July 2nd 2008
Wimbledon Questioned Over Legality of Pigeon Shoots
The All England Lawn Tennis Club, currently holding the world famous lawn tennis tournament, has been attacked by animal rights activists for shooting 4/5 pigeons prior to the start of the 2008 competition. International animal welfare group People for the Ethical treatment of Animals (PeTA) has contacted London's Metropolitan Police Wildlife Crime Unit claiming that the Wimbledon pigeon shoot was illegal.
PeTA's Vice President, Bruce Friedrich, believes that the pigeon shoot has compromised the terms and conditions of the General Licences which allow the killing of pigeons under certain circumstances. However, pigeons cannot be killed under the General Licences unless all non-lethal methods of control have first been tried and found to fail. Neither can pigeons be killed to protect the fabric of a building or to stop fouling. Furthermore, a severe and demonstrable risk to public health and safety must exist before any action to kill pigeons can be undertaken. Pigeons can only be killed as a last resort.
Mr. Friedrich of PeTA has written to the Chairman of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to object to the needless culling and has apparently received confirmation that no more pigeons will be killed on the site. Furthermore a PeTA spokesperson confirmed that they have had assurances from the All England Lawn Tennis Club that they will contact PeTA after the 2008 tournament to discuss a more effective pigeon control regime. PeTA said: "The (Wimbledon) spokesperson says they had the fellow with the hawk down there this morning and that they will contact us when the tournament is over in order to figure out the best way to work on pigeon control at the club in the future."
It would appear that the management at the All England Lawn Tennis Club have been ill advised by their pest control contractor, which is far from unusual, and as a result a great deal of negative publicity for the event has ensued.
Wimbledon organisers suggested that the pigeons were killed as a last resort and that they posed a health and safety risk to the players, but this is highly unlikely to be the case. In order to justify lethal control, if challenged, a severe risk to public health and safety must be proven and there is little doubt that 4/5 pigeons could not, under any circumstances, pose this type of threat. If the pigeons were perching in area where their excrement was causing a slip hazard to players then the roosting area could and should have been protected by deterrents. Deterrents are 100% effective and therefore lethal controls could not be justified on these grounds alone.
It is quite clear that the pigeons that were killed did not pose a severe and demonstrable risk to public health and safety and it is highly likely that these 4 pigeons were killed without first trying all non-lethal methods of control. Under these circumstances The All England Tennis Club could be prosecuted for compromising the terms and conditions of the General Licences within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The All England Lawn Tennis Club currently uses the services of a falconer to control pigeons on the Wimbledon site and this is almost certainly why pigeon-related problems continue. Flying a hawk to control pigeons is not only expensive and totally ineffective as a control option but it is also a method of lethal control. Hawks used by pest control companies and falconers regularly kill pigeons. When pigeons are killed as a method of control a void in the flock is created into which other birds breed. Pigeons always overcompensate when breeding back after a cull and as a result pigeon numbers will rise rather than fall.
Falconry is a blood sport where a human being derives pleasure from seeing one bird kill another - it is not an accepted or an effective method of bird control.
Even in light of so much evidence which confirms that falconry is 100% ineffective as a method of pigeon control it is still the case that those suffering from bird-related problems throughout the UK are being conned by pest control companies and falconers alike into buying expensive falconry services. A vast majority of pest control contractors know little or nothing about effective bird management and it is certainly the case that few if any falconers have the slightest idea how to control problem birds.
It is critically important to seek independent advice when attempting to resolve a bird-related problem and advice should never be taken advice from a company that has a vested interest in selling a product, installation service or falconry service.
return to top of page
June 20th 2008
Hospital Gull Culling Operation May Have Been Illegal
PiCAS UK has learned that the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital has carried out an unnecessary and potentially illegal cull of gull chicks on the hospital site. Pest control operatives were seen removing distressed and screaming gull chicks from their nests and killing them, one member of staff confirmed.
A spokesperson for Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust suggested that the hospital had tried many other controls but had been forced to resort to killing gull chicks.
In order to undertake a cull of gulls a special licence has to be obtained from DEFRA or Natural England. Criteria for this licence is strict but many pest control companies flout the law and use lethal controls without first trying all methods of non-lethal control. When the law is broken in this way it is the property owner that is legally responsible – in this case Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. If Gloucestershire Royal Hospital had not ensured that its contractor had fully complied with the conditions of the licence, confirming that all non-lethal methods of control had been tried and found to fail before resorting to lethal control, the Trust could be prosecuted. Furthermore the Trust must be able to prove that the resident gulls posed a serious risk to public health.
It is clear that egg-oiling could have been used to stop gull chicks being born (egg oiling is non-lethal and it is 100% effective) and therefore this killing operation is almost certain to have been illegal. Egg-oiling is undertaken once a year, after all the clutches of eggs have been laid, negating the need for further visits to gull nests until the end of the breeding period when nests are removed. Gloucestershire Royal Hospital’s contractor must have accessed gull nests in order to remove and kill chicks and therefore they could have accessed the nests to oil eggs rather than killing.
return to top of page
June 17th 2008
Mallard Duck Saves Her Young Against All Odds
Six ducklings were separated from their mother after apparently being washed into a storm drain in a suburb of Newcastle on Tyne. The ducklings were then washed along the storm drain for nearly 2 miles.
Incredibly the mother followed the ducklings on the surface by listening for their cheeps of distress at each manhole cover the chicks passed under. This amazing feat on the part of the mother took her over a busy roundabout, across countless roads, a housing estate, two school playing fields and the grounds of a hospital!
The chicks’ progress was halted when they finally reached a manhole access point in the middle of a housing estate. The mother then stopped and lay down on top of the manhole cover refusing to leave the chicks even though she couldn’t get to them. Eventually a resident walked over to the mother and heard the chicks in the drain below the road. The manhole cover was lifted by residents and all 6 chicks were removed, one by one, with a child’s fishing net. None were any the worse for their journey!
The RSPCA advised the rescuers to just allow the ducks to “wander off” but this advice was ignored (thankfully!) due to the fact that the ducks were in the middle of a large housing estate where they could, and probably would, have been hit by a passing car.
The mother and chicks were boxed up and taken by car to a nearby lake at Newcastle Airport and released. The rescuers watch mother and chicks swim off into the sunset!!
return to top of page
June 17th 2008
Research Confirms Pigeons’ Self-Cognitive Abilities
Recent scientific research carried out at Keio University in Japan has confirmed that pigeons are one of the most intelligent species on the planet and have self-cognitive abilities (self-recognition) higher than a 3-year old child.
It was previously thought that these abilities were the sole preserve of humans and primates such as chimpanzees, but recent research has found these abilities to exist in dolphins, elephants and now pigeons. The pigeon is one of only 6 species on the planet that has been found to pass the ‘mirror test’ (being able to recognise its reflection in a mirror) and is the only non-mammal that has this ability.
The Japanese research found that a 3-year old child had difficulty recognising its self-image with a 2 second delay but pigeons were capable of discriminating video images of themselves with a 5-7 second delay. The pigeon has always been renowned for having much higher levels of intelligence than the average bird, with extremely high visual cognitive abilities, but this new research sets the bar even higher.
Incredibly, the team at Keio University also found that pigeons could discriminate between certain paintings, for example by Van Gogh and from another painter such as Chagall. Earlier research undertaken at Harvard University found that pigeons were able to differentiate between 2 different photographs and were even found to be able to differentiate between two human beings in a single photograph. The pigeon can also recognise all 26 letters of the English language and can even conceptualise, another ability that was previously thought to be the sole preserve of higher primates and humans.
Human beings have exploited the pigeon’s extraordinary abilities and intelligence for centuries using the birds to carry messages in both wartime and for commercial purposes. Pigeons were first used as messengers in Syria and Persia in the 5th Century BC and then later in the 12th Century when all the major cities in Syria and Egypt were linked by messages carried by pigeons. Later, in the 19th Century, the first commercial airmail service using pigeons (known as the pigeon-gram service) was started in New Zealand between the Great Barrier Reef and Aukland. In the 1st and 2nd World Wars pigeons saved thousands of human lives by carrying messages and many birds were awarded medals for their bravery.
The Royal Navy has trained a number of pigeons to save human lives at sea with extremely high success rates. Project Sea Hunt found that pigeons were able to identify red or yellow life jackets when floating in water far more quickly than human beings. Pigeons were found to be much quicker than human beings to identify survivors from a sinking boat and also far more reliable. Much of this is due to the fact that pigeons see colour in the same way as human beings but they can also see ultra-violet, a part of the spectrum that the human eye cannot see, making them far better adapted to identifying the bright colours used on life jackets.
