# Dean of cathedral unrepentant about shooting?



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

I didn't put this in the thread I started in the News forum because I don't want it to be missed.

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED12%20Jun%202007%2009%3A15%3A37%3A847

The Dean of Norwich Cathedral sounds pretty manipulative. That cathedral has lasted a few hundred years despite there being pigeons around for a long time.


Cynthia


----------



## flitsnowzoom (Mar 20, 2007)

Gad, the damage caused by the pigeons is so much less than the damage done by hundreds of years of coal fires and acid rains.   
I'm a bit steamed to say the least. I noticed that the "flying rats" term was again used to describe the pigeons.
Once again the woman's byline included the "problem with pigeons" line.


----------



## Larry_Cologne (Jul 6, 2004)

*Putting his conscience where his mouth is*

Perhaps the Dean of Norwich cathedral and his parishioners should set an example that they are the good, logical people they purport to be, by ridding themselves of their automobiles and all other gasoline (petrol) and diesel powered vehicles, the exhaust of which contributes to the deterioration of the cathedral and other public buildings and edifices and statues much more than pigeon poop does. 

One observation that would seem to support this statement:

The bronze and copper statues at public places look ugly by contrasting green and black areas. An uninformed person might argue whether this unwanted discoloration is caused more by acid rain, a by-product of the industrial and post-industrial age, or by other things such as pigeon poop, or by a combination of such factors.

Numerous bronze and copper statues have been erected in Europe and have lasted from the time of the European Renaissance. If the discoloration was commonplace before the Industrial Age (when burning coal was extensively used to provide steam power, and greatly added to air pollution), some other "lasting" material for public memorials would have been used. 

Who would want to be remembered by a grisly-looking statue? The images of such statues are now used in horror movies to depict dead and horrific characters, such as in the movie _Beetlejuice_.

Larry


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

It is interesting that the journalist won an award (from an insurance company) for general medical consumer reporting. Strange then that she is so fixated on pigeons as "disease carrying birds" when she must know that all animals including man carry diseases. 

I think that she is another Ken Livingstone, carrying out a vendetta against pigeons.

C


----------



## velo99 (Apr 8, 2007)

I wonder if we can get a movement to PC the term Flying Rats. They did it with several other words that were less than wholesome.


----------



## velo99 (Apr 8, 2007)

I buzzed this off to Ms Sarah

Ma`am,

I am a pigeon enthusiast from the US, Texas specifically. I take umbrage when the uneducated attempt to spin an unfavorable light on our feathered friends of the genus colombidae.

I read your article and saw a slanderous attack on pigeons. Can you name one instance of someone contracting a disease from pigeons? Can you name any of the diseases carried exclusively by pigeons? Did you know pigeons do not have a sound for pain? A pigeon won`t make any sound regardless of the pain inflicted upon it. Do you know pigeons are monomagous? Did you know pigeons are used to find sailors lost at sea because of their outstanding eyesight and special ability to see ultraviolet light. Several top companies with super large facilities have used pigeons since the mid seventies to carry messages and microfilm across the grounds more efficiently that any other method.



"But while the Dean is worried about the pigeon problem he stressed he was not happy with the way one of the birds was killed by a pest controller and said he was looking at other ways to deal with the issue." 



Personally I`m have a hard time believing the pest control guy shot it without his approval. If he has that much vehemence against pigeons what does he feel about the rest of God`s creatures that he doesn`t like.

He needs to come to grips with the fact the building is 900 years old and pigeons were probably there before the doors opened to the first parishoner. Not to mention the damage done by acid rain and the toxins pumped into the air by the local factories over the last nine centuries. Find another scapegoat.

Flying Rat, I think not.



Respectfully yours 

Kenny Hartman USA


----------



## Charis (Feb 11, 2007)

Beautiful, Kenny.
I applaud your responce.


