Video of the Day: "Hey, Coo - I'm Walking Here!"

The Following is an excerpt from the author of an upcoming book on the history of civilizations, public space and includes an examination of pigeons as a social element. As follows:

Councilman Felder wants to ban pigeon feeding and

appoint a “Pigeon Czar.” A Pigeon Czar? It seems,

though, as if he has channeled the collective psyche

of New York politicians. Mayor Bloomberg commented,

“I think that while … I love birds we do have a lot of

pigeons and they do tend to foul a lot of our areas

and people would be better off not feeding the

pigeons.” And councilwoman Quinn added, “I have no

love of pigeons at all. I find them to be flying

rats.” Subsequently, Quinn remarked, “I will not let

my personal pigeon position impact my professional

pigeon position.” This implies that at some later

date she will come to a purely “objective” decision

about the legislation after a careful review of the

facts. Pardon my skepticism.



Ever since the phrase “rats with wings” entered the

public lexicon—introduced, by the way, by NYC Parks

Commissioner Thomas P. Hoving in 1966 but catapulted

into pop culture by its utterance in Woody Allen’s

1981 movie “Stardust Memories”—pigeon loathing has

taken on a life of its own. No doubt, pigeons can

create problems. But before we criminalize pigeon

feeding we should understand the roots of concern.



The disease argument is simply not convincing.

Felder’s report admits that that the city’s own health

agencies do not see pigeons as a threat for

transmitting diseases to humans; what it does not cite

is the fact that many other birds such as sparrows,

starlings, and even parrots carry many of the same

diseases, and that dog feces left behind by careless

guardians can host a variety of similar pathogens.

This has not stopped those in the past from distorting

the facts to meet their political ends. For example,

in 1963 a New York City health official ascribed two

deaths from cryptococcal meningitis to exposure to

pigeons. No matter that it was not known if either

victim was in close proximity to large numbers of

pigeons, or that an Italian medical expert refuted the

claims in the Times and said “pigeons are no more

dangerous to health than any other house-hold pet:”

the health official recommended exterminating all of

the city’s pigeons and outlawing feeding. At that

time, feeding pigeons in the park was a common

pastime. Some parks even had feeding stations.



This medical discourse had a profound spatial and

legal impact on the pigeon. Feeding pigeons became

outlawed in some parks or could result in a citation

if deemed a health “nuisance” by officials, not just

in New York but also in a growing number of cities.

When institutions such as the Parks Department

officially designated pigeons as “nuisances” or

“pests” based on epidemiological claims, this

classification enabled their removal and

extermination. Pigeons became a major moneymaker for

the pest control industry after they became a

recognized pest. Such designations, as labels affixed

to these birds, reinforce that the appearance of

pigeons in human space will often be experienced with

disgust or anxiety. Because they are nonnative

species, the Audubon Society has no interest in

protecting pigeons. Their status as “rats with wings”

became naturalized, rendering them culturally

worthless.



The tail is now wagging the dog. While many of the

alleged connections between pigeons and disease have

been debunked, the legacy is inscribed in a cultural

intolerance for the presence of these birds and their

feces in spaces designated for human use. In other

words, our perception of pigeons as “rats with wings”

is acting as a stereotype. We seek out information

that reinforces our perceptions while putting on

blinders. For example, much has been made of the need

to control pigeons in case the bird flu pandemic

reaches America. Yet medical experts make clear that

pigeons are highly resistant to H5N1, and that ducks

are the animals most likely to pass a deadly strain on

to humans.



While many people enjoy feeding ducks in parks, those

who still enjoy feeding pigeons often become

stigmatized as “crazy.” Before we make them criminals,

perhaps we should critically examine some of our

commonsense assumptions. One person’s rat is another’s

dove.

the following text is an excerpt from the author of an upcoming book on the sociology of urban relationships and (as part of his study) human relationships with each other and with pigeons. As follows:

Councilman Felder wants to ban pigeon feeding and

appoint a “Pigeon Czar.” A Pigeon Czar? It seems,

though, as if he has channeled the collective psyche

of New York politicians. Mayor Bloomberg commented,

“I think that while … I love birds we do have a lot of

pigeons and they do tend to foul a lot of our areas

and people would be better off not feeding the

pigeons.” And councilwoman Quinn added, “I have no

love of pigeons at all. I find them to be flying

rats.” Subsequently, Quinn remarked, “I will not let

my personal pigeon position impact my professional

pigeon position.” This implies that at some later

date she will come to a purely “objective” decision

about the legislation after a careful review of the

facts. Pardon my skepticism.



