# Where there is no Vet



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

Hi all,

I don't know how many people are aware of the books "where there is no Doctor" and "where there is no Dentist". These are survival type books compiled by specialists who want to help those who may, for whatever reason, not have proper medical help available to them.
I would like to compile an equivalent manual for those that are working with wildlife, and because of budgetary constraints, are unable to use the services of a Vet. The organisation I am currently volunteering with, London Wildlife Protection, is being called more and more frequently by members of the public who have rescued birds and other wildlife. The reason for this is that most of the big agencies tell the public that all they can do with the birds that they have rescued is put them down. I don't know why this situation with the big agencies is getting worse, but it is. There is a lot of talk between rescuers in the UK at the moment about this problem. The agency I volunteer for has a no kill policy, so we are usually called when the public have exhausted all the big agencies and are not happy to have the wildlife sent to them.
The problem for us is that we have little funds to send animals to vets. We have vets that are helpful to use, but they have to make a living, and we can only afford to send the most serious cases to them.
There are many operations that can be taken on by ordinary people in situation where no doctor is available, such as stitching wounds etc. I think equivalent opertations could be carried out by a competent rescuer with wounded wildlife. I want to make it clear that the alternative is that the wound does not get treated properly because we cannot afford to send every case of stitching to the vet. I would like to consult with interested vets about making a book like this so that it could be distributed to other agencies that have a no kill policy and may be under the same kind of financial strains as us. The argument that such a book may fall into the hands of incompetent people is a valid one, and I'm sure this occurred to the people who wrote the "where there is no doctor" guide, but like myself, they must have concluded that more good than harm would come of it.

If anyone knows of vets who might be interested in helping me compile the "where there is no vet" manual, please let me know. There is no profit motive here, I simply want vets that are willing to help to be able to give information to people that desperately need it.


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Hi

The idea sounds good in principle, but I think one needs to consider that, given what I understand to be the 'target audience', there are pretty good guides to wildlife casualties and care already available and which should be understandable for the most part by people in that field.

From what you've said, it would look like the people it is aimed at would be those who are already active in some capacity, be it in a non-fee but professional-type organization, or volunteers for a rescue/rehab facility. I guess an obvious question would be "...but surely such people would already have the basics of wildlife firat-aid to do what they are doing?". Although we aren't rehabbers, we bought a couple of decent publications for our purposes which may be worth any dedicated rescue organization's while (though they ain't just a couple of quid each) which I detail below.

As regards 'operations', I think about the only thing described in the publication you refer to is wound stitching, and that with a few provisos. It should be within the scope of an experienced rehabber, I would imagine, as may be splinting breaks. I'd certainly suggest that anything more like 'intrusive surgery' should only be performed by a vet or a well-experienced rehabber, and would quite likely require someone competent to give anaesthetic too.

The big problem with birds particularly is that they can't tell you where it hurts or what they're feeling, as opposed to human patients (assuming they are conscious and can communicate) as described in the publication. 

Anyway, here are the books we have:


(1) BSAVA Manual of Raptors, Pigeons and Passerine Birds

Edited by: John Chitty ** and Michael Lierz

At some stage most veterinary surgeons will be asked to treat one of these types of bird. This Manual provides in-depth coverage of the commonly-kept species and the problems seen in clinical practice. The Manual covers husbandry, medicine and surgery and includes a formulary and laboratory reference ranges. While concentrating on providing easy access to information, the Manual will also serve as an introductory text for those wishing to study the subject in greater depth.

** http://antonvets.co.uk/john-chitty


(2) PRACTICAL WILDLIFE CARE

LES STOCKER MBE**

Wildlife care and rehabilitation is often on a one-to-one basis and involves a lot of time, care and skill. However, for many years, care of injured wildlife was regarded as a low priority and euthanasia was the recommended option. A lot has changed over the past twenty years and now caring for wildlife casualties is part of everyday life in many veterinary practices.

