Advice on European Community Law, please

This was my reply:

Esteemed Mr. Costa,
Thank you kindly for your message and your advice regarding contacting the animal rights associations.
I fully understand that SPEA engages in the protection of wild birds, hence the subject of my first e-mail to you; namely the fact that, in a centenary Town Park, ther are several species of wild birds -- and that any action aimed at evicting or destroying the pigeons will necessarily affect them as well. Removing all sources of drinking water available to birds is an indiscriminate and unjustifiable death sentence, and I rather hoped that SPEA would see that.
Likewise, Avisteril is administered as medicated corn, therefore it can be ingested by collared doves and crows. If any study of the effect of this product on those species should come to light I would be very grateful for any information concerning it.
Yours faithfully,
Teresa Fontao.

OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!

SPEA IS ON BOARD!

JUST GOT ANOTHER E-MAIL FROM LUIS COSTA, AND HE'S AGREED TO HELP PUT PRESSURE ON THE TOWN HALL!

He said the arguments I put forward for the involvement of SPEA in this case are compelling and he would like to work in partnership with an animal rights organisation to put pressure on the Town Hall.

One thing I know, it wasn't my diplomatic skills that achieved this! It's either a miracle or Maggie had a hand in this!

I also had a reply from PETA Europe to my e-mail asking for information on humane methods of pigeon population control. They said they didn't have information on that, but gave me an interesting link to the Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons Organisation:

http://www.savethepigeons.org/index.html

Into the lion's den:
A timetable change left me with this afternoon free, so I decided to go straight into the lion's den and have a chat with the very man who ordered the removal of the pigeons' water containers.
I was expecting Defcon 2, but the whole conversation was highly civilised, and he even came to agree with me on various points, namely:

• Attempting to remove the largest pigeon population from the park will eventually drive them to the listed buildings surrounding the one operational fountain (in front of the Town Hall itself).

• In the short term, until they find other water sources, the mortality rate of various species of birds, including protected species, increases dramatically.

• Pigeons attract tourism -- live pigeons, that is -- whilst dead birds are a depressing and degrading sight.

• It is not the known 'pigeon people' who pose a threat to public hygiene by feeding the pigeons, it is the overfeeding that goes on during the tourist season.

He also said (although I'm not convinced he was being genuine) that on a personal level he didn't want to do anything to harm the pigeons, because he's an animal lover, but on a professional level he has to act this way and is under pressure to do so. To which I replied with my best smile, 'Then tell me who's putting pressure on you, and I'll put pressure on them.'
He hesitated, so I suggested talking with his immediate superior (whose name I'd got yesterday) or with the Mayor, or both. He hesitated again, and said, 'Sure, you can talk to them if you want.' (Personally I think the order didn't come from above him.)

He reiterated that professionally he has to uphold the health and hygiene laws. 'But not to the point', I said, 'that they clash with national and European directives on Birds and Habitats. Besides, removing water is unhealthy and unhygienic -- it promotes disease and death.'
Finally, he caved in a little. He said that he couldn't give different orders to the gardeners, as they reflected the department's policy, but said that if I could make sure the water containers were barely visible, he was prepared to turn a blind eye. 'But don't quote me', he said.

Well, I suppose that's something.

Oh Teresa, this all is really hairsplitting and the usual b....s....t of politicians which! not who! try to escape everything that has to do with life and the peuple itself. What the heck do we need politicians for at all when we gladly and perfectly can take care for ourselves and our beloved extended feathered family members???

on them

... but meanwhile we have to play by the rules... or, if push comes to shove, by Australian Football rules...

lots, Teresa. Not too many people would go marching into the head honcho's office and proceed to take care of business or at least address the issues at hand.

The fact that he did agree with you on some of the issues is certainly a start.
And you can put out the water containers again without feeling like you have to sneak around to do it.
That, in itself, is a plus.

So all in all, it sounds like quite a positive visit.

You made great progress, Teresa. You stuck to it. I am so proud of you !

Thank you for your kind words. Your ongoing help and support was a major factor in helping me to stay focused and not take no for an answer.

You have an incredible drive to get something accomplished and you are to be commended on that.

I've received a reply from PICAS International about the water removal and the Municipal Vet's proposal to control the pigeon population. The latter they consider unrealistic, as I do, but about the former, their reply is not quite what I'd anticipated (I've marked it in bold).
The whole thing sounds to me like a big sales pitch. What do you think?



re pigeon control‏
From: PiCAS International (enquiries@picas.org)

Dear Teresa

Many thanks for your email and apologies for not responding more quickly - this is our busiest time of the year and on top of this we have several people who have had the flu virus, me included!