Ever since the phrase “rats with wings” entered the

public lexicon—introduced, by the way, by NYC Parks

Commissioner Thomas P. Hoving in 1966 but catapulted

into pop culture by its utterance in Woody Allen’s

1981 movie “Stardust Memories”—pigeon loathing has

taken on a life of its own. No doubt, pigeons can

create problems. But before we criminalize pigeon

feeding we should understand the roots of concern.



The disease argument is simply not convincing.

Felder’s report admits that that the city’s own health

agencies do not see pigeons as a threat for

transmitting diseases to humans; what it does not cite

is the fact that many other birds such as sparrows,

starlings, and even parrots carry many of the same

diseases, and that dog feces left behind by careless

guardians can host a variety of similar pathogens.

This has not stopped those in the past from distorting

the facts to meet their political ends. For example,

in 1963 a New York City health official ascribed two

deaths from cryptococcal meningitis to exposure to

pigeons. No matter that it was not known if either

victim was in close proximity to large numbers of

pigeons, or that an Italian medical expert refuted the

claims in the Times and said “pigeons are no more

dangerous to health than any other house-hold pet:”

the health official recommended exterminating all of

the city’s pigeons and outlawing feeding. At that

time, feeding pigeons in the park was a common

pastime. Some parks even had feeding stations.



This medical discourse had a profound spatial and

legal impact on the pigeon. Feeding pigeons became

outlawed in some parks or could result in a citation

if deemed a health “nuisance” by officials, not just

in New York but also in a growing number of cities.

When institutions such as the Parks Department

officially designated pigeons as “nuisances” or

“pests” based on epidemiological claims, this

classification enabled their removal and

extermination. Pigeons became a major moneymaker for

the pest control industry after they became a

recognized pest. Such designations, as labels affixed

to these birds, reinforce that the appearance of

pigeons in human space will often be experienced with

disgust or anxiety. Because they are nonnative

species, the Audubon Society has no interest in

protecting pigeons. Their status as “rats with wings”

became naturalized, rendering them culturally

worthless.



The tail is now wagging the dog. While many of the

alleged connections between pigeons and disease have

been debunked, the legacy is inscribed in a cultural

intolerance for the presence of these birds and their

feces in spaces designated for human use. In other

words, our perception of pigeons as “rats with wings”

is acting as a stereotype. We seek out information

that reinforces our perceptions while putting on

blinders. For example, much has been made of the need

to control pigeons in case the bird flu pandemic

reaches America. Yet medical experts make clear that

pigeons are highly resistant to H5N1, and that ducks

are the animals most likely to pass a deadly strain on

to humans.



While many people enjoy feeding ducks in parks, those

who still enjoy feeding pigeons often become

stigmatized as “crazy.” Before we make them criminals,

perhaps we should critically examine some of our

commonsense assumptions. One person’s rat is another’s

dove.

I hear pigeons coo. Can't you?

Wow, c00n actual knows what pigeons think. So it must take a pigeon with a small brain to comment on what pigeons with small brains talk about. So you actual sit down and have conversations with pigeons? So what do pigeons call themselves, since you talk to them and they told you they don't call themselves "flying rats", please inform us. STFU then seek intelligence.

30 Rock rules!

One other difference between "flying rats" and the N-word is that pigeons don't call each other "flying rats".

Quinn is a tool

Even more on this inane topic: Our friends blogged on Gothamist's previous post on this story, and the crazy pigeon people showed up and made an amazing spectacle of themselves:

http://pissyrabbits.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/276/

Of course the difference between "flying rats" and the N-word is that with the N-word, it is used for FUCKING PEOPLE not for huge population of dirty poopy birds. Rats are also very smart animals, and can be trained to help humans, but would anyone scream if we fined people $1000 for feeding them?

If these birds would starve without people feeding them, then they are overpopulated. People are not a natural food source in the ecosystem.