----------



## Niel (May 25, 2005)

*Pigeon shooting reported to police*

Ian McPherson
Chief Constable
Norfolk Constabulary 
Operations and Communications Centre 
Jubilee House 
Falconers Chase 
Wymondham 
Norfolk NR18 0WW


12th June 2007


Dear Mr McPherson ,

ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981

I write to report and request an investigation into an apparent criminal offence contrary to Section 1 (1)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, under which it is an offence, save where provided for otherwise, to 

“kill, injure or take any wild bird”

As I understand it, under the Act, birds can be killed under DEFRA’s General Licence system, provided the terms of the various General Licences are adhered to, in pursuance of the following objectives only:

•	Preserving public health or air safety; 
•	Preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or fisheries.

According to media reports, copies of which I attach, the Dean of Norwich, the Very Revd Graham Smith, contacted an unnamed pest control company on 5th June, to “remove” a pigeon which had entered the roof area of the Norwich Cathedral refectory. The pigeon, according to the reports, which seem to be confirmed by at least one eye witness and are not denied by Revd Smith, was shot.

It is difficult to see how, by becoming trapped in the refectory, the pigeon was posing a particular risk to public health or air safety. 

Neither is it immediately apparent, unless the refectory was being put to some highly unusual use, how the unfortunate bird was likely to cause serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or fisheries.

It is not clear from the media coverage whether Revd Smith intended that the bird be killed when he called the firm; indeed he is quoted as saying he is “not happy” with the way the firm acted. However, it seems clear, prima facie, that the pest control firm acted illegally – whether or not in a conspiratorial capacity with Revd Smith – in killing, rather than releasing, the bird. As such I wish to make a formal complaint and look forward to your confirmation that you will order an investigation into the incident.

Yours sincerely,


Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons
BM Pigeon
London WC1N 3XX
www.savethepigeons.org


----------



## Niel (May 25, 2005)

*Press Release: to be issued tomorrow*

PRESS RELEASE: June 14 2007

POLICE CALLED IN OVER CATHEDRAL PIGEON SHOOT

Campaigners have made a formal complaint to Ian McPherson, Chief Constable of Norfolk, over the shooting last week of a pigeon in the refectory of Norwich Cathedral, and demanded an investigation into what they maintain was a criminal offence under Section 1(1)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons (STTSP) said they decided to involve the police because they were “sick to the back teeth” of hearing about pigeons being killed despite their protection under the act, which makes it an offence to “kill, injure of take” wild birds other than under Government Licence.

STTSP spokesman Niel Hansen explained: “Pigeons and certain other birds can legally be killed under DEFRA’s General Licence system but only under certain circumstances. They can be killed if they present a risk to public or air safety, or if they are causing damage to crops. Other than that, killing them is an imprisonable offence.”

According to media reports, the Dean of Norwich, the Very Revd Graham Smith, contacted an unnamed pest control company on 5th June, to “remove” a pigeon which had entered the roof area of the Norwich Cathedral refectory. The pigeon was shot. 

“It is difficult to see how, by becoming trapped in the refectory, the pigeon was posing a particular risk to either the public or to air safety,” said Mr Hansen. “Neither is it immediately apparent, unless the refectory was being put to some highly unusual use, how the unfortunate bird was likely to cause serious damage to crops. We are sick to the back teeth of people thinking they can legally shoot pigeons just because they don’t like them or perceive them as a nuisance.”

ENDS

For further information please call Niel Hansen on 07984 368179


----------



## flitsnowzoom (Mar 20, 2007)

Check this link out for the height of hypocracy

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/ent?guid=20070613/466f6bc0_3ca6_15526200706131850993586

It probably won't stay active long, but . . . . 

Good for you Velo and Neil. It's time someone called this biased "reporting" to task, and time that the bobby came to help one that cannot speak for itself.


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

Lovely letters Velo and Neil.

The Sony business made the headlines here. As you say, total hypocricy.