Following on from the major success of the first edition, this second edition provides even more useful information on wildlife care and rehabilitation. As well as covering a whole range of species, with sections on birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, this edition now includes information on many 'alien' species appearing in the British countryside such as wallabies, wild boar and exotic reptiles.

In this edition:

* Essential guidance on handling, first aid, feeding and releasing, and many other disciplines not featured in veterinary or nursing training;

* Full of helpful tips from an expert in wildlife rehabilitation who has unparalleled practical experience;

* Expanded chapters on the care of all species - particularly casualty badgers, otters and hedgehogs - and more comprehensive guidance on rearing orphaned mammals and birds;

* Lots more colour pictures to aid in management and care techniques and the latest information on zoonotic diseases from around the world.


** St.Tiggywinkles


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

A nice list, but we have quite a few of these books ourselves. The point of the "where there is no vet" book is the same as the "where there is no doctor" book. It is to take things to the next level. Many first aid manuals will describe things a first aider could do to help a person with a wound, but up to a point, then it is suggested that the person be taken to a doctor or hospital. The "where there is no doctor" book takes things to the next level, telling you information to do things that a doctor would do if he were available. Obviously some things require skill and would be better done by a doctor who has had a lot of practice, but in a situation where no doctor is available it is better that someone do what the doctor would do rather than nothing being done to help the person. I think we need an equivalent manual for where there is no way to take the animal to a vet. In the charity organisation that I work for, there are many times we will carry out procedures that a vet has shown us. The vets have understood that we cannot afford to pay for all the animals that need to see a vet. They have shown us as much as they can so that we are able to do as much as is possible. In a way, we could write down the things that we have been shown, but I would prefer a vet to help with the professional writing of these articles. The vet could check the articles to make sure nothing has been left out.
I hope you can see that the manual I am proposing is the only way that some animals are going to get the treatment that they need,


----------



## spirit wings (Mar 29, 2008)

tell them to check into pigeon talk's resource section it is books and books of care information.


----------



## hong kong pigeons (Sep 30, 2013)

BHenderson said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I don't know how many people are aware of the books "where there is no Doctor" and "where there is no Dentist". These are survival type books compiled by specialists who want to help those who may, for whatever reason, not have proper medical help available to them.
> I would like to compile an equivalent manual for those that are working with wildlife, and because of budgetary constraints, are unable to use the services of a Vet. The organisation I am currently volunteering with, London Wildlife Protection, is being called more and more frequently by members of the public who have rescued birds and other wildlife. The reason for this is that most of the big agencies tell the public that all they can do with the birds that they have rescued is put them down. I don't know why this situation with the big agencies is getting worse, but it is. There is a lot of talk between rescuers in the UK at the moment about this problem. The agency I volunteer for has a no kill policy, so we are usually called when the public have exhausted all the big agencies and are not happy to have the wildlife sent to them.
> ...


I have the similar ideas. There are many vets for cats and dogs and other common pets, but there is rare a vet familiar with birds, Avian Vets. I think bird vets are the specialist in specialist.

The book should at least contain:
1) The common knowledge for birds illness
2) where can find the appropriate drugs (it is difficult to find those drugs in many countries)
3) The book should categorize the level of training like LevelI, LevelII, etc. So that the learners can fully understand themselves what operations/rescue can perform by themselves
4) advocate more about the voluntary rescue, in the hope that by which the Pharmacy for animals become more and popular
5) laws in many countries do not allow people other than vets to perform operations and prescribe. This might be loosen if this became popular in public.


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

The books referred to are, as Brian said, survival guides. They do not detail what one might consider real surgical procedures. It is more like first aid, the kind of thing one would learn on a volunteer first-aider course. Similarly, they are not intended as teach-yourself guides to becoming a doctor.

When it comes to pigeons, or any wildlife, there are very sound books on first aid for animals. Frankly, I don't believe anyone who is not veterinary qualified in the avian field could - or should - try to produce anything for 'the public' use. 