OK, first of all don't worry about the removal of water where the pigeons are concerned - pigeons will travel as far as they need to source water. It may be a problem for some of the other birds in the park, particularly the geese and swans, but the pigeons will be OK - they are very intelligent and resourceful creatures.

You mentioned that the vet wishes to catch and remove the birds to a facility near the kennels? This is impossible and will not work unless the pigeons are caged. If they are caged what is the point of moving them? If they are not caged they will fly immediately back to the park! The council must control the food sources in order to control the pigeons. This is the only option. The council can operate a breeding control system, as discussed on our website, where the birds are housed and their eggs removed, but before they can attempt to do this they will need to identify and close down all the exiting roosting and breeding areas and sites in the town. This would be a major operation and would need specialist guidance. We would be happy to offer free expert advice to the council and as I am considered to be the leading non-scientific authority on pigeon control worldwide they would be getting good advice based on over 35 years of experience.

I have tried to find out what Avisteril is but I cannot find any information about it. Can you call the council and ask them what this product consists of and if it has another trade name? It sounds suspiciously like Avitrol, a poison commonly used in the USA to kill birds.

I think we need to speak about this as it is just too big an issue to discuss by email. Do you have the Skype programme on your PC? If so we can talk, PC to PC, for free. If you do not have the programme it is free to download. It takes only a few minutes. Please let me know if you would like to speak and we can arrange a time. Otherwise, if you already have skype, you can try to call me anytime (our skype address can be found below) or we can arrange a time to speak by email.

Best wishes

Guy

Guy Merchant
Director

... and this was the feedback from Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons (they sound really nice, so I suggested they visit PA):


From: info@savethepigeons.org

Dear Teresa,
We do not campaign for the Trafalgar Square flock any more as they will never lift the ban on feeding in the Square and we now feed - as per the details on the web site in several different areas outside of the byelaw area and the pigeons have found the feeding places. It involves a lot more work but in a way being out of the Square they are not kicked and chased as they were in the past. However, the the area around the Square is imprinted on the flock and theywill live around there. We tend to send a newsletter out once a year - by email where we can to save costs and by post to those not on a computer. It is basically up-dating what is happening and appealing for funds as we need to buy the food. The feeders are volunteers of course and pay their own travel expenses but the food has to be bought. Do persist with your local town hall. It is important that to avoid problems with people who hate pigeons not to feed in the street and try to feed in local parks. The birds soon wise up as they are far more intelligent than people realise. It is barbaric to poison them but laws against cruelty in European countries are not good. On this web page we receive some 1000 emails a year with a lot of them from people who have found a baby, sick or injured pigeon. We give what advice we can. Mind you when they come from Canada, India, and the States it can be difficult!! I will add you to our email Group. Best Wishes and keep fighting for your local pigeons.

Rowan on behalf of STTSP

Teresa wrote:

I've received a reply from PICAS International about the water removal and the Municipal Vet's proposal to control the pigeon population. The latter they consider unrealistic, as I do, but the about the former, their reply is not quite what I'd anticipated (I've marked it in bold).
The whole thing sounds to me like a big sales pitch. What do you think?

re pigeon control‏
From: PiCAS International (enquiries@picas.org)

Dear Teresa

OK, first of all don't worry about the removal of water where the pigeons are concerned - pigeons will travel as far as they need to source water. It may be a problem for some of the other birds in the park, particularly the geese and swans, but the pigeons will be OK - they are very intelligent and resourceful creatures.

Appreciate the update on this, Teresa.
I agree, that is not what I would have expected either.

On a positive note, I am glad that Guy has offered to actually 'speak' to you.

Guy's responce did feel a bit hallow to me and kind of weary. Maybe he's more comfortable speaking directly and that's why he suggested talking to you over the phone.

Other European cities have been successful creating roosts just for Pigeons and so I don't know why your town couldn't do that too.

Wish I had some answers for you.

I think you are a terrific advocate.

Teresa, I also wished I had some good advice for you but apparently we have similar problems here in Germany. I am not far enough into this overall issue yet but I know that existing laws are generally ignored again and again. It is difficult to catch the responsible persons who think they can do what they like.

F.e. a small flock that we always saw in a small park on a route we regularly are cycling through for shopping has disappeared completely and I wonder where all the pigeons are. You cannot see a single bird any more. This is not natural and my suspicion is that they poisoned them as well. But whom to ask and whom to accuse?

I have just been on the website of the Avitrol company. Their descriptions of "pest birds" and how to kill them including blackbirds and sparrows reads like an epitome of purest cynism. I cannot believe that this is permitted in the US and probably elsewhere as well.

