Should pigeons be caged?

Pigeons are a common sight in cities around the world. These birds flock to populated areas in search of food and shelter. While many people enjoy feeding pigeons in parks and town squares, others view them as pests that cause problems like spreading disease, damaging buildings, and cluttering public spaces with their droppings. This has led some municipalities to enact policies restricting activities that attract pigeons, such as feeding them. One of the most controversial pigeon control measures is capturing and caging them. Proponents argue caging helps reduce overpopulation and protects property, while opponents believe it is inhumane and ineffective. This article will examine the debate around caging urban pigeons.

Quick overview of the pigeon caging debate

– Those in favor of caging pigeons say it:
– Controls overpopulation
– Limits damage to buildings
– Improves cleanliness of public spaces

– Those against caging pigeons argue it:
– Is inhumane and cruel
– Does not address root causes effectively
– Is difficult to enforce and regulate

– Cities like New York, Chicago, and Boston have experimented with pigeon caging programs.

– Public opinion on caging is mixed, with animal welfare advocates strongly opposed.

– More research is needed on effectiveness of caging versus alternative pigeon control methods.

Reasons support caging pigeons

1. Reduce overpopulation

– Pigeons can reproduce quickly, with females laying up to 6 clutches per year of 1-2 eggs each. This allows pigeon populations to grow rapidly.

– Pigeon overpopulation causes problems like damage to infrastructure, spread of diseases, and accumulation of droppings.

– Caging pigeons and controlling their reproduction can limit population growth. For example, in 2007 New York used pigeon caging and egg oiling to cut the pigeon population in half over 10 years.

2. Protect buildings and infrastructure

– Pigeon droppings are acidic and can accelerate corrosion and decay of buildings, statues, and infrastructure.

– Nesting materials can clog drains and ventilation systems.

– Caging pigeons reduces the local population density and associated damage to surrounding buildings.

3. Improve cleanliness and sanitation of public spaces

– Each pigeon produces 10-25 lbs of droppings per year. This builds up on roofs, sidewalks, and public parks.

– Pigeon droppings harbor bacteria, fungi, and viruses that can cause diseases in people. 60+ human pathogens have been associated with pigeon droppings.

– Caging pigeons decreases the amount of waste accumulating in public areas where people gather.

Reasons against caging pigeons

1. Inhumane and unethical treatment of birds

– Caging wild birds against their will for extended periods is arguably inhumane.

– Captured pigeons are sometimes gassed or euthanized, which animal welfare advocates view as unethical.

– Diseases and stress can spread more easily in crowded cages.

– Urban wildlife like pigeons deserve humane treatment even if viewed negatively by some.

2. Fails to address root causes of overpopulation

– Pigeons flock to areas with abundant food, water, and nesting sites. Caging does not address these attractants.

– As long as ample resources exist, new pigeons will continue to be drawn in and replace caged ones.

– Without reducing attractants, the problem persists. Cities just spend money temporarily catching and caging pigeons again and again.

3. Difficult to enforce and regulate

– Catching significant numbers of pigeons requires consistent effort and funding over many years. This is not always practical for cities.

– Non-city groups may cage pigeons illegally or inhumanely if programs are not carefully regulated.

– Once caged pigeons are released, they or new pigeon populations often return. Long-term reductions are difficult to maintain.

Key examples of cities using pigeon caging programs

City	Pigeon caging program details
New York City	Began in mid-2000s under Mayor Bloomberg Used bait crates and feeding stations to trap pigeons Captured up to 10,000 pigeons per year Reduced pigeon population from around 250,000 to around 80,000 by 2014 Also used birth control by coating eggs in oil to prevent hatching
Chicago	Used pigeon caging to remove pigeons from viaducts and underpasses City bid out program to pest management companies Has additionally implemented pigeon deterrents like repellent gels and spikes Cited dwindling funds and inability to make significant dent in pigeon population as reasons for ending caging program in 2007
Boston	Mass Audubon Society conducted pigeon caging in Boston from 1983 to 1992 Collected up to 10,000 pigeons annually Relocated captured pigeons to new rural areas rather than euthanizing them Ended program due to high costs and challenges getting permission to release pigeons in rural towns

Key takeaways

– New York saw significant reductions through sustained investment in trapping and egg oiling over a decade.