To the best of my knowledge we are all 'amateurs' on here, and it takes a professional to teach others. When you see books like 'Fit to win' or 'The flying vet's guide' for pigeon health, both authors are fanciers but are also professional vets.


----------



## spirit wings (Mar 29, 2008)

I know this is an old thread, but IMO the information or use of it is for people who have no other choices because they are too far away, out in the wilderness living there. NOT for people who just don't want to spend the money or DIY selfers that think they know more than an educated DR.

and just a thought the amount of folks living off the grid is small.


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

I'll make this point again, although I believe all here know the point I am making as I have made it several times.
Pigeons are numerous, and I don't know about the US, but in the UK they are generally disliked, even by those who should know better like vets. I started treating pigeons because every day I was seeing pigeon's in a very distressing state. Now I tried to seek out professional help within the area I was able to travel reasonably, but all the free vets refused to help me with pigeons, no argument.
I started to learn things by reading the internet, but the information on the internet is often contradictory and confused. I had to sort it all out by reading as much as I could. I started looking after pigeons and buying my own drugs. I struggle to buy drugs, and the money I spend on drugs would hardly pay for more than 2 visits to a vet, so vets are simply out of the question. I have tried to find local organisations that could help me with the more serious injuries, but found out in the process that people were taking my name because they also had failed to find organisations to take pigeons. I again emphasise the numbers problems here, there are a lot of pigeons and a lot of sick and injured pigeons. Most of the organisations that take wildlife want to keep their space for less prevalent species. I do not see things that way, a pigeons injuries are just as important as a rare species, they both suffer the same.
It should also be mentioned here that the organisations that will SOMETIMES come out for a pigeon, such as the RSPCA, have a very bad reputation with many stories being told of pigeons being unnecessarily put to sleep(sometimes by having their necks broken in the back of a van). Many of the workers that now work with me at LWP have horrible stories of how pigeons were taken away from them and "dealt with" in the back of the RSPCA van.
I have now got in contact with LWP, a new charity that has as its main aim the care of pigeons in London, and a lot of the birds we pick up are from people who did not want to call the RSPCA because of their reputation.
I have learnt a lot members of this charity, and I have taught a lot as well. I have learnt a lot of things that could go well into a book like "where there is no vet". It is not a matter of trying to avoid paying vet fee's, it is simply a matter of not having the money to pay the fee's in the first place. The pigeons that are being treated now because of new skills I have learnt from members of this charity would simply not be treated at all if I had to take them to a vet.
I know it is a dangerous thing to write about procedures that normally are only carried out by vets, but I am weighing this up against not being treated at all. I am convinced that unless there is a way to get a vet to see a certain number of cases for a fixed fee that we MAY be able to raise occasionally, this book is a necessary evil.
Again I state that it is a choice between the book or not being treated at all. When it is put in these terms I think the case is easily made.
Anyway, far more information is available to the public about carrying out procedures on humans that should only be done by a doctor than is currently available for animals.
I have been passing around articles that I have written about things I have learned to other pigeon people asking for comments. When I think these articles are reaching a reasonable stage I am happy to pass them to members here to critique before I compile them into a book. If I do release the material publicly it will be as a pdf for free, there is no profit motive. I want to see more pigeons treated rather than left to die slowly.


----------



## Jay3 (May 4, 2008)

John_D said:


> The books referred to are, as Brian said, survival guides. They do not detail what one might consider real surgical procedures. It is more like first aid, the kind of thing one would learn on a volunteer first-aider course. Similarly, they are not intended as teach-yourself guides to becoming a doctor.
> 
> *When it comes to pigeons, or any wildlife, there are very sound books on first aid for animals. Frankly, I don't believe anyone who is not veterinary qualified in the avian field could - or should - try to produce anything for 'the public' use. *
> 
> To the best of my knowledge we are all 'amateurs' on here, and it takes a professional to teach others. When you see books like 'Fit to win' or 'The flying vet's guide' for pigeon health, both authors are fanciers but are also professional vets.




