# Respond to "disease-ridden...destroying bird population" comment



## Elizabethy (Sep 25, 2007)

Hello-

MickaCoo Pigeon & Dove Rescue and my blog The Rescue Report were mentioned on this pet website (see it here) and it received this comment (below). Is there anyone that would care to respond? If so, me and the pij would appreciate it.


Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hello, I understand your point of view. But as a Milanese city-dweller that lives on the last floor of an historic building, I have to disagree completely with wasting valueble time and resources to help and aid pigeons. Just as you would not rescue or help rats, so you should treat pigeons. They are disease-ridden and has cost me personally thousands of euros to get rid of them and disinfect my roof and home. Not only, but they have been slowly destroying the local bird population, as they multiply and eat all available food.

Posted by: Baggie | January 29, 2010 at 01:38 AM


----------



## Crab_Shrapnel (Jan 17, 2010)

Ignorence is just something we have to deal with it seems. Also, I don't know about you, but I would rescue and/or help rats


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Humph. I would gladly respond


----------



## sky tx (Mar 1, 2005)

Pigeon Flyers have had to learn how to live with "Federal Protected" Hawks
So --You can learn to live with Pigeons


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Yep. There's a lot of things I've had to learn to live with. Like stupid people for example. Although they get on my nerves a lot, that doesn't mean I'm going to go and kill them off to make my life more pleasant  LOL.

I posted my long rant of stuff to consider. There's a lot more I could have said in favor of pigeons, but oh well


----------



## Tamara21 (Jun 24, 2009)

I posted my opinion...here is a copy of what I posted from me and Petey!!Baggie, I can appreciate that you may not enjoy pigeon poop on your home. There are very humane ways of discouraging pigeons from nesting or visiting your area.You can look up this information on line.Your attitude in saying that it is a waste of time to aid pigeons is ignorant.Who are you to say what I do with my time and my HEART is a waste of valuable time?If people like us that rescue pigeons (and all animals for that matter) were not around you dear sir or madam would find yourself in a very lonely world, with no compassion in it.You may not understand every living thing, but every living thing deserves to do just that ~ live.I would highly suggest that next time you post your opinion you check what you are saying because as Elizabeth noted pigeons are not disease-ridden.If they were wouldn't you think all of those folks in New York and the UK would be pretty sick, including us rehabbers?So I say again, don't judge others, especially when they are doing something good in the world ~ as this world needs a little more of that whatever the cause.


----------



## Elizabethy (Sep 25, 2007)

Beautifully said!!! Thank you!


----------



## Tamara21 (Jun 24, 2009)

Thanks...I hope they read it and perhaps consider things a bit differently.


----------



## Mindy (Apr 2, 2009)

Tamara2, very well said. Great job. I just got banned from the squirrel board for 3 days because some ignorant person on there suggested a BB gun to get rid of her pigeons. I'm sure they wouldn't have liked if I suggested a BB gun to get rid of Squirrels, but they didn't like what I had to say so I got booted (for 3 days) but probably won't go back EVER. min


----------



## Tamara21 (Jun 24, 2009)

Banned for your opinion on not killing an animal? It always amazes me the qualifiers folks will put on animals...like I will rescue and help this animal but another species doesn't deserve any help. If you like squirrels enough to blog and post about them you would think they would like all creatures. Oh well I have yet to figure out people...animals are a piece of cake....people well that is a whole different story. Everyday I am convinced it's us that need saving.


----------



## Crab_Shrapnel (Jan 17, 2010)

Tamara21 said:


> Everyday I am convinced it's us that need saving.


Maybe, we're not just helping the pigeons, maybe they're helping us be better people


----------



## PoppyFieldVet (Apr 9, 2009)

Crab_Shrapnel said:


> Ignorence is just something we have to deal with it seems. Also, I don't know about you, but I would rescue and/or help rats


Absolutely, why do we seem to think we can choose who we help and don't help. They are all just trying to make a living in the world. 

XxX


----------



## StarfishSaving (Feb 4, 2010)

Well, just about every rescuer has heard at some point that rescuing animals itself is a waste of time and why do we care so much about homeless animals when there are homeless people/cancer patients/starving children/insert other that we should be taking care of first! Blah blah... as if on desperate cause should negate the importance of the rest. I was even criticized for donating to Haiti because it's not my country... ???

And yes, I do rescue and rehome rats, adoption fee/references/home visit and all.


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Quite honestly, as much as I love pigeons and hate people who have rotten attitudes towards certain animals for little to no reason, I don't think rehabbing feral pigeons or any other feral animals is particularly wise. At the very least, I wouldn't want any public funding go to activities like that. Native animals and the enviroment always takes precedence over ferals and invasive species in my books, and I think that rehabbing of native wildlife is lacking in resources even without pigeons. If you release feral pigeons in the wild, I think you might as well do that with feral cats, rats, minks, and raccoon dogs. Or, well, replace those animals with any animals of your choice that were unintelligently introduced to your enviroment by people.

I also don't condone to feeding feral animals of any kind. Feral cats and minks are a major problem here, and I don't think that pigeons deserve any kind of special treatment even if their effect on the enviroment is minimal.


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Verp, I respect your right to your particular view, but cannot agree with it in regard to pigeons.

I guess there are those who hold the "conservationist view" of protecting species as a whole, wildlife facilities who will only deal with individuals of certain species ... and people who simply show compassion towards an individual animal in need of help, regardless of species. 

Indeed, the (now) feral pigeons were introduced into many countries worldwide - examples of human interference with nature. At some stage in history they were considered "of use" and at a later stage seen as having outlived their usefulness and left to survive if they could - examples of human indifference. 

In my view, whether they are native to a particular region or not is irrelevant. They are semi-domesticated for the most part, having an inbred affinity with humankind, and an enforced dependence on man-made habitat. Forget 'species-ism' - they are here, and here through the mistakes, if you like, of our ancestors. They may not be, strictly speaking, native to many shores, but they have certainly become naturalized over centuries. For me, that means they deserve no less compassion than any other animal in need, and certainly not to be made to pay a penalty for the human meddling that 'created' them.