Probably the most extraordinary and baffling ability associated with the pigeon is its ability to return to its ‘home’ (or pigeon loft in the case of racing pigeons) when released from as far as 600 miles away. Many pest control companies offer cage-trapping services to their more sensitive clients suggesting that the trapped birds will be taken some distance away and then released, thereby resolving the client’s problem. Although in a vast majority of cases the pest control contractor will simply kill all the pigeons regardless, some contractors actually release the trapped birds some distance away, in some cases several hundred miles away. In each and every case the pigeons will immediately return to the area where they were trapped, normally before the vehicle that transported them to the release site. Racing pigeons are also renowned for their ability to return to their lofts from incredible distances.
Although the pigeon has been an extremely faithful servant of man over the centuries it has now outlived its usefulness and as a result millions of pigeons are killed annually by the pest control industry, purely for commercial purposes.
return to top of page
June 12th 2008
Shopping Centre Wastes Money On Ineffective Pigeon Control
The Salford Advertiser has recently reported that managers at Eccles Shopping Centre in Manchester are to use a hawk in an attempt to scare pigeons.
Shopping centre manager Kyla Ankers has confirmed that pigeons are being attracted to the centre as a result of the public feeding the birds and confirmed that in her opinion the best method of resolving the problem would to reduce food sources. She also confirmed that she is working with litter enforcement officers to reduce the current levels of both littering and feeding.
The manager suggested that the premise behind using a hawk was to fool the resident pigeons into thinking that the bird of prey is nesting nearby and move them away from the centre permanently.
Pigeons are commonly attracted to shopping centres throughout the UK due to the high levels of public feeding that occurs in these areas. A steady growth in the popularity of street cafes and al fresco eating has resulted in a dramatic increase in pigeon-related problems. Although pigeons will exploit any food source and readily accept crumbs from people having their lunch in the open air however, the real source of the problem is daily feeding of pigeon flocks with large quantities of food by deliberate and persistent pigeon feeders.
In order for the management of Eccles Shopping to find a permanent and sustainable resolution to their problem they must deal with the source of the problem, not the problem itself. No matter what action is taken to control or deter pigeons, as long as persistent feeders are allowed to continue feeding the problem will continue and further entrench. Pigeons breed all year round and pigeon flock size is dictated absolutely by the extent of available food. If food sources remain in situ pigeons will continue to breed, producing up to 8 or even 10 young per pair in optimum conditions. If food levels reduce, however, pigeons will breed less or even stop breeding altogether if available food falls below a certain level.
Although anti-litter teams can monitor the problem and in some cases remove food before it is exploited by pigeons, they do not have the expertise necessary to deal with persistent pigeons feeders.
The use of a hawk to deter pigeons is a complete waste of money and a hawk will never scare pigeons away from any area permanently, particularly if the food source remains in situ. Furthermore, falconry is not only hugely expensive and completely ineffective as a bird control option but it is also a blood sport. Most companies offering this service in the UK are not bird control experts they are sportsmen that have jumped on the pest control bandwagon in the hope of making a quick profit. Most of them know little or nothing about bird management.
The use of hawks might appear to be a ‘humane’ and ‘green’ means of dealing with the problem but in reality it is far from that. It is impossible to train a raptor not to kill, it is instinctive for the bird to do so, and therefore it is extremely common for hawks to catch pigeons and many other species of birds during control operations. When a hawk catches a sick or injured pigeon it will tear the bird apart whilst still alive, normally in front of horrified shoppers. Harris hawks, the species most commonly used for bird control work, will never catch an adult pigeon as they are too slow in flight and therefore they pose no threat to pigeons – and pigeons know this.
There are numerous ‘quick fix’ methods of control recommended for pigeons, usually culling and the use of hawks, both of which are not only expensive and ineffective but also act to increase flock size rather than reduce it. The City of Liverpool Council even spent huge sums of public money on robotic birds of prey designed to scare pigeons away from the city centre. This laughable method of control may have provided a talking point for the media and highlighted the problem in the city, but it certainly didn’t have had any effect on Liverpool’s pigeon population.
In order to control and reduce the size of a pigeon population a well thought through strategy must be implemented acting on advice from independent bird control experts, not falconers and pest control companies that have a vested interest in selling a product or service. PiCAS UK offers a range of independent consultancy services designed to empower the client to resolve a bird-related problem holistically, cost-effectively and sustainably.
return to top of page
June 12th 2008
U-Turn Council Dubbed ‘The Worst Council in Britain’ By Experts
The Pigeon Control Advisory Service UK Division (PiCAS UK) has slammed Chester City Council for abandoning its no-cull policy where pigeons are concerned. In 2001 Chester City Council agreed to put aside its outdated and ineffective pigeon culling strategy and initiate a humane but effective pigeon control programme in Chester city centre, acting on advice from PiCAS UK.
PiCAS UK has learned that Chester City Council recently culled pigeons in St Martin’s House prior to demolition, contravening the council’s own no-cull policy and breaking a longstanding agreement made with PiCAS UK in 2001.
It was PiCAS UK that recommended the installation of a pigeon coup (or dovecote) in Kaleyards as a humane but 100% effective means of managing pigeon flock size in Chester city centre. The dovecote was designed to provide pigeon feeders with a legitimised feeding area to stop random feeding taking place throughout the city centre and provide problem birds with a daytime perching facility, thereby reducing soiling on properties throughout the city centre.
The concept behind a pigeon coup is to close down large-scale roosts such as St Martins House and allow the excluded birds to relocate into a dovecote facility such as the one in Kaleyards. Once pigeons have relocated and become established in the dovecote breeding can be controlled via egg removal and replacement with dummy eggs - flock size will then reduce dramatically.
This method is now being used throughout Europe with massive success. It is only successful, however, because it is a humane and non-lethal programme and as such is accepted and embraced by persistent pigeon feeders. In order to control an area-wide pigeon flock effectively there must be a degree of control over both breeding and food sources. By culling the council has not only dashed any hope of cooperation from Chester’s pigeon feeders (the source of the problem) but it has wasted an opportunity to move more of Chester’s pigeon population to take up residence in the dovecote where their breeding can be controlled.
Far from reducing the problem in the city centre Chester City Council’s recent cull will actually increase pigeon flock size by between 15% and 30%. Scientific research and research undertaken by the PiCAS Group over the last 35 years has confirmed that pigeon flock size will rise back to the pre-cull level and exceed it within a matter of weeks following a cull. This is because pigeon flock size is dictated, absolutely, by the extent of available food. When a cull takes place food levels rise significantly for the remainder of the flock and mass breeding takes place – the result is a population explosion.
Chester City Council has wasted public money on culling pigeons in the city and yet the council was made abundantly aware that culling will only act to increase pigeon flock size as far back as 2001. Even in light of this the council went ahead with this barbaric cull.
Chester City Council’s unprofessional and in some cases laughable attempts to deal with the city’s pigeon problem over the last 7 years has now earned the council the dubious title of the worst council in Britain by PiCAS UK.
Chester City Council was offered a package by PiCAS UK that would have provided the city with a humane, cost-effective and sustainable programme that would have reduced and controlled pigeon flock size on a year by year basis. Instead Chester City Council has chosen to turn the clocks back and revert to 19th century methods of dealing with the problem.
Guy Merchant said: “It is almost impossible to believe how badly the city council has handled this problem. They are living in the dark ages where this issue is concerned. The council has completely ignored the advice provided to them, failed to introduce the wide-ranging package of controls recommended to them and bowed to pressure from the business community to cull. If Chester City Council had worked closely with PiCAS UK from day one the city would now have a unique and completely effective pigeon control system that would be an example to councils throughout Britain.”
return to top of page
June 10th 2008
Norfolk Wakes Up to PiCAS Waterfowl Control Programme
It seems that Swaffham Town Council in Norfolk has realised the wisdom of providing a holistic and effective control system for the town’s duck population resident on Northwell Pool. PiCAS UK has advised numerous councils throughout Norfolk over the last decade to adopt what is commonly known as the ‘PiCAS Programme’ in an effort to control and reduce the size of waterfowl populations, but all have been extremely resistant to even consider the concept.
Norfolk has a history of duck problems in towns and villages throughout the county with a majority of the problems being caused by residents’ over-feeding the birds. Now Swaffham Town Council, working in partnership with Norfolk County Council, has agreed to fund a watered down version of the PiCAS Waterfowl Programme in Swaffham.
The ‘PiCAS Programme’ is designed to deal directly with issues relating to both over-feeding and resultant over-breeding, but it seems that Swaffham Town Council, and Norfolk County Council, have failed to fully understand this concept.