Have to agree with John here. And let's be honest, something like that is just another reason for those who do not want to go to a vet, and would rather perform dangerous procedures on a pigeon themselves. There are already people who will try these things. And in the end, the birds suffer more. Why encourage it.


----------



## tbmama (Jul 3, 2013)

I think there is a need for this type of information out there. would it need to be in book form though? or could you run a website with the information for free? I think that would reach more people and the info be more available to anyone who wants to help with rescue or rehab. 

with regards to treatment, I think you would need to look outside the box a little, so instead of instructions on stitching up a wound, I think simple disinfection instructions coupled with using those plaster stitches that doctors often use now would be less intrusive for the bird, but also less intimidating for the rescuer. e.g. I rehabbed a pidgeon that had been attacked by a cat and was very cut up on it's shoulders/upper back area. It looked pretty bad and I didn't think the bird would make it but a friend who once did bird rescue gave me some advice on keeping it clean and I was really surprised to see this all heal up to perfection, no infection set in and the feathers grew back to normal. this is the sort of advice rehabbers need because it can go a long way but it's just not freely available from a vet or even a rescue organisation that isn't interested in helping. 

Also instructions on how to splint a broken wing for example would be useful, these are just the common treatments birds will need for injuries and would go a long way to helping the amateur rehab a bird without being too risky fro anyone involved.


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

Video linked together by drawings and pictures would be best, so yes a web site would be a good idea. It is very time consuming though, and video's that are clear are hard to make. I guess it comes down to how much time I have.


----------



## spirit wings (Mar 29, 2008)

I always have concern when people take on more than what they can attend to or even pay for. taking responsibily is just that. now leaving a creature to die is probably not going to happen to one who thinks with his emotions. so IMO part if not allot of the problem is over population of the birds because of "help", in which I mean feeding them like they can't be normal pigeons which is not true. they can and do when they need to find and forage for food in the long run this leads to less population. caring for these pigeons sometimes needs to be looked at realistically and to help maybe something totally different needs to happen, like education for the "pigeon mothers". more pigeons means more suffering, but perhaps that is what some of these people live for is for that to be so for their emotion wellbeing or loneliness? I woud start with changing of minds to help control the population and decrease the need to play DR.


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

There is no problem with overfeeding in London, you can be fined £80 if you are caught. A lot of the pigeons I deal with have been on the verge of starvation, and things are not going to get better any time soon. One of the things that motivated me to take an interest in what was happening to the pigeons was the obvious effort that the councils were going to to bring the population down. I did not like what they were doing because they were not bringing in these measures gradually, but suddenly with no warning or chance for the pigeons to adapt. I started to see pigeons that were starving and hurting themselves trying to get to food, and I helped them. I could not stand by while the council were being so cruel.

The arguments are not as straight forward as you are saying.


----------



## tbmama (Jul 3, 2013)

spirit wings I get what you are saying, it's a question of are we being kind by making these birds dependent on us in the first place. My take is no, these birds deserve to stay wild and be able to fend for themselves. I have a dove nest which sees fairly constant action and I sometimes wonder how the doves manage to feed themselves properly but they do, I see them foraging around and they are breeding so I have to assume they are eating enough to reproduce almost constantly. I also have other birds in pretty decent numbers visit my garden, but I planted shrubs etc to supply their needs so they were still independent of me being here. e.g. nectar shrubs for the nectar eaters, seed and nut producing shrubs, I also don't use pesticides so the insect eaters have food as well, and a bonus of that, is other animals like skinks get to feed too. I think it's all a matter of "build it and they will come", work with nature and don't try to interfere with it or change the way it works, and also accepting that these animals are not people, and sometimes helping them can easily go too far where they can't fend for themselves anymore, but while that may make us feel needed or good, it doesn't help them to do what comes naturally.