Sometimes I really don't understand in what kind of world we are living

pigeonwriter wrote:

Teresa, I also wished I had some good advice for you but apparently we have similar problems here in Germany. I am not far enough into this overall issue yet but I know that existing laws are generally ignored again and again. It is difficult to catch the responsible persons who think they can do what they like.

F.e. a small flock that we always saw in a small park on a route we regularly are cycling through for shopping has disappeared completely and I wonder where all the pigeons are. You cannot see a single bird any more. This is not natural and my suspicion is that they poisoned them as well. But whom to ask and whom to accuse?

I have just been on the website of the Avitrol company. Their descriptions of "pest birds" and how to kill them including blackbirds and sparrows reads like an epitome of purest cynism.

* I cannot believe that this is permitted in the US and probably elsewhere as well.

Sometimes I really don't understand in what kind of world we are living

* It's nothing short of a disgrace, Petra. And there are times I'm ashamed to admit I live here.
I do believe, though, a law was passed in NY City that Avitrol could no longer be used. But then, as you pointed out, time and time again, laws are ignored.
Case in point:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/environmentdec/41429.html

I honestly how these people who follow the 'orders' from the higher ups of pest control companies can sleep at night or look at themselves in the mirror in the morning, knowing full well that their job consists spreading poison.

You have wonder if any of these people have thought beyond the tip of their noses in that they not only jeopardize the life of their target, but the lives of anything that comes in contact with that target, whether it be another bird, cat, child, etc. It's a very sad state of affairs.

While I am trying to get more informed about animal welfare in general and what the current situation here in Germany is I came across a website about animal rights which functions as a kind of advocacy. Here I learned that animal rights and welfare are very well part of the general animal protection law which again is part of the German Basic Constitutional Law but the grotesque fact is that currently no animal rights organization can conduct a lawsuit against a person, company or any other org who violates animal rights.

Only a private person can initiate a criminal complaint against the guilty party.

This means that anyone who witnesses and has proof of a violation against animal rights can do something BUT these cases are regularly refused and put down by the courts because of insignificance. This implies that someone who deeply cares for animals rights and invests money in a lawsuit, just would feed the toilet to no avail.

This means that per se there is no advocacy for animals in place right now and the official laws are ridiculed by this fact.

Only one city state, which is Bremen, has implemented the possiblity of an associational lawsuit. The animal rights orgs are working on this problem. But the question is how long will it take to change the current situation...

We have a long way to go to get to the point where all animals everywhere are treated with dignity and respect and having said that, I must also say that awareness, regarding the rights of animals has come a long way in even the last decade...this is what I acknowledge intelectually.
We also have a long way to go regarding the rights of human beings . The rights of human beings and animals are related.
Emotionally...it's at times, just overwhelming. The best we can do is to challenge ourselves to do our best evey day and to live our belief system. Hearts and minds can be changed by the action of living our belief system. My belief is that all creatues are deserving of dignity and respect. It's really hard sometimes.

I missed this thread (probably because it was started before I joined this forum), but going through it makes me sad and angry.
What I found is that there is a series of conventions signed by member countries of EU.

One of them is:
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (which protects all European wild birds) Million dollar question is; What about pigeons?
There is a protection program called Natura 2000 they may know more.

The following text about pet animals include part about control of stray animals:

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PET ANIMALS

Strasbourg, 13 November 1987
The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto:
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its Members,
Recognising that man has a moral obligation to respect all living creatures and bearing in mind that pet animals have a special relationship with man,
Considering the importance of pet animals in contributing to the quality of life and their consequent value to society,
Considering the difficulties arising from the enormous variety of animals which are kept by man,
Considering the risks which are inherent in pet animal overpopulation for the hygiene, health and safety of man and of other animals,
Considering that the keeping of specimens of wild fauna as pet animals should not be encouraged,
Aware of the different conditions which govern the acquisition, keeping, commercial and non-commercial breeding and the disposal of and trading in pet animals,
Aware that pet animals are not always kept in conditions that promote their health and well-being,
Noting that attitudes towards pet animals vary widely, sometimes because of limited knowledge and awareness,
Considering that a basic common standard of attitude and practice which results in responsible pet ownership is not only a desirable, but a realistic goal,

Have agreed as follows:

…………..
KILLING

1. Only a veterinarian or another competent person shall kill a pet animal except in an emergency to terminate an animal's suffering when veterinary or other competent assistance cannot be quickly obtained or in any other emergency covered by national legislation. All killing shall be done with the minimum of physical and mental suffering appropriate to the circumstances. The method chosen, except in an emergency, shall either:

(a) cause immediate loss of consciousness and death, or
(b) begin with the induction of deep general anaesthesia to be followed by a step which will ultimately and certainly cause death.
The person responsible for the killing shall make sure that the animal is dead before the carcass is disposed of.
2. The following methods of killing shall be prohibited:
(a) drowning and other methods of suffocation if they do not produce the effects required in subparagraph 1(b);
(b) the use of any poisonous substance or drug, the dose and application of which cannot be controlled so as to give the effect mentioned in paragraph 1;
(c) electrocution unless preceded by immediate induction of loss of consciousness.