The scheme is apparently to provide artificial breeding islands to encourage ducks to breed on Northwell Pool itself rather than in resident’s gardens (the main problem associated with the ducks) but this will simply act to increase the size of the duck population unless breeding is controlled by egg-oiling. Furthermore, if public feeding of ducks resident on Northwell Pool is not similarly controlled the programme will fail completely.
Most councils fail to understand that excessive public feeding is the main root cause of all waterfowl problems and many take invasive action, such as culling, in an effort to reduce population size. Heacham Parish Council is one of the many councils that have culled in recent years. Swaffham Town Council and Norfolk County Council must be applauded for having taken a non-lethal approach to dealing with the problem but if they fail to take expert advice on how to provide the programme it will inevitably fail.
The ‘PiCAS Programme’ is virtually 100% effective if all the components of the programme are provided in a structured manner with the needs of the ducks in mind. If a system of artificial breeding facilities is provided (floating islands with or without breeding boxes) along with landscaping of the areas around the pond to further encourage breeding, duck populations can be controlled very effectively. Nests are monitored and as soon as a batch of eggs has been laid they are ‘oiled’ by coating in paraffin BP – this blocks the pores of the eggs ensuring that the embryo fails to develop.
Alongside the breeding control programme a public education programme must be provided to ensure that public feeding of ducks is reduced. No matter how extensive the breeding control programme, if excessive public feeding continues unabated the problem will simply further entrench.
It is even more important to take expert advice when spending public money on a complex and multi-faceted programme such as the ‘PiCAS Waterfowl Programme’. Without expert advice waterfowl control programmes such as the one proposed for Swaffham will fail and the programme itself will be blamed rather than those that designed and provided it. Many councils in East Anglia, such as East Cambridgeshire District Council in Ely, have provided waterfowl control systems based on the ‘PiCAS Waterfowl Programme’ but have failed to follow through. The result is that public money is wasted and a less than effective control programme is provided.
There must be an understanding that these control programmes are long-term proposals that will not bear fruit for 3-5 years but when they do bring about a reduction in waterfowl numbers, it will be a permanent reduction, unlike culling which only ever brings about a short-term reduction followed by a population explosion. We urge Swaffham Town Council and Norfolk County Council to contact PiCAS UK, who are the acknowledged experts where this issue is concerned, to ensure that the programme provided in Swaffham is holistic and deals with all the problems associated with the current duck overpopulation.
return to top of page
June 3rd 2008
Experts Question the Legality of Council Gull Control Strategy
A member of the public in Arbroath, Scotland has alerted PiCAS UK to the fact that Angus Council, who currently offer a gull nest removal service to the general public, may be acting outside the law.
Angus Council has confirmed that it provides a gull nest removal service for £18.50 which involves the removal of both nest and eggs but not chicks. The council also confirmed that it contracts out its nest removal service to a third party contractor and that an average of six visits may be needed to deal with each problem.
However, new legislation drafted by the Landscapes and Habitats Department of the Scottish Government, which came into force on April 1st 2008, confirms that anyone acting under the General Licence to remove gull nests must first meet much stricter criteria than was previously required.
In order to use any lethal method to control gulls (killing chicks, nest removal, egg pricking/egg destruction) a property owner or the authorised person, which in this case would be Angus Council and/or its contractor, must be able to prove that a serious threat to public health and safety exists before taking any action. Furthermore, the property owner or authorised person must be able to demonstrate that all methods of non-lethal control have been tried and found to fail before resorting to lethal control.
Most property owners that contract a pest control company, or their local council, to remove gull nests and/or kill gull chicks are unaware that they are legally responsible for any action taken on their behalf. If the company or council that they authorise to deal with the problem acts outside the law it is quite possible that they themselves will face prosecution as well as their contractor.
The new General Licence (No. 3), now requires that a detailed report is provided to the Landscapes and Habitats Division, by every property owner, council or contractor that removes gull nests or kills chicks. For the current period, 2008-2009, the report will have to reach the Scottish Government by January 2009.
The report will have to detail the following:
• The number of nests removed from each site
• The number of birds killed on each site
• The number of eggs destroyed on each site
• The month in which the actions took place
• The location of each site
• The types of non-lethal controls (i.e. installation of deterrents) used prior to
resorting to lethal control
• Why these non-lethal methods failed
• If action was taken to guard public health or prevent the spread of disease
justification must be provided as to why gulls were considered to pose a threat to
public health and safety
In order for Angus Council to continue offering this nest removal service (whether or not it makes a charge for the service) the council, the property owner and the third party contractor will have to adhere to this strict criteria.
When PiCAS UK contacted Angus Council it was clear that the current procedure does not include a survey of the property to assess whether a serious threat to public health and safety exists. Nor does the survey include an assessment of which non-lethal methods of control have previously been tried and found to fail.
In order to act under the new General Licence (No. 3) the onus of responsibility is placed firmly on the property owner or authorised person undertaking nest removal to carry out a survey and satisfy themselves that the above criteria is met. Failure to meet these criteria prior to removing a nest or killing chicks may result in prosecution.
PiCAS UK also questions why 6 or more nest removal operations (currently charged at £18.50 per visit) are needed when one egg-oiling operation would achieve the same goal and cost the property owner significantly less. Nest destruction and egg-pricking simply results in the gull re-building its nest and re-laying immediately. Egg-oiling is carried out once at the start of the breeding period and no further visits are required to the nest. It would seem that property owners in the Angus area are paying for repeat visits when they are unnecessary. Clearly the council and its contractor are the main beneficiaries of this nest destruction service, whether or not it is illegal.
Nest destruction is the least effective of all the methods of gull control and if a gull nest is removed the area should be protected with deterrents immediately to prevent the gull rebuilding its nest and re-laying. Any council or pest control contractor that offers a nest clearance or egg-pricking service does not have the necessary expertise required to offer advice and should be avoided.
When dealing with a bird-related problem independent and expert advice should always be sought. Advice should never be taken from a pest control contractor that has a vested interest in selling a product or culling service.
return to top of page
June 2nd 2008
Racing Pigeon Fanciers Blamed for Peregrine Deaths
Two more cases of sickening cruelty against peregrine falcons have been uncovered in the Midlands by RSPB officers. The RSPB believes these illegal attacks have been undertaken by racing pigeon fanciers. The RSPB have offered a £1,000 reward for information that identifies the people responsible.
Close to one peregrine nest located at a quarry near Kingswinford, West Midlands, 3 spring-traps were found and all of the eggs in the nest had been smashed. Spring traps are illegal and indiscriminate causing huge suffering to any bird that becomes trapped in them.
At another location near Cannock in Staffordshire a male peregrine was found with its feet caught in a trap. The bird was so badly injured that it had to be put to sleep. Two chicks found in a nearby nest were recovered but were both close to starvation. Both orphaned chicks are now being cared for by a raptor organisation. There was no sign of the female bird and it must be assumed that she was illegally killed by the same people that set the traps.
Earlier this year PiCAS UK reported that a peregrine falcon was found dead in its nest in Swansea having been illegally poisoned. The RSPB confirmed that in their view racing pigeon fanciers were also responsible for this death.
The RSPB confirmed that there were 143 attacks on protected birds in Wales in 2006, an increase on the previous year of a staggering 57%. It is likely that many of these attacks would have been carried out by those involved in the sport of racing pigeons.
Anyone with information about the incident near Kingswinford can call West Midlands Police on 0845 113 5000, or with information on the incident near Cannock they can call Watling Street Neighbourhood Policing Unit on 08453 302010. Alternatively people can call Crimestoppers anonymously about either incident on 0800 555 111.
The RSPB has a highly informative webpage on wild bird crime where wildlife crimes can be reported: http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/wildbirdslaw/report.asp
The National Wildlife Crime Unit also has an interesting and informative webpage on wildlife crime at: http://www.nwcu.police.uk/pages/aboutus/aboutus.asp
return to top of page
May 28th 2008
Uses Humane Methods to Control Geese
It has been revealed today that George Best Belfast City Airport has chosen to act on the advice of their pest control contractor and use completely humane and non-lethal methods of controlling Canada geese and Greylag geese resident at nearby Victoria Park.
The geese are apparently breeding in the park and posing a threat to planes landing and taking off at the City Airport. Bird strikes can be devastating to aircraft and the City Airport had a total 16 strikes during the course of 2007.
Surprisingly in this case, a pest control contractor has advised a non-lethal and completely effective means of managing the problem rather than the usual response from the pest control industry which is to use lethal controls.