Quite apart from all that, there are people who, however quirky it may seem to the public at large, just happen to like pigeons and want to help them for no more 'scientific' reason than that .

John


----------



## nitla (Jan 14, 2010)

pigeons did live in milano a lot of time before u. it was u who occupied their habitat


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

John_D said:


> Verp, I respect your right to your particular view, but cannot agree with it in regard to pigeons.
> 
> I guess there are those who hold the "conservationist view" of protecting species as a whole, wildlife facilities who will only deal with individuals of certain species ... and people who simply show compassion towards an individual animal in need of help, regardless of species.
> 
> ... They may not be, strictly speaking, native to many shores, but they have certainly become naturalized over centuries. For me, that means they deserve no less compassion than any other animal in need, and certainly not to be made to pay a penalty for the human meddling that 'created' them.


The thing is though, compassion doesn't do things. It's the people who do things. Whether they do it for compassion or hate doesn't really change the results or make what they're doing more or less harmful. Therefore, people are capable of doing very stupid things out of mere compassion. So, the way you speak of compassion like it's a grand gift to the animals themselves is rather strange to me. When it comes to doing things that could affect your surroundings in a very negative way, "lol compassion" is a poor excuse. 

Don't get me wrong, I feel compassion towards pigeons. I feel compassion towards feral cats too, but it doesn't help the fact that feral cats are pests that they cause a lot of problems. Similarly, pigeon overpopulation isn't good for anybody, not us or the pigeons. I'm not sure what you do for the birds or what kind of activity you condone to, but I'm seeing a lot of people from two extremes over the net: people who want to decimate the pigeons regardless of the suffering it causes to pigeons, and people who want to save all pigeons regardless of what the birds' effect is to their surroundings. 

I think both sides are very thoughtless -- the other side should hate less, the other side should love less, and both sides should know and care more. And no, love and care aren't the same thing.


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Verp, you are entitled to your view, and I am entitled to mine. You've made your point, and I've made mine. Debating it is unlikely to change either view. 

Certainly, people can do things which appear stupid - or for reasons that may appear stupid - to other people, but then human beings are not always particularly logical in what they do, say or believe.

Me, I give pigeons a little help where and when I can for no more lofty reason than that I like 'em - have done since I first met one 'up close and personal'. Most that have come our way, in fact, have been unreleasable due to disability of one kind or another, and we have provided a safe, permanent home for them. That's our choice, and what others may think of it is not my concern.

John


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

John_D said:


> Verp, you are entitled to your view, and I am entitled to mine. You've made your point, and I've made mine. Debating it is unlikely to change either view.


Well, who does that, anyway? Debate for the sake of changing other person's view, that is. I can only imagine that it would be a very depressing thing to be into, because from my experience directly causing a change in someone's point of view and actually being around to see it happen is incredibly rare. There are other merits to debating, the clash of two intelligent minds and the joy of building arguments and counter-arguments, for example. But if you don't want to talk then don't, I guess.


----------



## M Kurps (Mar 19, 2009)

John_D said:


> Verp, I respect your right to your particular view, but cannot agree with it in regard to pigeons.
> 
> I guess there are those who hold the "conservationist view" of protecting species as a whole, wildlife facilities who will only deal with individuals of certain species ... and people who simply show compassion towards an individual animal in need of help, regardless of species.
> 
> ...


Very well put John.
Kurps


----------



## Tamara21 (Jun 24, 2009)

John I believe has beautifully stated what many of us here on-line feel...
I agree everyone is allowed their opinion...but I don't understand how Verp can say that he cares and then can lable something as a pest. In my mind a pest is something that you don't care for at all.


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Tamara21 said:


> John I believe has beautifully stated what many of us here on-line feel...
> I agree everyone is allowed their opinion...but I don't understand how Verp can say that he cares and then can lable something as a pest. In my mind a pest is something that you don't care for at all.


Well, let's look at the definition of "pest". This is one of them, more similar ones can be found at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pest.

pest [pɛst]
n
1. a person or thing that annoys, esp by imposing itself when it is not wanted; nuisance
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Agriculture)
a. any organism that damages crops, injures or irritates livestock or man, or reduces the fertility of land
b. (as modifier) pest control
3. (Medicine / Pathology) Rare an epidemic disease or pestilence

I don't think "care" is relevant at all in all this. I love rats and have owned rats, but that doesn't keep me from categorising feral rats as pests. I love cats and I currently own one, but that doesn't keep me from admitting that feral cats pests, very damaging ones at that. I happen to be interested in cockroaches, am planning to own a colony of Madagascar hissing cockroaches, and I acknowledge their important role in their natural enviroment, but that doesn't stop me from calling certain cockroach species pests.

So, what's your deal then, do you hate rats? Do you kill them because you hate them? What about the animals you probably eat unless you're a vegetarian, do you eat cows and pigs because you don't care for them or hate them or what? I care very much for pigs, they're very intelligent and overall great animals, but that doesn't stop me from eating one.


----------



## Msfreebird (Sep 23, 2007)

Verp said:


> Well, let's look at the definition of "pest". This is one of them, more similar ones can be found at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pest.
> 
> *pest [pɛst]
> n
> ...


Pigeons don't fall under any of those categories.

Opps - correction: If they fall under #1. 
That's the LAZY HUMAN'S fault for NOT maintaining their property to keep the birds out in the 1st place.


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Msfreebird said:


> Pigeons don't fall under any of those categories.


Are you saying that eating crops, spreading Newcastle's disease to poultry (while it's not common, it happened here just a couple of years ago), and tons of organic waste that compromises human-made structures and takes lots of time and resources to clean up isn't a nuisance to people?

Edit: 



Msfreebird said:


> Opps - correction: If they fall under #1.
> That's the LAZY HUMAN'S fault for NOT maintaining their property to keep the birds out in the 1st place.


That can be said about various pests, such as cats, yet there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to control the amount of pests on your property if done humanely.