Cynthia


----------



## PigeonQueen (Aug 13, 2006)

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:28:05 +0100 
DAILY EXPRESS - 06/06/2007, By Tom Price


Zoo kills 7 peacocks for being too noisy
SEVEN peacocks were put to death by a zoo after a neighbour complained that they were making too much noise. 
The beautiful birds were roosting under a large ash tree near a fence on the zoo's boundary, and some began jumping over into nearby gardens. 
Most residents were happy to see the magnificent seven at such close range, and fed with them with birdseed and bread. 
But one neighbour complained to the local council that the creatures made too much noise, and said his garden was being damaged and covered in bird mess. 
He also complained about the animals' high-pitched squawks during May and June when they grow their tail feathers. 
Paignton Zoo in Devon had 100 birds until it was forced into Monday's cull after months of debate with Torbay Council's environmental health officers. 
Zoo staff decided on the killings because they could not find them a new home due to bird flu fears. Also, peacocks are so territorial that moving them within the zoo would not have worked ? the birds would just have flocked back to their old home. 
After the male birds were killed by lethal injection, the tree was also chopped down to stop others roosting there in future. 
Zoo staff were "deeply upset" by the cull. 
Chief executive Simon Tonge said: "I hate this, but I am being forced into it by one person's efforts. 
"We were forced to do the cull because we can't even give the birds away. There is no demand for them due to the avian flu scare ? they are related to chickens." Susan Legassick, who lives in Harbourne Avenue, which borders the zoo, said: "The peacocks are an attraction, a part of the community, and I love them. 
"It is disgusting that they have been killed. They don't do any harm to anyone, and are very friendly. They come looking through my window asking for food. 
"I think it is nice listening to them call, not disturbing. Why anyone wanted them put down I will never understand." Her neighbour Derek Gresham added: 
"Killing them is terribly unfair." An RSPCA spokesman said the cull was an "awful situation''. 





Geoff Marsh
Online Editor
Express Newspapers


10 Lower Thames Street
London
EC3R 6EN


[email protected]

Hi Folks could not get a link for this story, so called the paper and they emailed me this story. I have the actual paper so could send photocopies to anyone who wants them.
Jayne.


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

That is so typical of this country, the give far more weight to the single person that complains than to those who enjoy an animal or whatever. 

But the zoo shouldn't have given in like that. 

Cynthia


----------



## Larry_Cologne (Jul 6, 2004)

*re letter sent*

Niel,

I think I am correct in stating this (even though I am not from Britain),

_and,_

I would be happy (truly) if someone could contradict what I say, 

_but,_

according to research I did a year or so ago, pigeons are classified _not as_ *wild* birds in Britain, but as *poultry*. 

The laws applying to poultry and wild birds differ greatly (according to the laws a couple of years ago). 

I had also read that efforts were underway to bring these British laws regarding animals into line with those of the European Community (for better or worse).

I did this research at that time because I was curious as to whether PT members would strike a sympathetic chord with the large British-owned international conglomerate which through a subsidiary owned and operated a gas station (in combination with a convenience store? --don't remember) where pigeons were being shot by the manager, or by a pest control company at the behest of the manager. Gas (petrol) station was in Seattle, Washington, or in Portland, Oregon, as I recall.

I had thought that perhaps if local Americans had no objections to the shootings, the concern of the British owners, being that the British have a reputation of not being tolerant of child and animal abuse, might be brought to bear upon the situation.

I did not find much in the way of laws for protecting pigeons, other than general vague prevention of cruelty to animal sympathies, which do not extend to rats, rodents, pigeons, and some other species. 

It also seems that the RSPCA, according to reports from British members on PT, is somewhat fuzzy-minded and devil-may-care when protecting animals. More a matter of convenience than principles with them (my judgment based on what others have said, not on personal experience). 

I would dare say the Dean had not done anything technically illegal as regards the matter of shooting an animal which some would claim threatened the health of the public. 

The ones invlved are probably more upset about being caught, about the fuss, than about what happened. 
I am sure they eat poultry at their refectory. 

If the British laws have changed for the better, it would be useful to know. 

Larry


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

I will have to check my facts but as far as I remember when the poultry register was introduced (in preparation for avian flu) only pigeons bred for meat meat were classified as poultry.