The contractor has recommended a method of control commonly recommended by PiCAS UK, called egg-oiling, which is a way of treating the eggs of a nesting bird to ensure that the embryo does not develop. The nest is visited once the whole clutch of eggs has been laid and the eggs are then immersed in paraffin BP. The paraffin oil coats the egg and blocks the pores, denying air to the embryo within.
Egg-oiling is the only method of egg interference that is effective – all other methods including egg-shaking, egg-pricking, breaking or removing eggs are completely ineffective as the adult bird will realise that the eggs have been interfered with. The immediate response from the parent will be to discard the eggs and lay another clutch.
This strategy adopted in Victoria Park, if continued for several years consecutively, will result in a large decrease in the numbers of chicks being raised on the site but will not be effective as a means of controlling population size in its own right. Public feeding of waterfowl in Victoria Park is undoubtedly the reason the birds are breeding to the extent they are and without taking action to control food sources other birds will move in to exploit the void created by a lack of young geese.
Many waterfowl programmes fail because the problem itself is dealt with but the source of the problem is ignored. A multi-faceted approach must be taken in order to control waterfowl that not only tackles the problem itself but, more importantly, tackles the source of the problem as well. Although the egg-oiling strategy is a step in the right direction the City Airport and the city council must draw up a public education strategy that deals with public feeding otherwise the problem will continue unabated.
PiCAS UK is only company worldwide that takes a holistic view of bird control and works actively with its clients to implement humane, sustainable and cost-effective strategies that deal with all the issues relating to the growth of wild bird populations.
return to top of page
May 28th 2008
Council Strategy Praised by Media
Alnwick District Council has, at last, received public praise for its forward-thinking approach toward controlling pigeons in the district.
The Northumberland Gazette has given Alnwick District Council some well overdue publicity for its decision to continue pursuing a wholly non-lethal approach in respect of pigeon control in towns across the district. The story can be read in full on the Northumberland Gazette website:
http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/Pigeonproof-council-wins-bird-mans.4085554.jp
The council is also considering a scheme that will provide grants to property owners in Alnwick town centre toward the cost of pigeon-proofing their properties, an initiative fully supported by PiCAS UK.
This story was covered on the PiCAS UK News Page in April 2008 and can be found in the Archive News Page.
return to top of page
May 28th 2008
Council to Deal with the Source of the Problem
Ceredigion County Council has made the connection between the increase of roof-nesting gulls in the town of Aberystwyth and the provision of easily scavenged food sources in refuse bags.
Many councils fail to, or refuse to, make the connection between easily available food sources such as refuse in black plastic sacks and annual increases in gull activity. Gulls are renowned for exploiting this ready food source and can rip a black refuse sack apart in a matter of minutes and consume any food within it.
It seems almost incredible that councils suffering from this type of problem do not invest in a system of wheelie bins rather than continue using an outdated black bag system, particularly those with historic gull problems.
Ceredigion County Council now intends to fine householders who put their bin bags out in advance of the collection day but in a town like Aberystwyth, that has a large visitor population, this system cannot be used to any effect. Holiday-makers who rent a cottage or apartment for a week usually leave on a Saturday and any refuse resulting from their holiday is put out on that day. This inevitably means that the system will fall down in the summer months, precisely the time when roof-nesting gulls are at their most active when they are feeding their young.
Ceredigion County Council needs to think outside the box in order to resolve this problem and provide a holistic strategy that includes the provision of wheelie bins, a public education strategy and a system of egg-oiling to control roof nesting gulls. Without these measures in place the problems will continue to spiral out of control year on year.
PiCAS UK is the only consultancy service worldwide that provides expert and independent advice on the provision of holistic and sustainable bird control systems.
return to top of page
May 11th 2008
PiCAS UK Launches its
This week sees the formal launch of PiCAS UK’s new Telephone Consultancy Service, an option previously only available for PiCAS’s international clients through PiCAS International.
PiCAS UK’s comprehensive list of professional services is now complimented by this unique and user-friendly service that offers the client a means of accessing expert and independent advice over the telephone or via Skype™. Previously, a site survey or office-based meeting was the only means of sourcing independent advice from PiCAS UK.
Although site surveys are often essential, particularly for entrenched problems or where area-wide issues are concerned, the benefit of being able to discuss a bird-related problem, in as much detail as is necessary, is considerable. There will always be an inevitable time-lag when booking an on-site survey or on-site meeting but it is often possible to book a telephone consultancy slot same day for urgent problems.
The major benefit of the Telephone Consultancy Service to most clients is having the ability to organise a ‘virtual’ meeting at a time that is convenient and at a venue that suits the client and any other party that may need to be involved, allowing colleagues working on different sites to take part and feed into the consultancy session. For Architects and other professional service providers the Telephone Consultancy Service also allows for their clients to be involved in the process and feed in where necessary.
Architects and those involved in the construction industry can use the service to discuss plans and drawings in an effort to design out bird occupancy. Likewise, anyone needing to protect an existing building can use the service to receive an independent and expert assessment of the various bird control products on the market and which products would be the most cost-effective and offer the greatest protection. The Telephone Consultancy Service is open to professional service providers, commercial property owners and the general public irrespective of the size or scale of the problem.
The client is asked to provide as much documentation as possible prior to the session in order to ensure that the consultant providing the consultation session is fully empowered to offer the most appropriate advice. This may include drawings, site plans, photographs, Google™ Earth images and any other information detailing the problem and the scale of the problem.
The Telephone Consultancy Service is charged on an hourly basis offering the client a transparent and cost-effective service without any hidden costs. All consultancy sessions are recorded, with the client’s permission, in order that a transcription of the consultancy session, or an audio CD, can be provided if required. A further charge is made for both options. Should a client wish to book an immediate consultancy session, and assuming that a technical consultant is available, payment can be made by Paypal to facilitate this expediently. For further information on this service or any other service offered by PiCAS UK please see the Services page or Contact PiCAS UK direct.
return to top of page
12th May 2008
Peregrine Falcon Could Have Been by
Fears are growing that an adult peregrine falcon that was found dead in its nest on the 1st of May in Swansea city centre, was deliberately poisoned. The police are now carrying out forensic tests on the dead bird to identify the type of poison used.
Stuart Thompson of the RSPB suspects that pigeon keepers are responsible for the illegal poisoning. He said: “It is not uncommon for pigeon keepers to take such action against birds of prey to protect their own flock. There are no excuses for poisoning a peregrine falcon.”
Some of the more extreme pigeon racing enthusiasts in the UK are known to target birds of prey because they are believed to attack racing birds. Some years ago several extreme pigeon racing enthusiasts in the UK even suggested that they would attach explosive devices to some of their racing pigeons so that when they were caught by a hawk or falcon both birds would explode.
Terry Tovey of the Gower Ornithological Society confirmed that numbers of peregrines have only recently started to increase after a slump in the 1970’s and he believed that racing pigeon enthusiasts may be responsible for the death.
Crimes against raptors are on the increase worldwide with eleven pigeons fanciers from the USA facing prison sentences in 2007 after being charged with shooting, beating and suffocating dozens of protected hawks and falcons in an effort to protect their birds during racing events. One of the accused even admitted spraying the falcons that he had caught in traps with bleach and ammonia.
The RSPB have confirmed that there were 143 attacks on protected birds in Wales in 2006, an increase on the previous year of a staggering 57%. It is likely that many of these attacks would have been carried out by those involved in the sport of racing pigeons.
Although PiCAS UK agrees that the peregrine falcon could have been killed by pigeon racing enthusiasts, one option not yet considered is that the bird was illegally poisoned by pest control contractors as part of a pigeon control operation. PiCAS UK believes that this is a very real possibility. Although poisons are illegal in the UK, and licences to use them are rarely if ever granted by Natural England due to the fact that poisons cause unnecessary suffering, some more unscrupulous pest control contractors undoubtedly still use them. Several much loved peregrine falcons, and their young, were found dead in their nests several years ago in the city of Melbourne, Australia after they had caught and consumed pigeons that been poisoned by pest control contractors.
All poisons are indiscriminate, irrespective how, where or by whom they are used and more information on the commercial use of poisons can be found on the Lethal Bird Control page.
Anyone with any information relating to this crime can contact Swansea police on 01972 456999 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111.
return to top of page
2nd May 2008
Hawks to be Used in an Attempt to Control Gulls
Yet again we see a hawk being employed in an attempt to control and deter roof-nesting gulls, this time on a Scottish Water building in Ayrshire. Scottish Water has brought in a pest control contractor, Rentokil, after experiencing problems with roof nesting gulls during the breeding period, an ever-growing problem for property owners in Scotland.