----------



## Msfreebird (Sep 23, 2007)

Verp said:


> Are you saying that eating crops, spreading Newcastle's disease to poultry (while it's not common, it happened here just a couple of years ago), and tons of organic waste that compromises human-made structures and takes lots of time and resources to clean up isn't a nuisance to people?


No more than any other animal or insects!
So why are pigeons and rats put in the same category? AND singled out?
Here in New England (USA), more people are killed by mosquito's (EEE eastern equine encephalitis) than anything else!


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Msfreebird said:


> No more than any other animal or insects!
> So why are pigeons and rats put in the same category? AND singled out?
> Here in New England (USA), more people are killed by mosquito's (EEE eastern equine encephalitis) than anything else!


First of all, insects are animals. There's no "animals OR insects", there are just "animals".

Second of all, what other animals beyond people do you see millions upon millions in large cities making organic waste that needs to be cleaned up? Wouldn't you say that the majority of that waste is from 1. people and 2. pigeons? Now, why should pigeons be protected, especially if their numbers are primarily caused by us? Also, while it's not everywhere, pigeons do eat significant amounts of certain crops.

What does mosquitoes killing people have anything to do with this? We kill mosquitoes, hardly anyone's *****ing about killing them or denying or heavily exaggerating the damage they do. Pigeons and rats are singled out because I don't have time to list every single species that are commonly thought of as pests, so they are examples.


----------



## Jaye (Mar 13, 2008)

Verp said:


> Quite honestly, as much as I love pigeons and hate people who have rotten attitudes towards certain animals for little to no reason, I don't think rehabbing feral pigeons or any other feral animals is particularly wise. At the very least, I wouldn't want any public funding go to activities like that. Native animals and the enviroment always takes precedence over ferals and invasive species in my books, and I think that rehabbing of native wildlife is lacking in resources even without pigeons. If you release feral pigeons in the wild, I think you might as well do that with feral cats, rats, minks, and raccoon dogs. Or, well, replace those animals with any animals of your choice that were unintelligently introduced to your enviroment by people.
> 
> I also don't condone to feeding feral animals of any kind. Feral cats and minks are a major problem here, and I don't think that pigeons deserve any kind of special treatment even if their effect on the enviroment is minimal.


There are so many innacurate notions in your position - it's hard to figure out where to even begin to refute them !!  Your last post above is simply hilarious (next to humans - pigeons produce the most waste in cities!!!  ) For goodness sake - do you expect someone to take you seriously when you make such capricious statements ? ? ? Is there not a certain irony in you posting on a thread which is discussing the ignorance many folks have towards animals ? V - I do suggest you do a bit more research on the subject...some questions to consider for starters may be 1) But what of the once wild populations of columbids which were - and continue to be - driven to extinction by humans ? 2) In order to claim that a feral population is damaging what was a balanced ecosystem - one must identify & address _what niche precisely_ is the feral population now occupying which was previously occupied by another population ? Did they in fact really take over someone else's niche ? - or merely _occupy a niche which was created _as the result of human (for lack of a better word) 'development' ?? Your comments reveal that you haven't really considered such questions even semi-seriously - so there is perhaps more work to be done on your part. Now - in the meantime - try to consider THIS as well: there are many humans in the world who - when confronted with the opportunity to help another suffering being -will _do so_. This is called being _humane_ and _caring_ (among other things). There are also many who would not go out of their way to do harm. Then - there are also many who have come to realize that there are many other beings we share the planet with who are also _sentient_ - and with whom we humans can share experience, and forge a meaningful and enriching connection - more so than conventional opinion and belief will ever realize or even bother to understand.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2010)

Verp said:


> Second of all, what other animals beyond people do you see millions upon millions in large cities making organic waste that needs to be cleaned up? Wouldn't you say that the majority of that waste is from 1. people and 2. pigeons? Now, why should pigeons be protected, especially if their numbers are primarily caused by us? Also, while it's not everywhere, pigeons do eat significant amounts of certain crops.


Pigeon waste is 100% biodegradable and it's an excellent fertilizer for plants. That can't be said for human pollution. It seems to me that too many people focus on bird poop aesthetics while at the same time overlook the human waste that actually poses serious health threats to human and animal life.

As for eating crops, many other birds as well as mammals do damage. Should we get rid of them all?


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Jaye said:


> There are so many innacurate notions in your position - it's hard to figure out where to even begin to refute them !!  Your last post above is simply hilarious (next to humans - pigeons produce the most waste in cities!!!  ) For goodness sake - do you expect someone to take you seriously when you make such capricious statements ? ? ?


Well, what other animals make such amounts of waste in cities with a distinct overpopulation of pigeons, such as, I dunno, Venice? Wouldn't you agree that that cleaning up that mess is a regrettable waste of resources which could and should be avoided? As little as you may be concerned about bird feces, others aren't, and who are you to tell people that they should tolerate it if it is a legitimate nuisance and a trouble to them? Also, wouldn't you say that overpopulation isn't good for the pigeons' health either? 

By the way, if you're going to trump what I say, how about offering information rather than "ha ha, ur sooo wrong it's funneh!", because that's not exchanging thoughts as much as it is swaggering and I'm not sure if I can appreciate that.



Jaye said:


> Is there not a certain irony in you posting on a thread which is discussing the ignorance many folks have towards animals?


If you go by Alanis Morrissette's definition of irony, then maybe, but otherwise I'm not sure where you're coming from with that. I think that both extremes ("save all the pigeons" vs. "kill all the pigeons") can be just as ignorant and isn't that pretty relevant to this topic? I mean, just about all people are cherry picking when it comes to what living organisms one should be able to kill and how, just because pigeons happen to be your or my favourites doesn't mean it's justifiable to demand that they are to be elevated in a special position. If you indulge yourself in favouritism, why shouldn't other people to be able to do it as well?



Jaye said:


> V - I do suggest you do a bit more research on the subject...some questions to consider for starters may be 1) But what of the once wild populations of columbids which were - and continue to be - driven to extinction by humans ?


