount of garbage and compostables leaving my property.

My grapes and star jasmine have exploded in growth and production since the chickens were added, because the largest source of poo, on the patio, is hosed into the root zones of the plants.

My hostas, however, have suffered. If you have lots of hostas, don't get chickens; they think it's salad on the hoof.

Plus, I get fresh eggs and scads of entertainment...at the cost of chickenfeed. They are pets.

I liked them so much I raised sixteen more and kept four of them...I got permitted by Vector Control. Now, at maximum production, I get six eggs a day, including a green egg.

Oh...I'm not sure why it is that CoP is offering such classes. I thought that's why we had OSU and ODoA outreach in the form of the Agricultural Extension Service.

The City offering classes is an unnecessary duplication of effort and expenditure of public funds....rather like the CoP paying for SD#1 services.

I've been in the chicken loop for three years now, and not one source has recommended the City of Portland as a resource for classes....there are already a plethora of resources in the community, the city need not offer it.

Godfrey is absolutely correct. OSU and the extension office have long been the best resource for everybody from 4-H groups to master gardeners. The City has no business doing anything more than directing people to these existing resources.

Ruhl Bee Supply has provided free classes on beekeeping for years and anything a beekeeper could wish for can be purchased from them - hive bodies to queens which are generally brought up from California in your choice of several species although Italians are the most popular. I kept bees for years up on Skyline Blvd. where they kept everybody's fruit trees and flower gardens well-pollinated. The beekeepers in town are very inventive regarding the positioning of their hives; many are kept on rooftops. There's an advantage to that because when the bees come and go they are less likely to be visible to neighbors.

And by the way, if you see a swarm of bees clustered in a tree they are almost always harmless. Bees gorge before they leave a hive with their new queen to seek a new home and literally can't sting.

They are fascinating and wonderful creatures.

Godfry, you see, politicians are now calling for competition-we need competition to correct our economic struggles. But what they are really doing is having competition amongst all their governmental bodies.

CoP thinks that they need to provide the same services as the Oregon Extension Service. Sam thinks that CoP should be doing Portland Public Schools role. Sam and Portland's PDC thinks that every development needs their assistance if not outright control. Sam and PDOT thinks that they know how best to manage transportation and not ODOT. They are all in competition and many times spend different tax dollars to do the same thing.

Back to the Extension Service, I just found in a box of family history a 1982 letter from my mom when I was trying to grow something that grew well in the lower Willamette Valley but not here in Portland: "I am sending this bulletin from the extension office as it's one of the best for this area."

I grew up on an Oregon farm where our Garden 4-H club was sponsored by the OES, and had extensive support by visiting staff. So why do we need CoP duplicating the services? It's government creep. Is that why Jack calls Sam "Mayor Creepy" ?