Apparently the hawk was brought in after it was revealed that nylon bird netting installed by Rentokil, at a cost of £40,000, had trapped and injured gulls on the same site. This type of cowboy operation is not uncommon when pest control contractors are contracted to deal with a sensitive problem of this nature that requires expertise, not brute force and ignorance. A vast majority of pest control contractors have little or no idea how to control gull populations and it is not uncommon for birds to be killed and injured in botched operations such as this. Rentokil succeeded in selling Scottish Water a completely inappropriate product at a huge cost to the client and when the product failed Rentokil then sold the client falconry services, another very expensive and completely ineffective control option. Pest control contractors are product installers, not bird control experts.
Incredibly, Scottish Water confirmed that it hopes to relieve problems for the nearby Prestwick Airport by taking this action to use a hawk, but the opposite is likely to be the case. Although the use of a hawk in an attempt to deter roof-nesting gulls from Scottish Water’s properties will be a complete waste of time and resource, the increased activity resulting from adult gulls chasing hawks away from their breeding site will have a significant and detrimental impact on Prestwick Airport, not the reverse. When a hawk flies anywhere near a gull nesting site the adult birds will immediately mob the hawk and continue to do so until the hawk returns to the handler. In this case, if the hawk is chased over the airfield rather than away from it the results could have lethal implications for air traffic. Both Scottish Water and Prestwick Airport should treat this threat very seriously indeed and take steps to bring in real bird control experts to advise them before a bird strike occurs that results in a loss of human life.
The increase in the use of raptors to deter gulls is a worrying trend with unscrupulous pest control contractors duping clients into believing that this method of control is effective, ‘green’ and ‘in tune with nature’; it is none of these things. The species of hawk commonly used to control gulls, the Harris Hawk, is not the natural predator of the gull and neither is it an effective deterrent. The use of falconry, a blood sport where one bird is used to kill another, cannot under any circumstances be described as humane or an appropriate method of bird control in the 21st century. In most cases the contractors that offer this service are falconers that are simply jumping on the pest control bandwagon with few if any having any experience or in-depth knowledge of bird control.
Independent and expert advice should always be sought before taking any action control to roof-nesting gulls and under no circumstances should advice be taken from a pest control contractor or a falconer. Gull control is a highly specialised area requiring complex long-term control systems rather than quick-fix and ineffective solutions as offered to Scottish Water by their contractor. For further information on humane and effective solutions for gull-related problems please contact PiCAS UK direct or see the Problem Birds page.
return to top of page
1st May 2008
to Install Ineffective Deterrent
Norwich City Council has applied for planning permission to install a pigeon control system on City Hall as a result of a build-up of pigeon droppings which, the city council suggested, are “eating away” the soft sandstone from which City Hall is constructed. Norwich City Council also confirmed that the extent of current soiling to the fascia of the building is compromising the beauty of the building. The story is highlighted in a piece in the Norwich Evening News.
Norwich City Council must be applauded for its decision to provide a wholly non-lethal and humane pigeon control system on City Hall, and the authority has indeed committed to a city-wide non-lethal pigeon control policy, but its application to install what is known as a ‘post and wire system’ to deter pigeons roosting on City Hall is a grave and potentially expensive error of judgement.
The ‘post and wire’ system, covered in more detail on the Deterrents page, is a system of 4” vertical steel posts which are drilled into the stonework of the building upon which stainless steel wires are suspended at 3”- 4” above the area to be protected. The steel wires are sprung via small steel springs attached to the vertical posts and when a pigeon attempts to land on the protected surface its feet touch the sprung wire, which moves making the bird feel unsafe, and the bird aborts its landing.
The ‘post and wire’ is a low profile system and as such is designed to maintain the aesthetics of the building upon which it is installed. The ‘post and wire system’ is not, however, an effective or a cost-effective pigeon deterrent and its installation can cause far more damage to the fabric of the building upon which it is installed than pigeon droppings will ever do. Most property owners are persuaded to have this system installed purely because it is a low profile system rather than because it will provide a high level of protection and, as a result, pay a much higher price in the long-term. When funding is coming from the public purse this lack of foresight is simply unacceptable.
The vertical posts that support the system must be drilled into the stonework and as the posts must be provided no more than a metre apart, and as multiple rows of the system will be required on each surface to be protected, thousands of holes will need to be drilled into the stonework. If these holes are not ‘sealed’ with silicone, and if water seeps into the holes, the water will freeze in sub-zero temperatures and expand, causing large cracks to appear in the stonework, particularly in soft stone such as sandstone. This happened on a council-owned building in Solihull when a ‘post and wire’ system was installed with large pieces of masonry falling to busy pavement areas below.
Not only is the ‘post and wire’ system highly invasive to install but it is one of the most expensive and one of the least effective pigeon anti-perching devices on the market. The steel wires constantly break and need to be replaced and pigeons can often be seen perching on or between the wires. On wide windowsills, where comprehensive coverage is cost-prohibitive, pigeons will build nests behind the wire installation and in some cases will even manage to build nests beneath the wires. Most pest control contractors recommend this product not only because it is highly profitable but also because it needs constant maintenance and repair, resulting in further work for the contractor concerned. PiCAS UK would never recommend a ‘post and wire’ system to a client for these reasons.
It seems incredible that the council’s own Listed Buildings Officers are even considering such an invasive system to be installed on a listed building and it must be assumed that they are unaware of the potential for the system to damage the fabric of the building. Had the council taken independent and expert advice from PiCAS UK, rather than taking advice from a commercial contractor with a vested interest in selling a highly profitable product, other far less invasive and far more effective products would have been recommended to them.
Interestingly, the Dean of Norwich Cathedral also commented in the Norwich Evening News article that the birds (pigeons) are rats with wings and because of the diseases they carry they are a serious problem on the cathedral. Firstly the Dean is misinformed about the potential for disease to be harboured and spread by pigeons (see the Do Birds Spread Diseases page) and secondly the cathedral authorities have a problem with pigeons because they employ lethal methods to control the birds. In June 2007, after a pigeon had been enticed in the cathedral’s café by food, the cathedral management brought in a pest control contractor to shoot the unfortunate pigeon, in broad daylight and in front of horrified diners. Onlookers reported blood and feathers everywhere. Apparently no attempt was made to evict the pigeon humanely. The use of lethal controls in an attempt to reduce pigeon numbers is discussed in more detail on the Why Lethal Control Fails page.
return to top of page
28th April 2008
Despite Success with Pigeon Egg Removal, Considers Cull
According to recent reports in the local press, Chester City Council is considering lethal methods of controlling pigeons in the city centre, despite spending thousands of pounds installing a dovecote in 2005 and encouraging the pigeons to feed and breed within it.
Based on the fact that all other complimentary controls recommended to Chester City Council were then ignored by the authority, the world-renowned bird control experts felt they had no choice but to withdraw their support for the council’s strategy. Emma Haskell, Director of PiCAS UK said at the time: “It is extremely disappointing that Chester City Council has failed to work in consultation with PiCAS and has taken decisions that could have disastrous consequences for the pigeon control programme. As with every local authority, Chester City Council has a duty to its residents to implement this scheme as directed by their chosen consultant (PiCAS UK) and yet the watered down measures that the authority has decided to implement will, we believe, result in the programme being considerably less effective than it could or should otherwise have been.”
It is therefore with little surprise that animal welfare groups and local residents are up in arms at the fact that the council is now considering a cull because previous efforts have failed.
Interestingly, a recent statement by David Hosker, the City Council’s Environment Manager revealed that he, himself removed 30 eggs from the dovecote just last Tuesday. As per the recommendations made to Chester City Council back in 2001, PiCAS UK clients are instructed to remove eggs and replace them with dummy eggs on a weekly basis as an absolute minimum. If Chester City Council is following guidelines, and removing this amount of eggs every week, that means 30 pigeons are not being born every week and as a result pigeon numbers should have notably reduced since the dovecote was installed. The removal of 30 eggs every week would mean the strategy has been a resounding success!
Emma Haskell said today: “Regrettably this is all too common an occurrence; local authorities often fail to fully or correctly implement recommendations made by PiCAS and will then often attempt to put the blame for their own failures onto PiCAS UK and its strategy. If Chester City Council was to concentrate their efforts on implementing the pigeon control strategy as set out by PiCAS UK in 2001 and launch a public education/information programme to ensure feeders are aware of the designated feeding area provided, they will quickly see a permanent reduction in pigeon numbers in the city centre, without the need to waste tax-payers money on expensive and ineffective culling operations. The fact of the matter is that the authority has failed in informing members of the public about the designated feeding area and the strategy overall. While it is a positive step that the authority has now conceded that more signage is required, no doubt it’ll be a while before any signage is actually installed. How long will Chester City Council wait before deciding a cull will be necessary?”
return to top of page
28th April 2008
Council Waste Public Money Trying to Tackle Gull Problem
Herefordshire Council has recently announced that it intends to deal with an ever-growing gull problem in the town by contracting a falconry company to disperse gulls and remove their nests.
