DECLARATION OF DR. GEORGE WEST (Staff Veterinarian for Avian & Swine Programs for the State of California)
This Declaration "seems to be missing" from court documents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Original files April 6, 2000 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk, US District Court
Northern District of California, Oakland

Linda S Mitlyng, Attorney SBN 113810
William B Phillips, Attorney, SBN 79525
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Barbara and Geoffrey Gould

Case No. C 00 1206 SI

DECLARATION OF GEORGE WEST, DVM, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMARY INJUNCTION

BARBARA AND GEOFFREY GOULD, PLAINTIFFS
-- VS --
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPT: Raymond Hall, Allen R Falleri, Walter Stornetta, Richard Shoemaker, Michael M. Delbar, Tom Lucier, Patricia A Campbell
Defendants

I, George West, DVM, declare as follows:

1. I make this declaration based upon personal knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, can and will testify competently as to all of the matters set forth herein.
   
   
2. I am Staff Veterinarian for Avian & Swine Programs for the State of California. I am a teaching faculty member at University of California Davis instructing in poultry health and diseases. Specifically I teach Avian Medicine which includes poultry species as well as cage and exotic birds. I joined the faculty at UC Davis in l978.

   2.(misnumbered) I am familiar with the circumstances surrounding the Gould’s location of their parrot facility vis a vis the location of the Nicolas turkey facility across the road.

3. I was asked to testify at the hearing for the Goulds on their appeal of the Planning and Zoning decision and told the Gould’s counsel that I would not be available as a witness until the end of January 2000, as I was out of state for the Christmas holidays.
   
   
4. I was on the east coast on December 20, l999, and could not attend the appeal hearing.
   
   
5. I am aware that the reputation of the Gould’s is excellent and that they are very highly regarded in the avian community.
   
   
6. I spoke to several people about the Goulds when they were in transit to California as I had been contacted by Dr. Yan Ghazikanian of Nicolas turkeys about helping him convince his owners and managers of the need to disperse their grandparent line breeding stock into less vulnerable locations throughout the west.
   
   
7. I was especially concerned about the possibility of disease being brought in next door to their operation prior to Nicolas being able to be relocate their flock.
   
   
8. I was unable to discover any suggestion that there was any danger or problems with the Goulds flock. Frankly, I was looking for problems as if I had found some it would have been easier to convince Nicolas to get their Grandparent Line out of there, and I could not find any problems.
   
   
9. I am of the opinion that there is nothing inherently dangerous in either turkeys or parrots in and of themselves, but that the danger lies in the movement of the people between the bird populations.
   
   
10. Francine Bradley is aware the Animal Science Department at UC Davis maintains both poultry and parrot breeding facilities.
    
    
11. The information contained in her declaration shares homology with my letter to Nicolas turkeys in an effort to convince them to relocate and disperse their Grandparent Line.
    
    
12. There are some risks related to propinquity but the most important risk is the movement of people. It is hardly unusual for one poultry operation to exist as a neighbor to another poultry operation. For example there are cases where commercial poultry breeders share fence lines with two neighboring breeders of fighting chickens.
    
    
13. It is possible to have two animal operations situated next to each other and maintain a disease free environment.
    
    
14. As long as the individuals charged with maintaining the separate populations utilize good quarantine procedure risk is minimal.
    
    
15. I do not forsee any difficulty with the two operations existing in their present locations as long as the aforementioned biosecurity procedures are followed.
    
    
16. As far as whether or not the large scale breeding of parrots should be considered agriculture, the State of California considers the large commercial breeding of any kinds of animals to be agriculture.
    
    
17. I provided this same information regarding the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s definition of “agriculture’ and of manageable risk to the Mendocino County Planning Department at their request well prior to the December 20, l999, hearing date, as well as to George Bengston, the Mendocino County Farm Extension Agent.
    

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Davis, California, on April 4, 2000.

Dated ; April 4, 2000

George West, DVM