I'm not talking about them, I'm talking bout feral rock pigeons (Columba livia domesticus).



Jaye said:


> 2) In order to claim that a feral population is damaging what was a balanced ecosystem - one must identify & address _what niche precisely_ is the feral population now occupying which was previously occupied by another population ? Did they in fact really take over someone else's niche ? - or merely _occupy a niche which was created _as the result of human (for lack of a better word) 'development' ?? Your comments reveal that you haven't really considered such questions even semi-seriously - so there is perhaps more work to be done on your part.


Again, I would like it if you would contribute more than swaggering and questions you aren't going to answer despite acting like you know all the answers. Also, pigeons mostly inhabit an ecosystem we provided, but why should we continue providing it, much less encourage pigeons to occupy it by feeding them and using public resources to rehabbing them? We're doing an awful lot of damage in multiple ways, I do think we should minimise it on every area. If our waste ends up in pigeons' mouths and their waste ends up being our problem, I'd say we are wasting resources. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is a crisis that needs to be fixed ASAP, but disallowing population control, using public resources to rehabbing feral pigeons, and tipping the scale from "pigeons are rats with wings" to "pigeons are beautiful animals that you shouldn't ever kill" would be very unwise in my opinion. And that seems exactly what some pro-pigeon extremists seem to want.



Jaye said:


> Now - in the meantime - try to consider THIS as well: there are many humans in the world who - when confronted with the opportunity to help another suffering being -will _do so_. This is called being _humane_ and _caring_ (among other things). There are also many who would not go out of their way to do harm. Then - there are also many who have come to realize that there are many other beings we share the planet with who are also _sentient_ - and with whom we humans can share experience, and forge a meaningful and enriching connection - more so than conventional opinion and belief will ever realize or even bother to understand.[/COLOR]


Yes, that is nice and all, but you also cannot make a demand that other people should like it and do the exact same thing. Also, your meaningful enriching connections are most likely one-sided if we're talking about animals that aren't your companion animals, so I cannot help but to think of those as a selfish reason among others. Meaning, that it's not bad but equal to any other justification that can be summed up with "I want to because I like it and find it convenient".



sasha008 said:


> Pigeon waste is 100% biodegradable and it's an excellent fertilizer for plants. That can't be said for human pollution. It seems to me that too many people focus on bird poop aesthetics while at the same time overlook the human waste that actually poses serious health threats to human and animal life.
> 
> As for eating crops, many other birds as well as mammals do damage. Should we get rid of them all?


If we are to ever minimise our negative effects on enviroment, we have to pinch resources from everywhere and try to be as efficient as possible. I'm not overlooking human pollution, I'm doing my very best to make political and practical choices to minimise it. But in the end, our efforts will be useless if we let our resources leak through multiple little holes. Pigeons eating crops and making poop is a problem we're imposing on ourselves, it's not wise to make existing and potential problems immune to attempts to correct them just because some people like pigeons a lot.

Finally, I'm not suggesting that we should kill all the pigeons and everything that eats our crops, I want people to be able to do something about them when it's justifiable. When you think about that, you don't get hung up on what your favourite animals are and why you wuv dem sho much, you need to be able to look at things from all sides and make an informed, well thought out decision.


----------



## Pawbla (Jan 6, 2009)

sasha008 said:


> Pigeon waste is 100% biodegradable and it's an excellent fertilizer for plants.


Bird waste is a fertilizer of choice for many of us plant folks . It's pretty high in Nitrogen so it's kinda like a 30-10-10.

Back to the original post... (I'm not jumping on the other argument).
Here native and introduced birds live together just fine.
And I would rescue rats if given the chance. Seriously.


----------



## StanelyPidge09 (May 22, 2009)

I found this thread a little to late but what the heck I will give my opinion anyways! ... 

We, humans, are the biggest invasive species there is so why do we have the right to "eliminate" or even discriminate against other "invasive" species?? To me this is ridiculous! Every animal on this planet have the right to live regardless and humans have no right to say who gets to live, be helped, or who gets to die. The fact the people do think they have this right is disgusting!


----------



## conditionfreak (Jan 11, 2008)

Humans are an invasive species?

I don't understand that. Do you mean that we came from another planet?

I'm being serious here and not sarcastic. How are we an invasive species?


----------



## Msfreebird (Sep 23, 2007)

conditionfreak said:


> Humans are an invasive species?
> 
> I don't understand that. Do you mean that we came from another planet?
> 
> I'm being serious here and not sarcastic. How are we an invasive species?


I think I understand what he is saying -
Humans invade EVERYTHING, driving everything else (that suits their likes and dislikes) out. Humans don't live in the "wild" but yet we take it over and destroy it to build.........whatever more malls and townhouses. I think if we kept down the human (population) breeding we wouldn't have to destroy what's left of forest's and open land so we could all live in peace (ya right!)


----------



## conditionfreak (Jan 11, 2008)

Well, I understand that for sure. But we are no more an "evasive" species than the pigeon, rat or canine. Being on just about every continent for 60,000 or more years, is not really an invasive species. Are ants an invasive species if they build a mound in a corn field, or is the farmer who planted the corn? Now that is a question.

As a matter of fact. People were here in the good ole U.S. of A. long before the rock dove and long before Christopher Columbus.

But I do get the meant point.


----------



## Charis (Feb 11, 2007)

StanelyPidge09 said:


> I found this thread a little to late but what the heck I will give my opinion anyways! ...
> 
> We, humans, are the biggest invasive species there is so why do we have the right to "eliminate" or even discriminate against other "invasive" species?? To me this is ridiculous! Every animal on this planet have the right to live regardless and humans have no right to say who gets to live, be helped, or who gets to die. The fact the people do think they have this right is disgusting!