What the authority has failed to understand is that the use a falconry, a bloodsport, is clearly not an appropriate method of bird control in the 21st century and, not only this, it is completely ineffective as a means of deterring roof-nesting gulls. The use of a hawk is not only hugely expensive, with some companies charging up to £150 an hour, but hawks are commonly ‘mobbed’ by gulls, particularly in the breeding season, and therefore this method of control cannot be effective. Bath and North East Somerset Council attempted to control roof-nesting gulls by using hawks in 2007 and although the council suggested that the scheme had been partially successful it attracted a derisive response from experts and wildlife groups alike.
Falconers are not bird control experts, they are people who derive pleasure from using one bird to kill another, and although the falconer contracted by Herefordshire Council may have given assurances that their birds will not kill the target species or other wild birds, including protected species, killing will take place with regularity. It is impossible to train a bird of prey not to kill – killing is an instinctive response in any raptor and they will attack any bird, not just the target species. Not only this, but removing gull nests is a complete waste of time and resource as gulls will re-build their nests and start laying again within 24 hours – any bird control expert would understand this and it just confirms that the company being used by Herefordshire Council has no idea what it is doing.
The only strategies that can effect a reduction of gull numbers in an urban area are holistic strategies that deal with the source of the problem as well as the problem itself. Most entrenched gull problems in urban areas are there as a direct result of fast food refuse and this problem must be dealt with before any action is taken to deal with gulls themselves. Street cleansing services must be upgraded with both the public and fast food outlets being educated to dispose of litter and kitchen waste in a responsible manner. Fines must be imposed on those that do not comply.
Once the source of the problem is identified and dealt with, gull breeding sites must be mapped out and a regime of egg oiling (coating the egg in oil to stop the embryo developing) undertaken and continued for at least 3-5 years. This combined with providing advice and possibly grants to those experiencing problems with gulls will be the most effective way forward. To use a falconer to control roof-nesting gulls is a worryingly irresponsible use of public money and almost laughably naive. Independent and expert advice must be sought from an organisation like PiCAS UK, particularly when spending public money, rather than from a company that has a vested interest in selling a service and one that clearly has little idea how to deal with a problem of this nature.
return to top of page
28th April 2008
Council Considers Grant Aid to Tackle Pigeon Problem
Alnwick District Council in Northumberland is considering the possibility of offering grants to property owners that are experiencing problems with pigeons. At a recent meeting of the Operations Scrutiny and Overview committee a decision was taken to consider all options to assist property owners and this included a decision to continue to support non-lethal methods of controlling pigeons throughout the district.
This forward-thinking local authority brought PiCAS UK in to advise them on humane, non-lethal but effective methods of controlling pigeon flock size in 2003. PiCAS UK surveyed the towns of Alnwick, Amble and Warkworth with officers from the Environmental Health Department and attended a meeting of property owners in Alnwick to discuss an effective and holistic pigeon control strategy for the town. Alnwick District Council is one of the most enlightened councils in the UK and has made a brave decision to support a wholly non-lethal and holistic regime.
The decision by the Operations Scrutiny and Overview committee to consider a system of grants for property owners is one that is applauded and supported by PiCAS UK. The District Council has understood that by reducing the impact of pigeon-related problems for property owners in Alnwick town centre, public perception of the problem will inevitably be reduced. Although some property owners have experienced entrenched pigeon-related problems in Alnwick, in reality the numbers of pigeons roosting, breeding and feeding in the town centre is relatively small, certainly compared to many similarly sized towns in the UK. If property owners can be persuaded to be proactive by protecting their properties with the added incentive of a grant from the District Council, complaints about pigeons should fall dramatically.
Where a system of grants is considered, however, it is essential that the process of assessing properties and identifying the most effective, cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing deterrent is overseen by a completely independent body that has no vested commercial interest in selling products or installation services. PiCAS UK has already offered to oversee the process on behalf of the District Council. Bird control products are extremely expensive and can also be invasive to install, often having to drill and bolt into the fabric of the building concerned to fix them. Alnwick has numerous listed buildings and therefore it is imperative that the process is overseen by an expert body to ensure that the deterrents which attract a grant do not aesthetically compromise the architecture of the town, nor do they compromise the status of listed buildings. As public money is to be used it is also essential to ensure that products and services are not miss-sold to property owners and to identify a standard whereby the correct product is chosen to resolve the problem being experienced.
If more local authorities in the UK followed the example of Alnwick District Council pigeon-related problems in UK towns and cities, and indeed the perception of those problems, would reduce dramatically. Alnwick District Council is one of only a handful of UK councils to adopt a humane but effective stance where this issue is concerned and we wish them every success in their endeavours.
return to top of page
1st March 2008
Venice City Council to Cull and Starve Pigeons
For generations people have associated St Mark’s Square in Venice with pigeons. Tourists and residents alike have enjoyed the simple pleasure of feeding and interacting with pigeons. Not for much longer. Mayor Massimo Cacciari is set to outlaw all feeding of pigeons in St Mark’s Square, and even the tradition of throwing rice after wedding ceremonies at the nearby Palazzo Cavalli, as of May 1st 2008.
Reports suggest that Mayor Cacciari, not satisfied with starving thousands of semi-domesticated pigeons to death, has ordered cage-trapping and killing operations in a further attempt to reduce numbers. Pigeons that are caught in commercially laid traps will normally have their necks broken or be gassed. It seems that Mayor Cacciari is following in the footsteps of Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, who starved several thousand tame pigeons to death in Trafalgar Square, London during the winter of 2000/2001. In PiCAS’s opinion, Mayor Livingstone deliberately outlawed pigeon feeding in Trafalgar Square at the start of winter to ensure that the maximum numbers of pigeons died of hypothermia induced by starvation. When pigeons were not found to die in sufficiently high numbers, or quickly enough, Mayor Livingstone ordered falconers to patrol the Square and use hawks to attack any pigeon that tried to feed - pigeons were seen being ripped apart whilst still alive and, incredibly, this was done in front of horrified onlookers including children, tourists and Londoners alike. These appalling acts of cruelty and barbarism on the part of Mayor Livingstone has earned him the reputation of being one of the most notorious, cold-blooded and hated animal killers in modern times, certainly by animal groups. We can only hope that Mayor Cacciari does not stoop to similar levels.
The use of conventional lethal controls to reduce the size of feral pigeon flocks is completely ineffective. However, when it is used to reduce the size of a tame and semi-domesticated flock that is wholly dependent on a deliberately provided food source it is likely to be completely effective. Particularly if the methods of killing include starvation and conventional lethal controls such as cage-trapping and shooting. This is because these semi-domesticated birds have been fed exclusively in one localised area for decades and as a result, when the food source is removed, they lack the instinct common in feral pigeons to forage for food elsewhere. Having said this, in the areas around St Mark’s Square, as in the areas around Trafalgar Square, competition for food is extreme and therefore in order to survive these semi-domesticated birds would have to compete with and displace hardened wild birds. The likelihood of this happening would be virtually zero. Mayor Cacciari knows, as did Mayor Livingstone, that these tame birds will simply sit and starve to death because they lack the instinct and the ability to compete with their completely wild counterparts.
Prior to executing his plan to starve Trafalgar Square’s pigeon flock, Mayor Livingstone was offered completely free and expert advice by PiCAS UK to explore humane but effective methods of reducing pigeon flock size in the Square, but Livingstone chose to ignore this offer. He did respond to PiCAS’s letter however - over 2 years later, once the Trafalgar Square flock had been decimated. We hope that Mayor Cacciari will be more open to the idea of exploring alternative methods of reducing pigeon flock size in St Mark’s Square.
Mayor Cacciari can be contacted at the following address and also by email:
Email: sindaco@comune.venezia.it
Postal Address: Comune di Venezia
Ca Farsetti
San Marco 4136
Venezia
Italy
return to top of page
4th January 2008
Wellington City Council set to in Midland Park
Wellington City Council in New Zealand has recently announced that it intends to cull an undisclosed number of pigeons in Wellington’s Midland Park in an effort to control numbers. Incredibly, the Council has even suggested that it will poison the pigeons. Other control options suggested by the Council include shooting.