There are schedules of wild birds on the DEFRA site that would clarify whether a licence is needed to cull them. 

Cynthia


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Feral Pigeons are wild birds under the wildlife acts, but have only limited protection.

They - as well as quite a few other bird species - used be called 'pest species' but I believe the term is not used since the act had revisions.

Under the circumstances Niel referred to, they are among the species which may be killed. Their nests and eggs can destroyed, probably by any property owner who is not well disposed towards nesting pigeons.

John


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

This is heartbreaking. It shows the number of of pigeons shot and killed under a general licence granted "in the interests of public health" - 17,639.  I gather that was in Northern Ireland?

How can that be justified?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/reports/Derogation_report_2003_Article_9.pdf

Cynthia


----------



## Maggie-NC (Jun 22, 2005)

Cynthia, not only is it appalling about the pigeons, but if you look at other bird species, some numbers go pretty high too. 

Some people will not be satisfied until they eliminate anything not human and even then that is debatable considering the way things are going.


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

> Cynthia, not only is it appalling about the pigeons, but if you look at other bird species, some numbers go pretty high too.
> 
> Some people will not be satisfied until they eliminate anything not human and even then that is debatable considering the way things are going.


The reasons given for the issue of a licence are questionable. I can understand air safety but when it comes to the pied wagtail the licence was issued in the interests of teaching, research, restocking etc, the method was removal of blood...but all the birds were killed?

Cynthia


----------



## Niel (May 25, 2005)

> I think I am correct in stating this (even though I am not from Britain),
> 
> and,
> 
> ...


Hi, sorry I've not logged on for a couple of days to reply to this. As others have said, pigeons are wild birds, not poultry. If you have a look at this link, you'll see the list of species to which the legislation ostensibly protecting wild birds applies:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/gen-licence.htm

Here you will also see the various circumstances under which the birds may be legally killed that I referred to in my letter; health, air safety, crop damage etc.

If you click on and view the licences themselves, you'll see that even if the birds are causing the problems mentioned, it is STILL illegal to kill them unless the person concerned is satisfied that there are no suitable non-lethal methods. We have stopped a number of councils from culling pigeons and gulls by drawing their attention to this legislation.

Indeed, internal documents Livingstone had to hand over to me during the course of our recent legal action against him reveal he wanted to cull Trafalgar Square's birds but was advised it would be illegal.

Of course, in practice, few people know that pigeons are protected, and councils and companies cull right left and centre. Even those who do know about the legislation know that there is no enforcement; over here we have the RSPB which is a conservation body, not an animal welfare body, and so is not concerned with pigeons, and the RSPCA. The latter recently took three days to visit a site where we had told them pigeons had been trapped; pigeons really are not high up on their list of priorities. So it's down to small groups like us wihout the financial resources to do much  We cold take a private prosecution but even if we won, a court is highly unlikely to make the culprit pay more than a tiny percentage of our costs, so we'd be out of pocket to the tune of thousands.

Hope that clarifies!


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

Thanks for the clarification Neil.

I had wondered why Ken Livingstone had not gone as far as culling, I knew that it couldn't be compassion for birds and he doesn't care much about the opinion or sensitivity of animal lovers either. You have done an excellent job there.

Cynthia


----------



## Niel (May 25, 2005)

Thanks Cynthia,

I should say that if anyone does hear of any planned culls in the UK, they should go to www.savethepigeons.org and let us know via the "contact us" page. We'll always do what we can.

Cheers,

Niel


----------



## PigeonQueen (Aug 13, 2006)

that's reassuring-thanks for that information Niel.

Jayne


----------



## roy-me-boy (Dec 28, 2006)

You have done an excellent job there.

Cynthia[/QUOTE]
Yep! nice one Niel-keep up the good work!


----------



## Niel (May 25, 2005)

The story made the Church Times, too, with a mildly amusing cartoon:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=40664


----------



## Feefo (Feb 8, 2002)

Oh, I like that cartoon!

Cynthia


----------

