DA’s Office Rules Peacocks Must Go

• City Appears Perplexed by the Action

BY BILL KOENEKER

The latest chapter in the saga of the wild peafowl of Point Dume took a new turn Monday when the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office announced it plans to implement a recommendation to have the feral birds removed from the area.

The matter, which many, including city officials, consider a neighborhood matter, escalated when the District Attorney’s office got involved after Charlene Kabrin was accused by neighbors Danny and Vera Erico and Los Angeles County Animal Control of disturbing the peace.

A hearing officer from the district attorney’s office mediated a settlement this week in which the resolution was removal.

“We did have an office hearing today and have determined the birds are disturbing the peace. We are recommending they be removed by Animal Control and given to a rescue group,” said Jane Robinson, a spokesperson for the DAs office. “We referred it to Animal Control.”

Some city council members seemed perplexed by the turn of events and turned to City Attorney Christi Hogin for answers. “What is the jurisdiction of the DA?” asked Mayor Jeff Jennings.

“We have to look and see. We don’t know what the status is. It is not a final hearing,” answered the city attorney.

Hogin said that historically the dispute has been that the peafowl are wild and certain residents were feeding the feral birds and causing them to unnaturally congregate in the same area, altering their wild pattern.

“We have never taken that position,” she said, citing the history of administrators who have elaborated on the council’s policy siding with the birds when the issue surfaced in 1999 and then in 2005

Robinson described the out-of-court hearing as mediation that is typically held about a potential charge before it goes before a judge. “We negotiate a settlement. All the parties may not be pleased,” she added.

Robinson said the office hearing is designed to keep the matter in an informal setting before formal charges are filed. Charlene Kabrin had been threatened with a charge of disturbing the peace.

“We had the office hearing to settle it. She allegedly was feeding the birds and had allegedly not allowed animal control to come on her property,” added Robinson.

The spokesperson for the DA said a letter written by the city outlining the municipality’s position on a hands off policy for wild animals was considered.

“The letter went out to the DA’s office and to Animal Control,” City Manager Jim Thorsen told council members.

“I can understand the DA determining a person is disturbing the peace, but the peacocks?” The mayor noted, “Somebody has it in mind they can take the peacocks away. Animal Control works for us.”

Former planning commission member Jo Ruggles, who spoke to the council about the matter and had attended the hearing, said she tried to convince the hearing officer about the wild nature of the birds. “I said the birds are protected. That they are wild,” she said, adding the hearing officer glanced at the city’s letter during the hearing.

Ruggles told the Malibu Surfside News that after the officer seemed convinced the peafowl are wild, she said she had jurisdiction, not the city.

Hogin, after hearing Ruggles’ account, said what the council was listening to was third party information and it was important for her office to determine exactly what action is being contemplated.

Robinson said the DA’s office did not see the matter as simply a dispute between two neighbors. “But there were 17 people who signed a petition. This has been going on for a long period of time. There were other people who signed the complaints,” she said.

However, another neighbor, Annabelle Heiss, who also attended the office hearing, took issue with the petition, saying there were only 15 signatures and most of the names were people who did not live nearby.

“Several were not in the immediate neighborhood. They were in outlying areas,” she said. “I really enjoy the wild sounds [the peafowl] give to Point Dume.”

During the last series of incidents, after the city intervened, the animal control department, which contracts its services to the municipality, took a closer look at the legal interpretation of the game fowl confinement and ownership rules and concluded the birds are not being housed or confined in any way, and because they are free to come and go at will, it was determined that the staff members had acted in haste.

It remains unclear when the birds would be removed and where they would be placed.