Although the extensive use of poisons such as Avitrol in countries like the USA comes as no surprise, for a New Zealand City Council to even consider the use of dangerous and indiscriminate poison in an effort to reduce pigeon numbers in a public park is almost unbelievable. All poisons are indiscriminate and not only kill the target species but all types of wildlife in the area, with protected birds such as hawks, falcons and songbirds, as well as many animal species, falling victim to the poison. All will die a long and agonising death.
What makes Wellington City Council’s announcement even more incredible is that the use of lethal controls will not reduce the size of Midland Park’s pigeon population but will actually increase pigeon flock size in the park by anywhere between 15% and 30%, and these are conservative estimates. Pigeon flock size and the incidence of breeding is dictated absolutely by the extent of available food and therefore by removing members of the flock through culling will simply increase food supply to the surviving members of the flock and increase the incidence of breeding. A mini population explosion will occur and flock size will exceed pre-cull figures within a matter of weeks. Wellington City Council must first deal with the source of the problem, almost certainly deliberate public feeding, before it can even start to arrest control of the problem itself.
PiCAS International urges Wellington City Council to contact the organisation for completely free and impartial advice where the reduction of pigeon flock size in Midland Park is concerned. PiCAS International will provide the council with a tailor-made and sustainable control programme that will be humane, effective and indeed cost-effective, unlike the use of lethal controls. The use of lethal controls such as poison and shooting will achieve nothing other than cause conflict with animal groups and absorb a great deal of public money without resolving the source of the problem or indeed the problem itself.
return to top of page
30th December 2007
The Debate over Continues to Rage
The debate over the use of Avitrol, a poison commonly used to control bird populations, continues to rage in the USA with an attempt by one wildlife rehabilitator in the city of Gardner, Massachusetts, to have the poison banned. Sigrid Warren has called upon Gardner’s new Mayor Elect, Mark Hawke, to outlaw the poison in attempt to reduce the suffering caused to both pigeons (the species most commonly targeted by pest control companies that recommend Avitrol and other wildlife that die agonising deaths due to direct or secondary poisoning. PiCAS International fully supports Sigrid Warren’s attempts to have this dangerous and indiscriminate poison banned in Gardner. PiCAS International has offered to work alongside Gardner City Council, and with any property owner experiencing an entrenched pigeon-related problem, to provide a humane, sustainable and cost-effective alternative to the use of poison or any other form of lethal control. The story can be read in full on the website of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette:
http://www.telegram.com/article/20071230/NEWS/712300405
The plight of Gardner’s wildlife is not uncommon in the USA and other countries that allow the unregulated use of indiscriminate poisons such as Avitrol is commonly referred to as a “flock disperser’ by those that recommend its use, it is, in reality, a dangerous poison that causes extreme convulsions in any bird that ingests it, eventually resulting in a long and agonising death. According to the manufacturer however, when the flock witnesses some of its members convulsing in agony, as a result of ingesting the poison, they are deterred. This is nonsense. Pigeons feed en-masse and therefore the entire feeding flock will ingest the poison simultaneously. All of the birds that ingest the poison will be affected, almost certainly with lethal consequences, assuming of course enough bait is distributed and the target birds feed long enough. Secondary poisoning is also common when, for example, a bird of prey takes a poisoned pigeon and dies as a result. The case of Melbourne’s two beloved pairs of Peregrine falcons is a good example - there was a public outcry when both pairs of Peregrines, and their young, died as a result of taking pigeons that had been poisoned by a pest control contractor.
Avitrol, like most poisons used to control wild birds, is entirely indiscriminate. The poison is usually offered in the form of treated grain that can be taken by any seed-eating bird in the area in which the bait is distributed - as a result many protected species die having ingested Avitrol when it was intended for the control of feral pigeons only. Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the body that regulates and licences the use of poisons used to control animal and bird populations in the USA, noted, in a September report that Avitrol represents “an acute risk” to non-target species, including hawks and other protected species of raptor. Most European countries have banned the use of dangerous and indiscriminate poisons to control wild bird populations but to date only the city of New York currently operates an outright ban on the use of Avitrol in the USA. Elsewhere in the USA Avitrol is used extensively in attempts to control bird populations.
Not only does Avitrol cause ‘unnecessary suffering' but it is also completely ineffective, and in fact counter-productive, where the control of feral pigeons is concerned. The use of Avitrol, as with any lethal method of pigeon control, results in a 10%-20% increase in pigeon flock size due to rejuvenation within the flock. The size of any flock of pigeons is dictated, absolutely, by the extent of available food. If the food supply increases, as it does when pigeons are physically removed from a feeding flock, the instinctive response from the surviving members of the flock is to breed until such a time as flock size is, once again, fully exploiting the food supply. Pigeons will always overcompensate when breeding to replace lost members of the flock however, and this factor, combined with an influx of pigeons from other feeding flocks that move in to exploit the new increased food supply, results in the 15%-30% increase. Every time lethal controls are used in an effort to reduce pigeon flock size the result is the same - a mini population explosion rather than a reduction in flock size. The only beneficiaries of lethal pigeon control operations are the pest control companies that sell the services. Property owners would be better to do nothing than to buy in lethal bird control services - at least population size would remain stable.
return to top of page
24th December 2007
PiCAS International Seeks Feedback from Test Sites
The debate over the use of the controversial pigeon contraceptive, OvoControl P, is heating up in the USA with many experts and pro-pigeon groups joining the long list of those opposing the use of this dangerous drug. Although groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are actively supporting and promoting the use of OvoControl P, the widespread use of this contraceptive could have disastrous consequences for feral pigeon populations in the form of reduced resistance to Coccidiosis, arguably the most devastating of all the pigeon diseases*.
The issue of pigeon control has recently hit the headlines in the USA with one New York City Council member proposing a total feeding ban in New York City, with $1000 fines for anyone found to be feeding pigeons. This has, inevitably, fuelled debate over the various control options that could be employed by the city council to reduce pigeon flock size in the city. Although PiCAS International does not condone the uncontrolled feeding of urban pigeon flocks, particularly where excessive feeding is concerned, a total feeding ban is unworkable. Before any action is taken to provide an area-wide pigeon control system in New York City, an independent in-depth study must be undertaken followed by a structured, humane and effective control programme.
One of the control options that have been proposed for New York City is the use of OvoControl P and, apparently, trials have already taken place within the city to assess the effectiveness of the new contraceptive. Other cities in the USA are also undertaking trials of the drug. Although PiCAS International is deeply opposed to the use of this drug to control pigeon populations, due to the inevitable increase in Coccidia amongst flocks that are being targeted, there is a need for an independent, expert and non-commercial body to collate information resulting from these trials. PiCAS International is therefore appealing to any organisation that has undertaken trials with OvoControl P, or is actively trialling the drug, to contact us and share information, particularly information relating to welfare assessments of target flocks.
*Wim Peters, Veterinary Surgeon and renowned expert in pigeon health
return to top of page
22nd October 2007
PiCAS UK Condemns Dovecote Scheme in Leamington Spa
PiCAS UK has today condemned the actions of the group calling itself Regenesis, based in Leamington Spa, after it was revealed that Regenesis staff trapped and caught an undisclosed number of pigeons and caged them in a dovecote facility they provided as part of a pigeon control programme. This barbaric action will have caused extreme and unnecessary suffering. Pigeons mate for life and breed all year round and therefore some, if not all of the pigeons caught will have been split from their life-long partners and will have certainly have had dependant young in nests. These young birds will have starved to death.
It is the view of PiCAS UK that the RSPCA should be considering a prosecution against Regenesis on the grounds of causing unnecessary suffering.
Not only this but the scheme implemented by Regenesis was, according to Regenesis, based on the PiCAS model of pigeon control. This is not the case. Although PiCAS UK had advised Regenesis some years ago, the organisation totally ignored the advice provided to them by PiCAS UK and, as a result, PiCAS UK formally disassociated itself from Regenesis and any pigeon controls provided by the organisation. The dovecote has been a complete failure due to the fact that Regenesis refused to be guided and take advice from PiCAS UK, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the programme itself.
PiCAS UK, once again, wishes to disassociate itself from this poorly thought through and badly executed control programme. Had Regenesis taken heed of the advice provided by PiCAS UK in the same way that Surrey Heath Borough Council (in Camberley) has done, Leamington Spa would now have a highly effective and humane pigeon control programme that would have reduced and stabilised pigeon numbers in the town without causing unnecessary suffering or wasting public money.
return to top of page
6th August 2007
Pigeon Pill Trialled in Hollywood
This week sees the start of a trial for a new oral contraceptive drug called OvoControl P, specifically designed for use with pigeons. This new pharmaceutical, produced by an American company called Innolytics, is being trialed in Hollywood, USA by the Argyle Civic Association. The trial is being supported by two leading US animal welfare organisations, People for the Ethical treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Although residents in Hollywood had apparently shown interest in PiCAS International’s tried and tested system of breeding control (involving the use of artificial breeding facilities combined with egg removal/replacement), they were persuaded to use OvoControl P rather than the egg removal/replacement programme by PeTA representatives.