I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## spirit wings (Mar 29, 2008)

StanelyPidge09 said:


> I found this thread a little to late but what the heck I will give my opinion anyways! ...
> 
> We, humans, are the biggest invasive species there is so why do we have the right to "eliminate" or even discriminate against other "invasive" species?? To me this is ridiculous! Every animal on this planet have the right to live regardless and humans have no right to say who gets to live, be helped, or who gets to die. The fact the people do think they have this right is disgusting!


we even kill our own embryos and it's legal!!!! whats a little bird or a rat for that matter? I agree with the right to live for all creatures including humans.


----------



## romanallover (Jan 31, 2010)

if you have a garden of roses and weed seed lands in it and starts taking up space and recources that normaly are used up by roses the thed roses need to be saved......just like they say now days save the enviorment.......from mans own doing.

Also I was one reading comments fallowing a pigeon story and one poster goes on the typical dissiease ridden, disease spreading invasive truble making birds...and someone replied with "sounds like you're talking about man" I had a lough


----------



## StanelyPidge09 (May 22, 2009)

MSFreebird and Romanallover nailed it on the head. That is exactly what I meant. 

And... Technically humans are native to Africa and we spread to other continents therefore we are an invasive species. And when we did (and still do) migrate we took over every habitat, consuming resources needed by other species that had been there for thousands of years before, the natives.

ConditionFreak, I do think we are more of an invasive species then the rat and pigeon... BUT, what my whole point is, is that we too are an invasive species and therefore we should not have the right to destroy other creatures for being "invasive species" and doing the same as what we did and are still doing (although pigeons and rats have an *extremely* smaller impact on the planet then humans do). Do you see what I mean? Its completely hypocritical.


----------



## mr squeaks (Apr 14, 2005)

Oh boy....can't help but weigh in here on human "invasiveness."

Some want to explore space and other worlds. Personally, I think that until we can clean up our own nest (world) and learn to co-exist, we have no business "invading" outer space! 

Maybe we WILL get a wake-up call in 2012 as has been mentioned. 

Hopefully, this change will come in the form of some type of "enlightenment" rather than planet destruction. After all, we have hardly begun to explore our *inner resources/power!*

Love and Hugs
Shi


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

StanelyPidge09 said:


> I found this thread a little to late but what the heck I will give my opinion anyways! ...
> 
> We, humans, are the biggest invasive species there is so why do we have the right to "eliminate" or even discriminate against other "invasive" species?? To me this is ridiculous! Every animal on this planet have the right to live regardless and humans have no right to say who gets to live, be helped, or who gets to die. The fact the people do think they have this right is disgusting!


You speak of rights as if they're some sort of concrete things that you're able to examine on a physical level. The thing is: they aren't anything like that. Rights are something that exist inside the structure that limits us so that we may live together without tearing each others' throats out and pillaging the neighboring village or something to that effect. Rights aren't inherent to people or animals, they're placed upon you by someone else. The only thing that can give rights to something else is a human being and rights aren't a big holy thing either, because most of the time giving rights to someone or something is just limiting your own behaviour in a way that benefits someone else and, indirectly, the giver of said rights.

So, what you're saying doesn't mean much to me, and I refuse to strain my brain too much thinking about it any deeper before asking this question: if every animal on this planet has a right to live in your opinion and no human has the right to decide what dies, are you a vegan? I sure hope so, because otherwise you'd sound very much like a hypocrite. Also, if you really think we should refrain from exterminating animals even though they're an enviromental problem we've made happen, are you saying that all those cats, rabbits, and foxes in Australia, for example, should be let to destroy the native wildlife of the continent? You might as well toss a few barrels of crude oil into a river and not clean it up on the grounds that oil is a natural compound and therefore is somehow regained its "sanctity" when it's returned to nature. That'd be thoughtless and spineless.

In other words: if we've screwed up, we clean up. If something's directly or indirectly causing damage to the enviroment because of us, we're the ones who have to do something about it because our world and our lives are at stake. If it's pigeons causing strain for one reason or another, I'm all for population control despite them being some of my favourite animals. We all draw a line somewhere and we usually aren't able to draw it so that it's 100% logical, so if you want to draw the line there, do it for all I care. But don't expect other people to act according to your preferences just because. 



StanelyPidge09 said:


> MSFreebird and Romanallover nailed it on the head. That is exactly what I meant.
> 
> And... Technically humans are native to Africa and we spread to other continents therefore we are an invasive species. And when we did (and still do) migrate we took over every habitat, consuming resources needed by other species that had been there for thousands of years before, the natives.
> 
> ConditionFreak, I do think we are more of an invasive species then the rat and pigeon... BUT, what my whole point is, is that we too are an invasive species and therefore we should not have the right to destroy other creatures for being "invasive species" and doing the same as what we did and are still doing (although pigeons and rats have an *extremely* smaller impact on the planet then humans do). Do you see what I mean? Its completely hypocritical.


You speak as if you assume that I'm somehow NOT also trying to minimise our effect on nature on other levels. Well, FYI, I'm trying. I'm doing what I can to lessen our load. I try to make a difference in politics, I actively take part in public conversations about it, and I make everyday choices according to what I know about the ecological effects of said choices. I don't drive a car nor will I probably ever drive one, I avoid certain kinds of products, I try to only buy things that are produced somewhere near me, I'm not going to get children of my own, I recycle, I try to grow as many edible things myself as I possibly can, I try to promote alternate, less energy-consuming lifestyle choices, I'm keeping an eye out for a non-governmental enviromental organisation that I could join but isn't totally bananas, and I do various small things every day such as close windows and turn down lights when someone's forgotten about them. 

I don't do any of these purely to "save the world" and I'm not saying that absolutely everyone should do them to be good people, they're things that fit my lifestyle and are relevant to my personal interests. In any case, it's not like I'm paying extra special negative attention to pigeons and forgetting the rest. I generally hate it when people are paying extra special negative OR positive attention to things when the reasons are purely emotional and held higher than other people's equally selfish desires. I hate it when people mask their emotional needs as something they do for the sake of greater good when they could just admit that, in the end, the consequences matter, not why they're doing it. I hate it when people can't admit that what they're doing may in fact be meaningless or even harmful. I'd understand it if people came out straight and said "Y'know what, screw you: this is important to me and I don't want you telling me that it's not", but no, it's usually rationalisations upon rationalisations why what what they like is more important than something else and why everyone should accept it without question.