Chapter III

SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES FOR STRAY ANIMALS

Article 12

REDUCTION OF NUMBERS

When a Party considers that the numbers of stray animals present it with a problem, it shall take the appropriate legislative and/or administrative measures necessary to reduce their numbers in a way which does not cause avoidable pain, suffering or distress.
(a) Such measures shall include the requirements that:
(i) if such animals are to be captured, this is done with the minimum of physical and mental suffering appropriate to the animal;(ii) whether captured animals are kept or killed, this is done in accordance with the principles laid down in this Convention.

……………….
Article 13

EXCEPTIONS FOR CAPTURE, KEEPING AND KILLING

Exceptions to the principles laid down in this Convention for the capture, the keeping and the killing of stray animals may be made only if unavoidable in the framework of national disease control programmes.
……………………………………
Done at Strasbourg, this 13th day of November 1987, in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of Europe, and to any State invited to accede to this Convention.

P.S. General feeling is that directives and conventions are in favor of animals and birds or at least to protect them from suffering and abuse.

I have a friend, who is architect in City Parks in Bulgaria. I'll ask him if he knows anything about bird and animal protection and habitat conservation in the parks.

Matilda wrote:

The rights of human beings and animals are related.
Emotionally...it's at times, just overwhelming. The best we can do is to challenge ourselves to do our best evey day and to live our belief system. Hearts and minds can be changed by the action of living our belief system. My belief is that all creatues are deserving of dignity and respect. It's really hard sometimes.

You are so right Charis - emotionally it is sometimes just overwhelming and I could cry the whole day when I think about the abuses and cruelties man does to man and animal.

Matilda wrote:

We have a long way to go to get to the point where all animals everywhere are treated with dignity and respect and having said that, I must also say that awareness, regarding the rights of animals has come a long way in even the last decade...this is what I acknowledge intelectually.
We also have a long way to go regarding the rights of human beings . The rights of human beings and animals are related.
Emotionally...it's at times, just overwhelming. The best we can do is to challenge ourselves to do our best evey day and to live our belief system. Hearts and minds can be changed by the action of living our belief system. My belief is that all creatues are deserving of dignity and respect. It's really hard sometimes.

Couldn't have put it better myself!
Life has become very competitive, and when people consider their own short-term interests first and foremost, they begin to think it's ok to remove anything or anybody who is, or can be, a hindrance or a nuisance. And by 'nuisance' they mean anything that doesn't fit in with their selfish designs, whether it's a pigeon, a pet dog, an elderly relative or an unwanted child.
That's not the kind of world I want to see, and that's why we have to keep striving for the world we aspire to.

plamenh wrote:

P.S. General feeling is that directives and conventions are in favor of animals and birds or at least to protect them from suffering and abuse.
I have a friend, who is architect in City Parks in Bulgaria. I'll ask him if he knows anything about bird and animal protection and habitat conservation in the parks.

Thank you so much for all the effort you put into researching this topic and transcribing the relevant texts.
When I spoke to the guy who issued the order to remove the pigeons' water containers I quoted him the European Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, but I had to keep emphasising (to him and to wildlife organisations) that such actions were impacting on the native wild bird population too, otherwise they didn't want to know. The man stressed that his concern was public health and safety, and only started to recant when I pointed out to him that neither was improved by bird corpses strewn across the park.

I haven't found anything that protects pigeons, or even an official organisation willing to do so, not even PETA. The RSPB's snooty attitude is echoed by most, who view pigeons as a prize gardener would view weeds. They see them as pests, only to be tolerated because tourists like to see them.

Here in Portugal there is absolutely no national legislation on them, and this is the reason why I have been researching the European legislation. What to do or not to do with pigeons is the sole prerrogative of the local councils. And, in this case, the Environmental Officer (the one I spoke to) is the mouthpiece. He is not, however, the only person in control of this area, and my work isn't finished yet. I may have got a respite in the war against pigeons, but that's not enough.