----------



## hong kong pigeons (Sep 30, 2013)

post #11 onwards, each point of view has its rationale behind, but pity that they collide with each other. I also want to have an absolute right ans here. What I have observed is: 
Natural do all the things for the creatures, including humans on the condition that they obey to the law/system of the Natural laid down. However, humans seem to have broken this matual agreement by their wisdom. As such, some of the humans go the 2nd layer of agreement breaking by some actions like feeding them and rescuring them, in the attempt of bringing the situation back to the Natural originally set up. The humans in the 2nd layer may be part of law of the Natural, in which some "force" drive them to do what they are doing.


----------



## tbmama (Jul 3, 2013)

hong kong pidgeons, I don't have a problem with rescuing or rehabbing a pidgeon since it's often unnatural causes that have them injured, e.g. people, cars, pets etc so rehabbing is like giving them a second chance that they should have had to begin with imo. But in rehabbing a pidgeon, I don't want to make them dependent or like a pet, where they are going to depend on me for the rest of their life, to me that's kindof selfish because it's not in their best interest to live that way. They don't need me, unless I make them needy, and all they really need is to be provided for, such as nesting sites, nesting materials, food sources, water etc and those things I do provide in as natural a way as possible so they can make use of them without me interfering. pidgeons and many other animals have adapted well to make use of people, so I don't believe in making them helpless, or dependent or trusting and weak etc.


----------



## spirit wings (Mar 29, 2008)

I think a law to not feed is counter productive, people break it because they just can't stop. what needs to happen is education and stigmatize people who do feed them as hurting the pigeons in the long run..basically it would be "NOT COOL". emotional folks would feel they are doing their part by not feeding them because it would be actually helping them. rehab the needy can go on as normal, but it would decrease/minimize the need. they did it in sweden and reduced numbers drastically but it took the "pigeon mothers" to change their thought process and emotions. it worked. less suffering is best.


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

Personally I think there is too little wildlife in London, when I was young there was much more. My grandad regularly took me out to feed either ducks or pigeons or swans or to see the tame squirrels etc. I believe their is only one place in London now to see tame squirrels. Wildlife is something we need to hold on to, with the increasing mechanisation of life and business taking priority in every part of life, we could one day find we have allowed our connection to nature to fade away alltogether. It will be a sad day. We need to stop trying to change nature and work with it instead. The way we are going now is straight for doomsday scenario, and when this happens many will turn and say "but no one told us what would happen". And we all know that is a lie.


----------



## hong kong pigeons (Sep 30, 2013)

BHenderson said:


> Personally I think there is too little wildlife in London, when I was young there was much more. My grandad regularly took me out to feed either ducks or pigeons or swans or to see the tame squirrels etc. I believe their is only one place in London now to see tame squirrels. Wildlife is something we need to hold on to, with the increasing mechanisation of life and business taking priority in every part of life, we could one day find we have allowed our connection to nature to fade away alltogether. It will be a sad day. We need to stop trying to change nature and work with it instead. The way we are going now is straight for doomsday scenario, and when this happens many will turn and say "but no one told us what would happen". And we all know that is a lie.


the new generation gets used to getting connection with nature from iphone and ipad and internet. 30 years later, "nature" means a domain name. All creatures can be seen in the screen. 

The problem you depicted is generated by 2 things: 1) GDP + 2) Over human population.


----------



## spirit wings (Mar 29, 2008)

BHenderson said:


> Personally I think there is too little wildlife in London, when I was young there was much more. My grandad regularly took me out to feed either ducks or pigeons or swans or to see the tame squirrels etc. I believe their is only one place in London now to see tame squirrels. Wildlife is something we need to hold on to, with the increasing mechanisation of life and business taking priority in every part of life, we could one day find we have allowed our connection to nature to fade away alltogether. It will be a sad day. We need to stop trying to change nature and work with it instead. The way we are going now is straight for doomsday scenario, and when this happens many will turn and say "but no one told us what would happen". And we all know that is a lie.