And this is pretty much the whole point I've had about this pigeon matter this whole time -- as much as one might like common pigeons, there's no reason to put them on a pedestal or demand immunity for them beyond one's personal preferences. They don't need special protection, they're not in a situation where you can demand special treatment for them from other people, it could be that we pigeon lovers need them more than they need us, and any special connection we might have to them is our own business. You can't force other people to share this connection unless you can somehow appeal to them. Until then it's these other people's business what they do to pigeons as long as it's legal.


----------



## romanallover (Jan 31, 2010)

Verp said:


> And this is pretty much the whole point I've had about this pigeon matter this whole time -- as much as one might like common pigeons, there's no reason to put them on a pedestal or demand immunity for them beyond one's personal preferences. They don't need special protection, they're not in a situation where you can demand special treatment for them from other people, it could be that we pigeon lovers need them more than they need us, and any special connection we might have to them is our own business. You can't force other people to share this connection unless you can somehow appeal to them. Until then it's these other people's business what they do to pigeons as long as it's legal.


I try to put possitive tughts about pigeons into people head or refer them to my pigeon video(havent found anyone who doesnt like it  ) because of woody harlsom(???) vast amount of people have single view of thousands of birds, it would be like if it was reverse all people thought that all dogs are the same as feral dogs....feral dogs are probably the nestiest thing on four legs(we had alot of them where I grew up)....buts thats not really the true dog that we know.....is it


----------



## Pigeonlove (May 6, 2008)

Verp, how can you even say you love Pigeons? I don't know of anybody who gets funding for helping Pigeons. People do it out of the kindness of their hearts, or volunteer for a non-profit organization. Have you ever been to a city park that has Pigeons and where people fish? How many Pigeons did you see there with fishing line wrapped around their feet? Or how many Pigeons had missing toes or missing feet? People cause that harm, so people should step in and help. Tell me one person you know who has gotten sick or hurt from a Pigeon?


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Pigeonlove said:


> Verp, how can you even say you love Pigeons? I don't know of anybody who gets funding for helping Pigeons. People do it out of the kindness of their hearts, or volunteer for a non-profit organization. Have you ever been to a city park that has Pigeons and where people fish? How many Pigeons did you see there with fishing line wrapped around their feet? Or how many Pigeons had missing toes or missing feet? People cause that harm, so people should step in and help.


I can easily say that I love pigeons. Why couldn't I? Also, people here don't usually fish in parks or other urban areas (is that something people do in the USA or wherever you live?), so I have never seen a pigeon with fishing line wrapped around their feet. I have seen pigeons with frostbitten feet or toes. 

Anyway, I quite honestly don't consider it my job to ensure every living pigeon's happiness and well-being just because it was my ancestors' fault that they ended up living on their own. I have no intention to blow insane amounts of effort into saving pigeons one by one when it's the hostile enviroment we've released them to and the pigeons' sometimes problematic ability to survive in absolutely miserable conditions that's causing the suffering. The source of this problem is us having created the initial feral generations and continuing to provide them food and places to nest so large pigeon concentrations can occur in places where it's problematic to us. This is where I take a whack at the problem: on large scale, not on individual level. I would probably provide a permanent home to an injured feral pigeon or two if it were legal, but I don't rehab feral animals into the wild and I don't want feral animals rehabbed if I can do anything about it.

If non-profit organisations do pigeon rehabbing here, it's very likely it uses public funding because just about any non-profit, non-governmental organisation can get funding from the government. As far as I know how things work in my country, injured unprotected birds are usually put down by vets if their injuries are anything life-altering, such as broken bones. There's only a handful of birds that aren't protected and domestic pigeons are among them. I consider this situation rather good, although I kind of wish it was legal to permanently house a feral pigeon.



Pigeonlove said:


> Tell me one person you know who has gotten sick or hurt from a Pigeon?


... Where have I claimed that pigeons have directly hurt people or made them sick? I would like it if you pointed out where I said that. I believe I have said that pigeons can be a severe nuisance and a problem to people's livelihood when there's an overpopulation of pigeons. Also, when there's an overpopulation of pigeons, it tends to be a problem to the pigeons themselves as well because then they are forced to struggle with space, diseases, parasites, stress, etc.

Here there aren't millions upon millions of pigeons, thankfully, because the populations are rather small thanks to the climate and the preferred architectural styles, among other things. People are still feeding them in the most heavily populated southern areas where pigeons and other city dwelling animals need the absolute least amount of help to live, and I consider this kind of feeding a shame. People often fail to understand the consequences of the feeding they do or are even able to provide the animals with anything else than junk food.


----------



## StanelyPidge09 (May 22, 2009)

> if every animal on this planet has a right to live in your opinion and no human has the right to decide what dies, are you a vegan?


First of all, Verp, I am a vegan. So no, I don't even believe that we should consume animals or animal products.

And I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying you aren't trying to minimize your footstep on this planet. Actually, I never brought up any of the matters you seem to be discussing so I am not even going to comment on most of what you said.

All I am and was saying is that I every creature feels pain, wants to live and not to die, and I don't agree with or support the idea that as humans we are masters of all and can decide who gets to live and who gets to die, whether or not they are native or invasive. If, for whatever reason whether natural or due to our actions, people want or need to protect one animal over another, there are *non-violent *ways to discourage animals from consuming resources vital to other animals.


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

StanelyPidge09 said:


> First of all, Verp, I am a vegan. So no, I don't even believe that we should consume animals or animal products.
> 
> And I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying you aren't trying to minimize your footstep on this planet. Actually, I never brought up any of the matters you seem to be discussing so I am not even going to comment on most of what you said.
> 
> All I am and was saying is that I every creature feels pain, wants to live and not to die, and I don't agree with or support the idea that as humans we are masters of all and can decide who gets to live and who gets to die, whether or not they are native or invasive. If, for whatever reason whether natural or due to our actions, people want or need to protect one animal over another, there are *non-violent *ways to discourage animals from consuming resources vital to other animals.