Thing is, the council shot itself in the foot when it decided to 'modernise' (locals say 'vandalise') the park. They removed both lakes and a large number of pigeon nesting boxes that had been there for a century. Had the boxes stayed, they would easily have been able to remove surplus eggs and solve the population control problem without further expense.
Personally, I'd like to see them put them back, but meanwhile the clean-living-citizens-who-cannot-bear-to-see-animals-except-in-paintings would lobby viciously against that, and sadly they're the ones with the money and the votes. And it's election year.

Funny don’t you think? Tourists are coming from countries where pigeons are treated as pest too. Why people like to see, take photos and feed pigeons when on holiday, while in the meantime their government, administration and all type of paper pushers are fighting war against pigeons? Don’t you think that this is some type of conspiracy, for utilizing tax-payers money?
Surely cannot be that in 5000 years of coexistence pigeons and people, suddenly pigeons become such a big danger for civilization?

plamenh wrote:

Funny don’t you think? Tourists are coming from countries where pigeons are treated as pest too. Why people like to see, take photos and feed pigeons when on holiday, while in the meantime their government, administration and all type of paper pushers are fighting war against pigeons? Don’t you think that this is some type of conspiracy, for utilizing tax-payers money?
Surely cannot be that in 5000 years of coexistence pigeons and people, suddenly pigeons become such a big danger for civilization?

Exterminating them has become big money.

plamenh wrote:

I missed this thread (probably because it was started before I joined this forum), but going through it makes me sad and angry.
What I found is that there is a series of conventions signed by member countries of EU.

One of them is:
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (which protects all European wild birds) Million dollar question is; What about pigeons?
There is a protection program called Natura 2000 they may know more.

The following text about pet animals include part about control of stray animals:

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PET ANIMALS

Strasbourg, 13 November 1987
The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto:
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its Members,
Recognising that man has a moral obligation to respect all living creatures and bearing in mind that pet animals have a special relationship with man,
Considering the importance of pet animals in contributing to the quality of life and their consequent value to society,
Considering the difficulties arising from the enormous variety of animals which are kept by man,
Considering the risks which are inherent in pet animal overpopulation for the hygiene, health and safety of man and of other animals,
Considering that the keeping of specimens of wild fauna as pet animals should not be encouraged,
Aware of the different conditions which govern the acquisition, keeping, commercial and non-commercial breeding and the disposal of and trading in pet animals,
Aware that pet animals are not always kept in conditions that promote their health and well-being,
Noting that attitudes towards pet animals vary widely, sometimes because of limited knowledge and awareness,
Considering that a basic common standard of attitude and practice which results in responsible pet ownership is not only a desirable, but a realistic goal,

Have agreed as follows:

…………..
KILLING

1. Only a veterinarian or another competent person shall kill a pet animal except in an emergency to terminate an animal's suffering when veterinary or other competent assistance cannot be quickly obtained or in any other emergency covered by national legislation. All killing shall be done with the minimum of physical and mental suffering appropriate to the circumstances. The method chosen, except in an emergency, shall either:

(a) cause immediate loss of consciousness and death, or
(b) begin with the induction of deep general anaesthesia to be followed by a step which will ultimately and certainly cause death.
The person responsible for the killing shall make sure that the animal is dead before the carcass is disposed of.
2. The following methods of killing shall be prohibited:
(a) drowning and other methods of suffocation if they do not produce the effects required in subparagraph 1(b);
(b) the use of any poisonous substance or drug, the dose and application of which cannot be controlled so as to give the effect mentioned in paragraph 1;
(c) electrocution unless preceded by immediate induction of loss of consciousness.

Chapter III

SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES FOR STRAY ANIMALS

Article 12

REDUCTION OF NUMBERS

When a Party considers that the numbers of stray animals present it with a problem, it shall take the appropriate legislative and/or administrative measures necessary to reduce their numbers in a way which does not cause avoidable pain, suffering or distress.
(a) Such measures shall include the requirements that:
(i) if such animals are to be captured, this is done with the minimum of physical and mental suffering appropriate to the animal;(ii) whether captured animals are kept or killed, this is done in accordance with the principles laid down in this Convention.

……………….
Article 13

EXCEPTIONS FOR CAPTURE, KEEPING AND KILLING

Exceptions to the principles laid down in this Convention for the capture, the keeping and the killing of stray animals may be made only if unavoidable in the framework of national disease control programmes.
……………………………………
Done at Strasbourg, this 13th day of November 1987, in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of Europe, and to any State invited to accede to this Convention.

P.S. General feeling is that directives and conventions are in favor of animals and birds or at least to protect them from suffering and abuse.

I have a friend, who is architect in City Parks in Bulgaria. I'll ask him if he knows anything about bird and animal protection and habitat conservation in the parks.

Appreciate the research. Great job.