I agree, because changing nature is what happens when there is an UNnatural source of food, it puts nature off balance. more food means less natural activity to get their own, they need to be balanced so the population is in a state that is healthier. overpopulation is not healthy for them.


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

I don't understand this "overpopulation" idea. Who decides what overpopulation is? In London there has always been very little natural food for pigeons, they have always lived off what humans either drop of feed them. Suddenly humans decide they no longer like the pigeons and just want to cut off their food supply. I don't mind this being done slowly, as long as there are some pigeons left for those of us who enjoy their company, and there must be humans to feed them if there are some left.
Its very convenient for humans to suddenly decide that these pigeons can only survive if there is natural food around for them to live, when we long ago took all their natural sources of food and replaced them with buildings. Its selectively applying idea's to get the result you want, and it is very unfair to the pigeons. Ever since pigeons moved into city's to live alongside humans, they have lived of what we leave behind and what some willingly feed them. Forcing them to live off the small amount of natural food available will not be a return to a natural environment, but a very false environment which has never existed. The pigeons probably would never have moved into cities some 5000 years ago if it were not for the waste that humans leave behind. They used to serve a useful purpose in a number of different ways, especially fertilizer, but now we prefer to make our fertilizer in big chemical vats!!!!!


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Fact is, the pigeons never were 'natural' to our towns and cities. We (i.e., humans) brought them to human habitation for our own purposes. Pigeons were taken from the wild and kept for breeding as far back as the Romans and the Normans in Britain, and this continued for centuries. Of course, as pigeon-keeping for domestic and other uses became pretty much obsolete, the pigeons had to learn to survive in ever growing man made environents. Since then, as we know, numerous 'dropped out' homers have merged in with these flocks, producing the variety of plumages we have today. I don't see that we can just shrug it off with the 'they can find natural food' thing.


----------



## hong kong pigeons (Sep 30, 2013)

BHenderson said:


> I don't understand this "overpopulation" idea. Who decides what overpopulation is? In London there has always been very little natural food for pigeons, they have always lived off what humans either drop of feed them. Suddenly humans decide they no longer like the pigeons and just want to cut off their food supply. I don't mind this being done slowly, as long as there are some pigeons left for those of us who enjoy their company, and there must be humans to feed them if there are some left.
> Its very convenient for humans to suddenly decide that these pigeons can only survive if there is natural food around for them to live, when we long ago took all their natural sources of food and replaced them with buildings. Its selectively applying idea's to get the result you want, and it is very unfair to the pigeons. Ever since pigeons moved into city's to live alongside humans, they have lived of what we leave behind and what some willingly feed them. Forcing them to live off the small amount of natural food available will not be a return to a natural environment, but a very false environment which has never existed. The pigeons probably would never have moved into cities some 5000 years ago if it were not for the waste that humans leave behind. They used to serve a useful purpose in a number of different ways, especially fertilizer, but now we prefer to make our fertilizer in big chemical vats!!!!!


agree! especially for the highlighted.

humans put all wildlifes' living places to bulidings and now we come to their population is not satisfactory to what we expect and term it to be "overpopulation", by which rationalizes not giving them food. The most ironic is most of the birds expertises say they should be able to find enough food in nature.


----------



## spirit wings (Mar 29, 2008)

It is hard to let go of the same thinking patterns Im sure. here is a write up on some of what is being done for the pigeons. 

"SCIENCE WATCH; Basel Solves Problem Of Too Many Pigeons
By WALTER SULLIVAN



BY using slogans like "Feeding pigeons is animal cruelty" and nursing controlled flocks whose eggs were periodically removed, the city of Basel, Switzerland, sharply reduced its pigeon population in four years.

In a report in the Jan. 21 issue of the journal Nature, Dr. Daniel Haag-Wackernagel of the department of medical biology in the University of Basel's Institute of Pathology pointed out that most cities of the world are grossly overpopulated with pigeons. The birds live in "slum-like" conditions, he said, causing "a variety of health and environmental problems."