Well. this is probably where we part ways the most, because I consider myself an omnivorous animal. I find all lifestyles to be dependent on exploiting SOME kinds of living organisms and I don't find it necessary to draw a definite line between plants, fungi, micro organisms, and animals for any reason. I don't think there's anything automatically wrong with killing and/or consuming things that are dead either -- it's a part of nature's wonders. I'm far more concerned about ecological effects and the way animals are treated in general than the lives of domestic animals. Rather than to stop producing meat, I want it to become more ecologically sound and easier on the animals.

Finally, I too prefer less intrusive methods to regulate invasive species than killing, but only when it's practical.


----------



## Tamara21 (Jun 24, 2009)

Verp...I am sorry to say this but I have never in my life heard so much bullsh#t come out of someone.Your posts are full of your opinions, the things that matter to you and what you have come across during your lifetime we can't argue with that and you certainaly can't argue with others views.I see that you enjoy debating but it is no longer a debate when it becomes senseless rantings.Every living thing we all know has an impact on earth and every human being has the right to do what they want about it.You will find on this site most of us want to help, care & rescue pigeons.So with that I say to you pick your battles because case closed you are outnumbered here by people that don't agree with your opinions. And yes I am a vegetarian as well since you asked in an earlier post.


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Tamara21 said:


> Verp...I am sorry to say this but I have never in my life heard so much bullsh#t come out of someone.Your posts are full of your opinions, the things that matter to you and what you have come across during your lifetime we can't argue with that and you certainaly can't argue with others views.I see that you enjoy debating but it is no longer a debate when it becomes senseless rantings.Every living thing we all know has an impact on earth and every human being has the right to do what they want about it.You will find on this site most of us want to help, care & rescue pigeons.So with that I say to you pick your battles because case closed you are outnumbered here by people that don't agree with your opinions. And yes I am a vegetarian as well since you asked in an earlier post.


Of course my posts are full of opinions and things that matter to me. If I haven't addressed them clearly enough as such, then I apologise. To clarify, I hardly ever debate about things that aren't somehow relevant to my interests. I enjoy pitting my opinions against someone else's and see how they fare.

But anyway, what? I can't argue with you guys? Then, what have I been doing the last few posts then? It's obviously something I can do, never mind that I might be outnumbered or disliked. It's certainly unfortunate, but I don't mind being disliked for my rantings or for defending an unpopular opinion. So, I dunno, the way you're implying that there are some kind of severe consequences if I don't stop now isn't very discouraging, if that's what you were after. As long as people keep replying with sufficiently interesting content and neither I or this thread are done away with, I have no reason to stop until it becomes boring.


----------



## Msfreebird (Sep 23, 2007)

Verp said:


> Of course my posts are full of opinions and things that matter to me. If I haven't addressed them clearly enough as such, then I apologise. To clarify, I hardly ever debate about things that aren't somehow relevant to my interests. I enjoy pitting my opinions against someone else's and see how they fare.
> 
> But anyway, what? I can't argue with you guys? Then, what have I been doing the last few posts then? It's obviously something I can do, never mind that I might be outnumbered or disliked. It's certainly unfortunate, but I don't mind being disliked for my rantings or for defending an unpopular opinion. So, I dunno, the way you're implying that there are some kind of severe consequences if I don't stop now isn't very discouraging, if that's what you were after. As long as people keep replying with sufficiently interesting content and neither I or this thread are done away with, I have no reason to stop until it becomes boring.


Just curious - Do you have any pigeons of your own? (sorry if this was stated someplace else - I missed it)


----------



## RachelsaurusRex (Feb 10, 2010)

To those of you who rescue (pigeons, rats, feral cats, raccoons, kangaroos, Komodo dragons, sabertooth tigers, unicorns, fruit flies or WHATEVER ELSE) you KNOW in your hearts that what you do is meaningful and necessary. Forget the naysayers, CLEARLY some folks get their kicks arguing just for the hell of it. Keep doing what you do and never let anybody make you feel like you have to prove it's worthwhile.


----------



## RachelsaurusRex (Feb 10, 2010)

Oh, and PS: People like that are similar to feral cats in that if you stop feeding them they'll eventually go away


----------



## bluebirdsnfur (Jan 20, 2009)

Well said Rachel!


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Msfreebird said:


> Just curious - Do you have any pigeons of your own? (sorry if this was stated someplace else - I missed it)


Not as of yet because currently I can't house any pets. Until I finish my studies and move into a decent-sized flat, I'm trying my best to absorb as much pigeon information as possible. That's the main reason I lurk this site.



RachelsaurusRex said:


> To those of you who rescue (pigeons, rats, feral cats, raccoons, kangaroos, Komodo dragons, sabertooth tigers, unicorns, fruit flies or WHATEVER ELSE) you KNOW in your hearts that what you do is meaningful and necessary. Forget the naysayers, CLEARLY some folks get their kicks arguing just for the hell of it. Keep doing what you do and never let anybody make you feel like you have to prove it's worthwhile.


Just for the hell of it? Well it's not like it's THAT simple. Whatever it is that you want to believe, I'm not trolling. Y'know, intentionally saying very provocative things, telling totally fabricated things to make you angry, and trying to pit other people on this board against each other. If you're angry right now, I certainly wasn't aiming for that. I'm expressing my opinions not only because it's a relatively enjoyable pastime, but also because exchanging opinions and information is very important.

It's sort of a shame that you think people should simply 'forget the naysayers'. Much can be gained from not resorting to a knee-jerk reaction and trying to see if opposing opinions have any merit no matter how strongly you feel about the subject. 



RachelsaurusRex said:


> Oh, and PS: People like that are similar to feral cats in that if you stop feeding them they'll eventually go away


So... You want to exclude me from this board just because we don't see eye to eye?


