Alternatives to Lethal ControlBetween 1988 and 1990 the City of Basel in Switzerland introduced a massive public information campaign to educate the public about pigeons and the relationship between feeding and the resultant overpopulation. Alongside the education campaign the government asked the University of Basel to carry out a scientific study to find a solution to the problem of overpopulation of pigeons in the city. The city had a population of approximately 20,000 pigeons and had tried everything to reduce the population, including killing over 100,000 birds by trapping and shooting in the preceding 24 years. In 1988 a count revealed that Basel still had a population of 20,000 birds. It became obvious that the lethal control policy had been totally ineffective and that the problem had to be tackled at source. The source of the problem in Basel was the persistent feeding of the birds by residents in the city. The well-documented and highly respected research, carried out between 1988 and 1992 by the University of Basel, concluded that killing pigeons had no effect on the pigeon population in the city and in most cases resulted in an increase in pigeon numbers. The research team decided that they had to look at completely different and quite diverse ways of overcoming the problem. The connection had been made between feeding and overpopulation, so if food could be restricted and if the birds could be stopped from breeding, numbers should drop. The idea of providing artificial nesting sites where eggs could be removed was put into practice. The research team provided 9 designated feeding areas where the public could legitimately feed the pigeons. Adjacent to these areas they built well-kept and controlled pigeon lofts where the local pigeon population was encouraged to nest and roost. These lofts were visited and cleaned on a weekly basis, and any eggs that had been laid the preceding week were removed. During the 4-year research period over 1200 eggs each year were removed. Over a 50-month period this had the effect of reducing the pigeon population in these test sites by a staggering 50%. Not only were pigeon numbers halved, but also large quantities of pigeon droppings were removed from the lofts. In 1992 alone 1,050 kg of droppings were removed from the lofts, droppings that would otherwise have contributed to the soiling of buildings in the city. Although it was the Swiss research that finally proved that killing pigeons as a method of control was a wasted effort, it seems to be Germany, not Switzerland, that is leading the way by introducing holistic and non-lethal pigeon control programmes in their towns and cities. The German city of Augsburg voted to improve and expand its humane pigeon control programme by the creation of pigeon lofts in converted roof voids in buildings within the city. In just one year, ending June 2003, the City Council removed 12,000 eggs from 7 pigeon lofts in converted roof voids. The City Council also closed down and excluded pigeons from 6 of the 7 derelict building sites within the city limits, thereby moving flocks into less sensitive areas of the city where their numbers could be controlled by egg removal. This staggering achievement was carried out without the use lethal control. The German cities of Nurnberg, Munich and Hamburg are now considering this type of non-lethal programme to reduce the size of their burgeoning pigeon flocks. Interestingly, the Ford Motor Company’s car plant in Cologne also decided to implement a humane and non-lethal pigeon control programme in an attempt to reduce pigeon numbers in sensitive areas of the site. The plant manager confirmed that the company had spent vast sums of money on conventional pigeon control via pest control companies but these controls had failed to resolve their problems. The plant has set up the control system with the help of volunteer groups in the area who service the lofts on behalf of Ford. Sadly this type of lateral thinking is not mirrored in the UK where the Ford plant at Southampton recently shot over 400 pigeons on the advice of their pest control contractor.
In 1999 PiCAS was invited to meet with Barking and Dagenham Borough Council in North London to discuss alternatives to lethal control. The Borough had used culling as a method of control in the past but due to public pressure had decided to put culling aside and investigate more humane and effective methods of pigeon control. PiCAS, together with council officers, carried out a survey of the key areas and it was clear that the growth of pigeon numbers in the Borough was due to extensive public feeding and lack of proofing on local council owned properties. Much of the feeding was taking place in Barking Park, a public recreation area owned by the council where numbers of pigeons were rising steadily due to excessive public feeding. Local householders with properties adjacent to the park were complaining of pigeons perching on their roofs with resultant soiling problems. Several large high-rise residential properties owned by the council, only minutes away from the park, were providing these same pigeons with excellent overnight roosting and nesting facilities on balconies and window ledges. PiCAS provided a report to Barking and Dagenham Council recommending a control programme that would permanently reduce pigeon numbers in the Borough and solve the problems experienced by householders adjacent to Barking Park and tenants in the council owned high-rise flats. Recommendations included:
Barking and Dagenham Council immediately produced a colour leaflet outlining the problems associated with pigeon occupancy and asking the public to reduce food to pigeons in the area – unfortunately the leaflet was never distributed. The authority also carried out some minor proofing works on their residential properties in an attempt to reduce breeding opportunities for pigeons but clearly did not pigeon-proof all properties, resulting in little or no reduction of nuisance for residents.
In July 2000 the authority opened their new dovecote/artificial breeding facility in Barking Park in a blaze of very positive publicity. This positive publicity was marred by the authority’s failure to carry out any of the other works recommended by PiCAS, completely missing the whole point of the dovecote programme. The authority made the classic error of judgement by picking from a menu of options rather than implementing all of the control options as recommended by PiCAS. Even though the authority installed a dovecote, as recommended, they failed to liaise with PiCAS over the design of the dovecote and subsequently ended up with a facility that was far from ideal, certainly as far as pigeons were concerned. The authority even erected the dovecote in the wrong place – another example of the authority failing to liaise with PiCAS.