When Basel prohibited pigeon-feeding in 1978, the edict was ignored by bird lovers. The government therefore asked the university to study the problem and recommend a solution. It found that killing the pigeons was of no avail, since they quickly regenerated. The answer was to greatly reduce their food supply, heavily dependent on bird-feeders.

In the belief that bird overpopulation is a form of animal cruelty, the Basel Society for the Protection of Animals joined the city in an intensive education campaign. "Feeding pigeons has become taboo and only a few incorrigible people continue," Dr. Haag-Wackernagel wrote. To offer an alternative for "pigeon friends," he said, they built nine "controlled and well-kept pigeon lofts to house a small but healthy population." From these they removed about 1,200 eggs a year.

Pigeon-Action I was initiated in 1988, followed by Pigeon-Action II in 1990. Thirteen flocks were monitored weekly and after 50 months it was found that their population had fallen 50 percent, to 10,000 birds. The ultimate goal is 5,000."


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

You are totally missing the point here. The fact is that no one is arguing that the pigeons cannot be reduced, what we are arguing against is the way it is being done. It would be wonderful if all the cities that are reducing pigeon numbers were doing it in lovely humane ways, but they are not.
While they continue to starve pigeons to death and take away their homes before they have reduced the numbers, I am going to oppose them and help the pigeons. End of.


----------



## hong kong pigeons (Sep 30, 2013)

actually, can I know what the main reason for reducing the population of the pigeons? Just for reducing droppings, from which reduces the possibility of flu transmission??


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Pigeons don't transmit or acquire human 'flu, and they are very resistant to avian 'flu.


----------



## hong kong pigeons (Sep 30, 2013)

John_D said:


> Pigeons don't transmit or acquire human 'flu, and they are very resistant to avian 'flu.


many doctors say they will transmit H5 , etc.. the droppings may contain H5 virus. Othewise, I dont understand why need to reduce its population.

http://kannadigaworld.com/news/karnataka/22246.html


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

Pigeons are one of the few bird considered "safe" when it comes to bird flu. I'm pretty sure local authorities would have used that as an excuse to get rid of the pigeons if there was any chance they could spread avian flu.
As for why people want to get rid of them, I'm afraid many people will just adopt the opinion of those in power, as if they have some great insight to the problem. It was local authorities that started using the phrase "flying rats", and now everyone uses it. Many people lack the ability to think for themselves, and just copy the government line. This is why in Rwanda the government was blamed for the genocide, it only took a few words from those in power for the whole population to riot. People are sheep and will copy what they are told. So, what you have to ask yourself is why the government wants rid of pigeons.(as they seem to want rid of all wildlife in cities". I think its because protection orders get in the way of their developments.


----------



## hong kong pigeons (Sep 30, 2013)

> People are sheep and will copy what they are told


yes. I feel the same. many people with high education background are also without the ability of using their brain.


----------



## Jay3 (May 4, 2008)

I can certainly understand how you feel, but let's face it, when a flock gets to be too large, and that is usually from people feeding, that is when people don't want them around. If their numbers grow too large, they can be messy. People don't like that. If the flocks were small, and just here and there, nobody would care. I like pigeons too, but you have to try to see both sides of the argument. I mean, at least try to understand both sides of the issue, regardless of which side you are on. And I do feed a flock also, but when you feed too much, then the numbers increase. So by doing that you are putting them at risk.


----------



## BHenderson (Sep 8, 2011)

These conversations are pointless if people do not read the previous posts. As I have stated before it was the fact that I was taking in a lot of pigeons that were starving to death because of the policies of the local authorities that got me involved in the first place. Where I am (London) people who used to feed the pigeons have been frightened off by the large fines imposed on those who are caught. This on top of the closer of the long standing feeding areas of the pigeons is leading to them starving. I have no problem with the SLOW reduction in numbers, but the attempts of the local council to starve the pigeons to death are not acceptable and I am going to do all I can to make sure the pigeons are not left to a miserable death.


----------