----------



## RachelsaurusRex (Feb 10, 2010)

*Rolls eyes*

Keep up the good work in rescuing, guys and gals!!!


----------



## JDHoward (Feb 8, 2010)

Pigeonlove said:


> Verp, how can you even say you love Pigeons? I don't know of anybody who gets funding for helping Pigeons. People do it out of the kindness of their hearts, or volunteer for a non-profit organization. Have you ever been to a city park that has Pigeons and where people fish? How many Pigeons did you see there with fishing line wrapped around their feet? Or how many Pigeons had missing toes or missing feet? People cause that harm, so people should step in and help. Tell me one person you know who has gotten sick or hurt from a Pigeon?


Ever hear of Pigeon breeders disease?


----------



## JDHoward (Feb 8, 2010)

RachelsaurusRex said:


> Oh, and PS: People like that are similar to feral cats in that if you stop feeding them they'll eventually go away


You've never dealt w/ feral cats eh?


----------



## JDHoward (Feb 8, 2010)

Sorry y'all. Verp's right! arguein for fun & the exchange of information IS a valuable asset to any board. Diversity is what makes wakin up worth doin. How boring this board would be if Verp were gone & all ya ever did was high five & agree w/ a cute video?


----------



## JDHoward (Feb 8, 2010)

StanelyPidge09 said:


> I found this thread a little to late but what the heck I will give my opinion anyways! ...
> 
> We, humans, are the biggest invasive species there is so why do we have the right to "eliminate" or even discriminate against other "invasive" species?? To me this is ridiculous! Every animal on this planet have the right to live regardless and humans have no right to say who gets to live, be helped, or who gets to die. The fact the people do think they have this right is disgusting!


It's called bein on top of the food chain baby! Read the Bible!


----------



## RachelsaurusRex (Feb 10, 2010)

JDHoward said:


> You've never dealt w/ feral cats eh?


It's actually part of my occupation.


----------



## JDHoward (Feb 8, 2010)

Then you should know beter. Feral cats don't go away simply by starving them. They find food - that's how they survived to become feral.


----------



## RachelsaurusRex (Feb 10, 2010)

If there's no food source, there's no colony. They'll either move on to a location with a food source, or starve. That's why most TNR organizations won't return ferals to properties where they won't be fed. You're obviously another one of those people who enjoy arguing just for the sake of it.


----------



## Msfreebird (Sep 23, 2007)

JDHoward said:


> Ever hear of Pigeon breeders disease?


 You need to do a little more reading up!
As as far as humans being on the top of the food chain "BABY", wrong again! Humans just have an "unfair" advantage, ie. weapons. I'd love to see you take on a shark, rhino, lion (get my drift) with your bare hands and feet 

Argue all you want - BUT, this is a PRO PIGEON forum, so I don't understand why anyone would want to waste their time unless their THAT bored


----------



## Teresa (Jul 10, 2005)

JDHoward and Verp,

Please don't feel that you're being pushed out, _unless_ you are advocating killing pigeons as a form of population control if that is the most practical approach, because that violates the rules of this forum.

It's plain that you like to debate, but I would urge you not to do it in such a way as to needlessly upset long-standing members: this isn't a debating society, it's a pigeon forum.
And it may not have crossed your mind, but we've heard all those old chestnuts time and time again. You're not original, you're not interesting, and you're not that bright. You're just massaging your egos. Try politics.

Personally, I take umbrage with the statement that rescuers get government funding. Most of us only spend our own hard-earned money, and I, for one, do not need any advice on how to spend it.

Notions that mankind is the ruling species on the planet are only as old as mankind itself. The top survivor spot on the podium has been occupied by many other species before, and will be occupied by others to come when there's nothing left of us but fossils. Until then we might as well do something positive rather than otherwise.


----------



## Verp (Apr 17, 2009)

Teresa said:


> JDHoward and Verp,
> 
> Please don't feel that you're being pushed out, _unless_ you are advocating killing pigeons as a form of population control if that is the most practical approach, because that violates the rules of this forum.


As far as I'm concerned, banning feeding, managing waste, and making nesting places unusable are most efficient ways. But I also don't think that the killing of animals, when it's humane, should be banned simply because you feel strongly about something. If your reasoning's flimsy, the only way you're going to get it done is to use some sort of a backdoor approach. Using a backdoor approach is usually a bad thing -- even if nobody's holding it against you, anyone can use the backdoor once you've opened it.



Teresa said:


> It's plain that you like to debate, but I would urge you not to do it in such a way as to needlessly upset long-standing members: this isn't a debating society, it's a pigeon forum.
> And it may not have crossed your mind, but we've heard all those old chestnuts time and time again. You're not original, you're not interesting, and you're not that bright. You're just massaging your egos. Try politics.


That has crossed my mind, but there has been relatively little to support it this far. If you know things, it'd be logical that you'd also present the information. If you've all handled arguments like this before and not given up or wound up as the underdog, then surely you've countered them with reason and verified information? That's what I'm after here.

If you are trying to hurt me, then I'm more hurt at you trying to hurt me rather than what you're saying -- why would you do that intentionally? Also, why would you want someone you don't agree with take up politics? Is that something you often say to people who you don't agree with? Surely you would rather be represented by someone whose interests are similar to yours. 



Teresa said:


> Personally, I take umbrage with the statement that rescuers get government funding. Most of us only spend our own hard-earned money, and I, for one, do not need any advice on how to spend it.


Well I didn't say that you people are getting money from the government, did I? If I did, I didn't mean that. In my country organisations get public funding and if animal shelter organisations decided to start rescuing all the pigeons they get, that would be at least partially funded by the government. And that would really grind my gears. 



Teresa said:


> Notions that mankind is the ruling species on the planet are only as old as mankind itself. The top survivor spot on the podium has been occupied by many other species before, and will be occupied by others to come when there's nothing left of us but fossils. Until then we might as well do something positive rather than otherwise.


I don't even know what attributes make some species a "ruling species". As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing.


----------