There are many reasons why PiCAS International is not backing this new oral contraceptive drug, but the main reason for this stance is that PiCAS International does not feel that it is appropriate to feed pharmaceuticals to wild birds when there is a perfectly acceptable and risk-free alternative in the form of PiCAS International’s own breeding control programme.
The main disadvantage of this new oral contraceptive is the raft of operational restrictions imposed on the use of OvoControl P by the manufacturer:
• The drug cannot be used in the rain
• The drug cannot be used within 20 feet of any body of water
• The drug must be distributed 365 days a year including weekends and public
holidays
• The drug must be distributed early in the morning
• The human distributor must be able to recognise the difference between the target
species and non-target species and remain on-site for up to an hour following
distribution (in all weathers) to ensure non-target species do not take the drug
• The human applicator must be available to remove the drug if rain starts to fall to
ensure that no contamination takes place
• The human applicator must thoroughly assess pigeon activity on the site prior to
distribution of the drug and undertake a pigeon head count each day
• The human applicator must ensure that children and pets do not come into contact
with the drug
• The human applicator must increase/reduce the amount of drug distributed each
day to ensure optimum coverage for the flock
• The human applicator must ensure that no protected species of birds are attracted
to the site (and attempt to exploit the drug) as it is an offence to feed treated bait
to protected, threatened or endangered birds in the USA
• Daily observations for non-target birds must be undertaken throughout the 5-14
day acclimatisation period and once a week thereafter
• The drug can only be distributed on rooftop areas or paved areas where public
access is restricted
• The human applicator must wear protective clothing including goggles, long
trousers and a long sleeved shirt and all protective clothing must be washed
before re-use
• The human applicator must wash thoroughly before eating, drinking or smoking
This extensive list of operating restrictions imposed on the use of the drug will undoubtedly render it prohibitive in terms of cost alone, irrespective of whether or not the drug proves to be effective. No property owner with an on-going pigeon-related problem will even consider using the drug based on the fact that a contraceptive will not provide relief from day to day pigeon-related problems. The only means of reducing the impact of pigeon-related problems on a building is to provide an artificial breeding facility (which will encourage pigeons away from their existing roosts) and operate and egg removal/egg replacement programme combined with the installation of deterrents, where required. This method of control will attract a one-off cost of £200-£300 and will require one visit a week, at any time of the day, to remove newly laid eggs and replace with dummy eggs. This operation will take approximately 5-10 minutes. Cleaning would be carried out once every 3-6 months and would take approximately half an hour. The costs associated with operating a PiCAS programme pale into insignificance when compared to the cost of using OvoControl P.
In order to provide the contraceptive as recommended by the manufacturer, an employee would have to be identified that has the ability to recognise both target species and non-target species and who would be available to be on-site every day, 365 days a year early in the morning for up to 2 hours. Attending a site in the early hours of the morning would undoubtedly attract overtime payments. Clearly the drug is not attractive to individual property owners so who is the drug aimed at? The answer must be local government bodies and yet the average pigeon control budget for a UK Council is less than £1,000 a year. PiCAS International’s local government clients often react extremely negatively when asked to spend 5-10 minutes, once a week, servicing an artificial breeding facility. To expect those same councils to pay overtime payments to an employee for up to 2 hours a day, 365 days a year is just pushing the envelope a little too far. These payments would be over and above the cost of the drug itself.
Finally, and probably most worrying of all is the issue health and safety for the target species. The active ingredient used in the contraceptive (nicarbazin) is commonly used to control Enteritis (notably Coccidiosis) in intensively farmed poultry. Coccidiosis is a common avian disease which most fit and healthy feral birds never contract, but when a bird is affected the outcome is normally death. Because of the way that OvoControl P has to be distributed (365 days a year), and because much larger quantities of nicarbazin need to be used in OvoControl P than is used in the treatment of enteritis in commercially farmed birds, pigeons will inevitably loose any natural resistance to fatal diseases such as Coccidiosis. In the long term this will result in pigeons becoming highly susceptible to contracting Coccidiosis and feral pigeon flocks will be decimated as a result. Urban pigeons will die in their thousands. Because pigeons live in such close proximity to man this represents a very real threat to public health and safety, to say nothing of the welfare implications. Although pigeons do not pass diseases onto humans under normal circumstances, when thousands of birds die of a disease than can affect people as well as pigeons the threat is considerable and cannot be underestimated.
Clearly the manufacturer of OvoControl P has understood that health and safety issues must be addressed for the human applicator, but what protection is afforded the pigeon? OvoControl P will cause "moderate eye irritation" to the human eye, but no mention is made of the effect on the avian eye. Any substance that causes moderate eye irritation in the human eye must have the same effect on the avian eye. Until issues such as this are resolved and until guarantees are provided by the manufacturer that the drug is safe for pigeons as well as people, support for the drug will inevitably be limited. The predecessor of OvoControl P, a drug called Ornitrol, was removed from the market in the early 1990’s as a result of the fact that the drug was found to cause muscle tremors in pigeons when used for long periods. Based on the experiences of Ornitrol it is quite clear that any drug recommended for long-term use with pigeons must be tested rigorously for extended periods. The lack of information relating to humane trials of the drug on the Innolytics website suggests that the drug has not been trialled in the long-term.
return to top of page
23rd June 2007
Norwich Cathedral Slaughters Pigeon in front of Visitors
Norwich Cathedral has been in the news recently after a pigeon that had become trapped in the Cathedral’s restaurant was shot by a pest control contractor brought in by the Cathedral’s management. A decision was quickly taken to call in a pest control contractor to slaughter the trapped bird rather than try to remove the bird alive and in a humane and compassionate manner. Incredibly, the pest control contractor entered the restaurant and simply shot the bird in front of horrified diners. One witness said that the pigeon was shot but only wounded and fell to the ground flapping around in agony before the pest controller caught the bird and despatched it. There was blood and feathers everywhere.
Ely Cathedral was also found to be killing pigeons and many other species of birds on the cathedral roof in the late 1990’s, but when questioned about the type of controls that were being employed the Bursar of Ely Cathedral vehemently denied that any type of bird control was being undertaken. After weeks of denying that they were slaughtering pigeons the Cathedral was forced to admit that it had been lying and had indeed been cage-trapping and killing pigeons for years.
Although this almost unbelievable action on the part of Norwich Cathedral (and Ely Cathedral) may be considered to be a ‘one-off’, the reality is that most religious groups demonstrate a preference for lethal bird control rather than the humane and non-violent options. PiCAS UK receives a considerable number of enquiries every year from religious groups about pigeon control, in particular the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, but in almost every case the humane options are ignored and lethal controls such as shooting and cage-trapping (and killing) are used instead.
return to top of page
26th May 2007
Racing Pigeon Fanciers Face Prison for Cruelty
Eleven pigeon fanciers from the USA face prison sentences after being charged with shooting, beating and suffocating dozens of protected hawks and falcons in an effort to protect their birds during racing events. One of the accused even admitted spraying the falcons that he had caught in traps with bleach and ammonia. The combination of these chemicals causes chlorine gas to be created so the falcons would have eventually died of suffocation after having experienced extreme pain for some considerable time before death.
The charged men also admitted clubbing falcons to death in cages and shooting the birds with pellet guns. Some of the men also admitted shooting hawks and falcons with shotguns. One defendant even admitted to keeping a bucket full of talons cut from the hawks and falcons that he had trapped and slaughtered.
Following a nationwide undercover operation to investigate Californian racing pigeon clubs it was estimated that pigeon enthusiasts illegally kill between 1,000 and 2,000 hawks and falcons each year, and that is just in the Los Angeles area alone. The eleven charged men face a maximum of 6 months in prison if found guilty.
Some years ago several extreme pigeon racing enthusiasts in the UK even suggested that they would attach explosive devices to some of their racing pigeons so that when they were caught by a hawk or falcon both birds would explode. Although most pigeon racers and fanciers are adamant that they are passionate about the pigeons they breed and race it is quite clear that in some cases at least this is very definitely not the case.
return to top of page
20th May 2007
Pigeons Freed from Nylon Bird Netting
Yet another instance of pigeons becoming trapped behind nylon bird netting, this time installed as a bird exclusion device by |
