LONDON REPLIES TO RAY

[raynjudy]

Pursuant to Ray's email, the Mayor's office of London has replied with an explanation
of their current plan to curtail aggressively, the pigeon population at Trafalgar Square.

Evidently, the plan involves a GLA supervised phased reduction of pigeon feed over the course of one month. That's going from present food supplies to virtually zero, at Trafalgar Square, in about 30-days,
not counting whatever detritus remains.

With the help of outside, expert advice, it is deemed that this approach will "ensure no possible distress to the pigeons..."

Really?

Apparently, the ban on pigeon feed sales to the public is to commence at once.

Anyway, here is the actual email from the Mayor's office:

**************

Dear Mr /,/,/,/, Ref: 2922

Thank you for your to Ken Livingstone about the pigeons in Trafalgar
Square. I have been asked to reply.

We have noted your concern, but the Mayor's decision not to issue a
licence for the sale of pigeon food on Trafalgar Square, which is part
of a wider plan for the square's future, has been carefully considered,
and reviewed by the Deputy Mayor, Nicky Gavron. The Deputy Mayor
considered the advice of a specialist consultant, officers, many
representatives from animal welfare groups and legal advice. She
decided in the light of all evidence that no licence should be issued.
In order to ensure that no possible distress should be caused to the
pigeons while aiming to ensure a reduction of their number on the
square, she agreed that a phased reduction in the supply of feed should
be implemented by the GLA. This is in accordance with a plan drawn up
by the Authority's Biodiversity Manager.

There is no question of animal cruelty in the Deputy Mayor's decision.
Not only were acknowledged experts consulted, but the most conservative
approach was taken in order to ensure a phased and humane reduction.
The external advisor, Dr Allan, is an acknowledged expert in bird
ecology, as is the authority's Biodiversity Manager. Both were of the
view that removing the sale of feed could occur immediately without
cruelty. In reviewing the position, Dr Allan considered papers and
documents from the public, and from animal welfare and pigeon groups.
His report can be seen on the Mayor's website at www.london.gov.uk.

Dr Allan suggested a phased withdrawal of food over one month as a
precautionary measure. The Authority's Biodiversity Manager agreed with
this approach and devised a feeding programme that was based on visual
evidence of the number of birds in the square and the number of food
sales. He validated the figures by reference to information obtained
from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which indicated the
level of past feed sales. To be ultra cautious all figures were rounded
up. The two experts were in full agreement. The impact of GLA
decisions on the birds has therefore been carefully considered and the
decision itself was taken humanely, after consulting with experts and it
errs on the side of caution.

I hope that this reassures you that the Mayor has considered carefully
his position, that the GLA are not acting cruelly or out of ignorance
and that the Deputy Mayor's decision included taking practical steps to
see that the pigeons would not come to unnecessary harm.

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Golledge
Public Liaison Officer

*************

What does everybody think?

--Judy

PS. They were most gracious to reply, and Ray appreciates the gesture.



[This message has been edited by raynjudy (edited 02-07-2001).]

[raynjudy]

Here are Ray's comments, in part, to the UWS, on the reply from the Mayor's office:

--Judy

***************************

As I understand this, a phased program to reduce the pigeon population involves:

1) Immediately curtailing the sale of pigeon feed in the area of Trafalgar Square (No mention is made of policy regarding the public bringing their own seed to the site to feed the pigeons).

2) Commencement of a GLA driven feeding program that reduces available feed from current levels to zero in 30-days.

I am not qualified to ascertain the validity of the study that resulted in this solution and plan. And the numbers from which the formula is offered, are not provided, at any rate. But the proposed results do not resonate with common sense. Therefore, I have a problem with the following statement, shown in part: "In order to ensure that no possible distress should be caused to the pigeons while aiming to ensure a reduction of their number on the square..."

Reducing the pigeon feed supply from abundant to virtually zero inside thirty days, would, I should think, indeed cause distress to the great numbers of pigeons currently living at that location. This seems only reasonable. It is a foregone conclusion that no significant detritus would remain for the pigeon's to forage on. Resident pigeons will be forced to either relocate or reverse-commute from the square proper, to perhaps rural areas, to fend for themselves and their young. Am I to understand that this will have no stressful impact on the birds? Or is this merely another out of sight, out of mind, make it somebody else's problem tactic? What of the impact to adjacent areas by the influx of pigeon population? How will the pigeons fare there? How will they be dealt with?

I would love to hear opposing views from a qualified expert and analyst--and I'm sure they exist! Perhaps, London found experts prepared to tell them what they wanted to hear?

It was gracious of the Mayor's office to reply to my letter. I do appreciate it! But I find the explanation lacking in information.

Would any qualified individual care to amplify the salient points of the plan and comment on the far reaching effects to the wildlife and communities affected?

--Ray


[This message has been edited by raynjudy (edited 02-07-2001).]

