CASSELBERRY, Fla. – In the suburban tapestry of Casselberry, a mailbox proudly displaying a “Peacock Crossing” sign immediately signals the community’s fondness for its vibrant, feathered neighbors.
However, step into the bustling hub of City Hall on a Monday evening, and you’ll encounter a contrasting tale. Residents voiced concerns over vehicles marred with scratches, pool screens left in tatters, unsightly droppings dotted around lawns, mischievous birds perched on rooftops, and piercing cries echoing through the night.
In Casselberry, peacocks have become the eye of a storm dividing opinions. To some, these birds are an essential thread in the city’s unique fabric, while others see them as culprits behind persistent property woes with few solutions in sight.
Exciting developments are on the horizon, as after many years of stability, the rules that offer these peacocks protection are up for review.
In a significant move at Monday’s City Commission meeting, officials instructed staff to organize a workshop dedicated to evaluating the city’s bird sanctuary ordinance, sparking a debate on whether Casselberry will retain its current status as a bird sanctuary.
How did Casselberry’s peacocks become protected?
The answer goes back to 2017.
Casselberry’s current municipal code includes Section 18-3, “Bird sanctuary.” The ordinance creating that section was intended to provide a sanctuary for birds and peafowl within the city. At the time, city leaders said protecting the birds was important to preserving the character of Casselberry.
The ordinance makes it unlawful to take, trap, hunt, harm or kill protected peafowl in the city.
For Marlene Hyde, who told commissioners she was actively involved in getting the protection passed, there was a very specific reason for it.
Hyde said the neighborhood’s flock had dwindled to roughly 10 birds after one person began getting rid of them “bird by bird.”
“We had an individual that was getting rid of them bird by bird, and we were down to just ten birds in the neighborhood,” Hyde told commissioners. She said the protection was intended to prevent the flock from disappearing.
Hyde said peacocks have been in the neighborhood for about 70 years, as far as she knows.
“I don’t want to lose them completely,” she said. “We just need to … come up with ways to manage them.”
And management may be the word at the center of this entire debate.
‘Protection without management’
Tyler Dobbs, who lives in the Lost Lake community, told commissioners that what might sound like an occasional inconvenience has become expensive.
The birds, he said, leave droppings around driveways and entryways and can wake residents with what he described as “terrifying screams at 3 a.m.”
More significantly, Dobbs said peafowl have damaged his pool enclosure screens three times in the past year. He estimated each screen can cost between $100 and $180.
His summary of the problem was concise:
“I think what it comes down to is we’ve got … protection without management.”
Dobbs stressed that he was not asking for the birds to be treated inhumanely or eradicated.
Instead, he asked commissioners to reconsider Section 18-3 so residents have some form of mitigation available when the birds damage property.
Another Lost Lake resident, Daniel Stanford, was considerably more pointed.
Stanford described the peafowl population as an “unacceptable nuisance” and told commissioners the birds have damaged roofs, solar equipment, pool enclosures, landscaping and vehicles.
He recalled spending his son’s birthday party watching the cars outside.
“I literally was on peacock patrol making sure that nobody’s cars getting scratched,” Stanford said. “One did get scratched.”
But another neighbor says: ‘Lighten up’
A short distance away, Vinnie Ciabattoni has a very different relationship with the birds.
He has lived in the community for eight years. His mailbox bears that “Peacock Crossing” sign, and he told News 6 he wants the protections to stay.
“I don’t mind them at all,” Ciabattoni said. “I think they’re beautiful birds.”
That does not mean the relationship has always been perfect.
Ciabattoni said peacocks used to wander onto his porch. Instead of trying to remove the birds, he installed ultrasonic deterrents.
“They hear it,” he said. “It’s like an ultrasonic sound. It keeps ’em away from the porch.”
The birds can still wander through his yard and down the street, he said — just not onto the porch.
Asked what he would tell neighbors who consider the peacocks a nuisance, his answer was considerably shorter:
“Lighten up. Lighten up a little bit. It’s just a bird.”
Ciabattoni also has a reason for wanting them around.
Last year, he said, one peahen nested near his backyard pool and laid approximately eight eggs.
“A couple of months later we had a bunch of little babies running around,” he said. “Little itty-bitty birds.”
One thing both sides may agree on: Stop feeding them
During News 6’s visit to the neighborhood Tuesday, food bowls could be seen outside some homes and popcorn had been scattered along a sidewalk.
That matters because one of the complaints raised at City Hall was that residents who intentionally feed the birds may be encouraging them to stay.
“These residents feeding and domesticating these birds are actually making the problem worse,” Stanford told commissioners.
Ciabattoni, despite supporting the peacocks, also told News 6 he does not recommend feeding them.
And there is official state guidance supporting that concern.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission classifies peafowl as nonnative domestic fowl and says populations have become established in municipalities across Florida after birds escaped or were released. FWC says the birds can exhibit nuisance behavior when their numbers increase or when people feed them.
That distinction is important: The state itself does not generally require an FWC permit for a private property owner or homeowners association to take possession of or remove nonnative domestic peafowl. Instead, FWC says local cities and counties control whether those actions are allowed.
In Casselberry, that local bird sanctuary ordinance is exactly what restricts residents’ options — and exactly what commissioners are now preparing to examine.
So what can homeowners do right now?
Even while Casselberry’s protections remain in place, FWC recommends several nonlethal ways to discourage peafowl from hanging around a home.
The agency recommends removing easy food sources such as pet food, birdseed, garbage and fallen fruit; using motion-activated sprinklers or alarms; using water from a hose to encourage birds to leave without harming them; installing bird spikes where they regularly perch; and covering vehicles if birds are damaging them.
Some of those methods are already being used in Lost Lake.
Hyde told commissioners her family has experimented with plastic spikes and a sprinkler system designed to activate when a peacock approaches. She said she wants to share those ideas with neighbors who are experiencing problems.
That presents commissioners with a much more complicated question than simply peacocks: yes or no?
The residents who spoke Monday did not all agree on whether the current ordinance works. But even some people on opposite sides appear to agree that the flock has to be managed somehow.
For critics, management could mean changing an ordinance they say leaves homeowners paying the bill for damaged property.
For supporters, it means finding deterrents that allow people and peacocks to continue sharing the neighborhood.
The next major decision will come after city staff schedules the requested workshop. Commissioners are expected to review the ordinance and consider whether Casselberry should continue its bird sanctuary designation.
Until then, the rules remain in place.
And so do the peacocks.
Copyright 2026 by WKMG ClickOrlando – All rights reserved.