Incredibly, in 2002 the council tried to place blame PiCAS for the failure of the scheme, but as a result of petitions made to Robin Payne (General Manager of Community and Environment for Barking and Dagenham Borough Council) the authority eventually conceded that it had been a failure on the part of the council and not PiCAS. It should be noted, however, that Robin Payne said, of the dovecote: “Even if the cote is never used by pigeons it has certainly justified the expense as a result of all the positive publicity we have received”. Case Study 2: Nottingham City Hospital Unlike Barking and Dagenham Borough Council, Nottingham City Hospital implemented all of the recommendations made by PiCAS for an effective control mechanism and the results have been dramatic. PiCAS was invited to meet with Environmental Services Manager, Clive Young of Nottingham City Hospital, in May 2000 to offer advice on an effective pigeon control strategy for the extensive hospital site. Prior to involving PiCAS the hospital had embarked on a culling operation to reduce the estimated 1200 pigeons resident on site. This culling operation was suspended immediately as a result of feedback from staff on the site. PiCAS surveyed the site with staff from the Environmental Services Division and made a number of recommendations. The following statement, made by Nottingham City Hospital in March 2001, sums up the effectiveness of the scheme:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Since contact has been made with PiCAS and a visit made by Guy Merchant (Director of PiCAS), several new schemes have been in progress. Firstly, lethal culling has been suspended indefinitely. We have now employed an on-site Pest Controller, Mr. Martyn Belcher to control the pigeon population. Having taken advice from PiCAS, and from the catalogues recommended, Martyn has pigeon proofed many areas, at a greatly reduced cost, as opposed to using private contractors. Martyn has developed the concept of pigeon coups by using old staff single lockers turned on their side and compartmentalised them into nest boxes. The sites chosen are large bird populated flat roofs on 3 buildings in the Trust Martyn leaves food, water and nest materials to encourage the birds to nest, then removes the eggs. He has also mapped out the nest sites on the Trust and visits these areas daily to collect eggs. Obviously if eggs are hatched young are left alone to fledge. The impact on the Trust has been dramatic. In less than a year, the bird population has reduced by an estimated 50%. The cost of cleaning fouling has also reduced significantly. Future plans include the roll-out of more coup areas, which have no cost or maintenance as we are recycling old lockers. We are, however, having a wooden coup made by our Estates Department, which will be near our wildlife corridor. Here again, the eggs will be collected. This approach is both user friendly and non-lethal. We will continue to develop our strategy and monitor the effectiveness of the scheme. A further report will be sent to PiCAS in the Autumn.
Clive Young
As a result of their forward thinking approach to pigeon control, Nottingham City Hospital has recently been awarded the RSPCA Best Practices Award for adopting a strategy based on PiCAS recommendations. Summary There is no doubt that schemes focusing on public education along with complementary control options such as artificial nesting sites are the way forward for town and city-wide pigeon control. Local authorities in the UK would be advised to follow the lead of Kortrijk Council in Belgium, where the decision to fully implement the PiCAS recommended controls was instant and comprehensive following a visit from Director of PiCAS, Guy Merchant, in 2003. It must be understood, however, that for a town or city-wide control system of this nature to be effective, it must be comprehensive. To continue practicing lethal control in the face of such overwhelming evidence that it is totally ineffective is absurd. Pest Control companies, however, will continue to promote lethal control of pigeons because it is in their best interests to do so. Most local authority Environmental Health professionals agree that lethal control is ineffective but until now there has not been a humane, efficient and proven alternative available. The problem of overpopulation of pigeons in our towns and cities will not go away and must be tackled at source rather than putting short-term lethal control procedures in place. It is essential that the public are persuaded, through public education campaigns, that reducing the food supply to pigeons will not result in large numbers of birds starving to death, but will mean that numbers will naturally reduce within the flock. Easily accessible artificial nesting sites need to be erected adjacent to areas where people can legitimately feed pigeons. By providing designated feeding areas and encouraging the public to use them, a local authority will be able to remove any excess food and control ‘over-feeding’. This will also have the effect of keeping all the pigeons in one area. Artificial nesting sites are extremely inexpensive to produce, install and maintain and can be sited on or near existing roosting places e.g. the roofs of buildings where they will be out of sight of the general public. Alternatively, an ornamental dovecote can be made to be a pleasant feature in a public area and not only reduce flock size through egg removal but also provide a focus for a local authority-based pigeon control strategy. These measures alone will solve many of the problems normally associated with pigeons. Many local authorities feel they need to be “seen to be doing something” irrespective of whether this action is effective or not. This is not enough. There has to be a real desire and commitment to make a scheme work and public education is the key. Now that scientific evidence exists which proves that killing pigeons is not a viable option, other methods must be considered, however radical they may seem. By combining an effective public education campaign with a scheme involving artificial nesting sites and deterrents, any town or city pigeon population can be effectively reduced and controlled. This combination of measures represents a simple, cost effective and humane approach to the control of pigeons in our towns and cities and most importantly, an approach that actually works. For practical help and advice on deterrents and humane, effective alternatives to lethal control please contact PiCAS.
Acknowledgements :
|