[raynjudy]

Today's email prompted an immediate reply...
--Judy

*****************


> From: "JayDee" <pidgie@care4free.net>
> To: <pigeons@envirolink.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:13 PM
> Subject: PL > NEWS: Bad news for London Pigeons
>
>
> > <<Wednesday February 7, 01:05 PM
> >
> > Pigeon feed seller takes flight
> >
> > The last pigeon feed seller in London's Trafalgar Square has agreed to
> stop
> > trading in return for a cash payment.
> >
> > Bernard Rayner reached an out-of-court agreement after a legal battle
with
> > London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who wants to clean up the mess caused by
the
> > birds.
> >
> > Mr Rayner, 47, had taken his fight against eviction from his pitch to
the
> High
> > Court, pressing for a judicial review of the decision.
> >
> > But in a surprise move on Wednesday morning, the judge who was due to
hear
> the
> > case, Mr Justice Hooper, was told Mr Rayner was now prepared to cease
> trading
> > with immediate effect.
> >
> > Outside court Mr Rayner denied that he had sold out, saying he was
"happy"
> about
> > the settlement.
> >
> > The amount has not been disclosed, but Mr Rayner said: "I have got the
> best
> > possible deal."
> >
> > A statement issued outside court said an agreed sum would be paid to Mr
> Rayner
> > "to recognise the fact that he will be unable to trade in the square in
> the
> > future".
> >
> > Part of the sum representing Mr Rayner's costs would be donated to an
> animal
> > welfare organisation.
> >
> > The Greater London Authority (GLA) is to organise a programme for the
> phased
> > withdrawal of feeding the pigeons until 30 April.
> >
> > After the settlement was announced, Mr Rayner described the withdrawal
> scheme as
> > "the best possible plan".
> >
> > The GLA stripped Mr Rayner of his licence in the autumn, but then
granted
> a
> > temporary reprieve which ran out in mid-January.
> >
> > Mr Rayner then won a court ruling allowing him to continue trading until
> > Wednesday.
> >
> > 'Health hazard'
> >
> > Mr Livingstone recently described pigeons as "rats with wings", and a
> > healthhazard.
> >
> > The GLA plans to clean up the mess in Trafalgar Square caused by pigeon
> > droppings, and pedestrianise the upper part of the square to make way
for
> more
> > cultural pursuits for visitors.
> >
> > Pigeon campaigners expressed their dismay over Wednesday's settlement,
> accusing
> > Mr Livingstone of "bully boy tactics".
> >
> > Andrew Butler, the UK representative of People for the Ethical Treatment
> > ofAnimals Europe (PETA), said: "Basically this spells disaster for
> London's
> > pigeon population.
> >
> > "There is a strong likelihood that 25% of the 6,000 Trafalgar Square
flock
> will
> > starve to death.">>
> >
> >
> > JayDee
> >
>
> Mayor Ken Livingstone
> City Of London, England
>
> Dear Mayor Livingstone:
>
> Thank you for the reply from your office. The gesture was most gracious.
>
> I was disappointed to learn that Mr. Bernard Rayner settled for cash.
> Evidently, as in the USA, money buys literally anything--or anybody.
>
> I do have some concerns with your plan and I'd greatly appreciate an
> amplified explanation of the rationale behind it. Here in the states,
some
> communities show unabashed cruelty to wild life--especially pigeons. If
> your solution really does cover the bases as neatly as possible, perhaps
we
> will need to emulate it in worst case scenarios, here in the states. To
> fully understand the implications and solution, I need the following
> concerns clarified...
>
> As I understand this, a phased program to reduce the pigeon population
> involves:
>
> 1) Immediately curtailing the sale of pigeon feed in the area of
Trafalgar
> Square (No mention is made of policy regarding the public bringing their
> own seed to the site to feed the pigeons).
>
> 2) Commencement of a GLA driven feeding program that reduces available
feed
> from current levels to zero in 30-days.
>
> I am not qualified to ascertain the validity of the study that resulted in
> this solution and plan. And the numbers from which the formula is
offered,
> are not provided at any rate. But the proposed results do not resonate
with
> common sense. Therefore, I have a problem with the following statement
made
> in Nicola Golledge's email of February 6th, 2001: "In order to ensure
that
> no possible distress should be caused to the pigeons while aiming to
ensure
> a reduction of their number on the square, she agreed that a phased
> reduction in the supply of feed should be implemented by the GLA. This is
> in accordance with a plan drawn up
> by the Authority's Biodiversity Manager."
>
> Am I to understand that reducing the pigeon feed supply from abundant to
> virtually zero inside thirty days, will cause no distress to the pigeons
> population? I should think this would cause much distress to the great
> numbers of pigeons currently living at that location. This seems only
> reasonable.
>
> It is a foregone conclusion that no significant detritus would remain for
> the pigeon's to forage on. Resident pigeons will be forced to either
> relocate or reverse-commute from the square proper, to perhaps urban or
> rural areas to fend for themselves and their young.
>
> Is it really true that this will have no stressful impact on the birds?
Or
> is this merely another out of sight, out of mind, make it somebody else's
> problem tactic? What of the impact to adjacent areas by the influx of
> pigeon population? How will the pigeons fare there? How will they be
dealt
> with?
>
> Would any qualified individual care to amplify the salient points of the
> plan and explain the far reaching effects to the wildlife and communities
> affected? My interest is genuine and it is shared by many thousands here
in
> the states.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> Raymond ..........
>