– Chicago and Boston gave up after several years due to inability to make a major long-term dent in pigeon populations.

– No city has succeeded in fully eliminating or permanently controlling pigeon numbers through caging alone.

Public opinion on pigeon caging

Support for caging

– Property owners and managers often support caging to protect their buildings.

– Public health departments tend to back programs to reduce germs from droppings.

– Many residents complain about pigeons and support cities taking action.

– Historical preservation groups endorse protecting iconic statues and structures.

Opposition to caging

– Animal rights groups like PETA strongly oppose capturing and killing pigeons.

– Wildlife rehabilitators argue against removing native urban wildlife.

– Some biologists say fluctuations in pigeon populations are natural and not inherently bad.

– Liberal politicians and their constituents tend to sympathize with pigeons as undeserving of mistreatment.

Divided opinions

– Views split among bird enthusiasts – some support helping rare native species flourish over pigeons, while others oppose harming any birds.

– The general public has mixed opinions, with support for caging programs declining over time.

– Younger generations tend to be more sympathetic to protecting urban wildlife like pigeons.

viability of pigeon cages versus alternative control methods

1. Modify architecture and infrastructure to make it less attractive

– Install spikes, sloped surfaces, and netting to prevent roosting and nesting in key locations.

– Ensure buildings lack accessible nooks and crannies attractive for nests.

– Modify window sills, overhangs, ledges, and other architecture.

2. Remove outdoor food sources

– Pass ordinances with penalties to stop feeding pigeons in public spaces.

-improve trash management and litter reduction.

-Enforce regulations prohibiting outdoor food waste.

3. Modify habitat to reduce resources

-Discourage grasses and weeds pigeons use for nest materials.

-Remove birdbaths and standing water sources.

-Plant trees and shrubs that provide limited food value for pigeons

4. Use repellents and deterrents

– Apply non-toxic gels, spikes, nets, and wires to surfaces.

– Install ultrasonic or laser devices that scare away pigeons.

– Release predator bird calls and kites to frighten pigeons.

– Employ trained hawks and falcons chase pigeons away from areas.

5. Employ birth control methods

– Replace real pigeon eggs with fake ones to inhibit breeding.

– Coat eggs with oil to smother developing chicks.

– Use bird contraceptive feeds to reduce fertility.

Comparing caging with alternative pigeon control strategies:

Method	Pros	Cons
Pigeon caging	Directly reduces local population Decreases damage and droppings quickly if maintained	Expensive over the long-term Requires sustained effort Does not address root causes Perceived as inhumane
Modify infrastructure	Deters pigeons without harming them Makes areas permanently less hospitable	Can be expensive to retrofit infrastructure Not effective everywhere
Remove food sources	Targets root cause of overpopulation Very humane approach	Difficult to fully enforce Population decrease is gradual
Birth control	Humanely reduces breeding and population growth	Effects build slowly over time Constant effort needed to treat new birds Some methods are labor intensive

Key takeaways on pigeon control methods

– No single control method is perfect – integrated plans using multiple approaches tend to be most successful.

– Cities should experiment to find the right mix of humane, cost-effective, and sustainable strategies tailored to their resources and pigeon problems.

– Public education and addressing root causes like food availability have shown promise and deserve greater emphasis.

– While caging provides short-term reductions, cities often abandon programs due to high sustained costs and staffing needs.

Conclusion

The debate around caging pigeons reveals the challenges of finding an effective approach to control their populations that most stakeholders can support. Caging can rapidly reduce local pigeon numbers, but has major drawbacks like high costs over time, difficulty maintaining reductions, perceived inhumaneness, and failure to address underlying factors driving overpopulation. Cities have found caging to be unsustainable as the sole or primary pigeon control method. As a result, public opinion has increasingly moved away from caging to favor more humane and holistic strategies like pigeon-proof architecture, legal feeding bans, waste management, and bird birth control. Research and city programs should continue exploring innovative non-lethal methods that make areas less hospitable for pigeons while allowing some continued coexistence with this fixture of urban wildlife. With persistent experimentation and public education, cities can find the right balance in addressing problems caused by pigeons without resorting to cruel and ineffective solutions like mass caging.