PiCAS UK PiCAS International Seeks Feedback from OvoControl P Test Sites
December 24th, 2007 by 
PiCAS International
The debate over the use of the controversial pigeon contraceptive, OvoControl P, is heating up in the USA with many experts and pro-pigeon groups joining the long list of those opposing the use of this dangerous drug. Although groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are actively supporting and promoting the use of OvoControl P, the widespread use of this contraceptive could have disastrous consequences for feral pigeon populations in the form of reduced resistance to coccidiosis, arguably the most devastating of all the pigeon diseases*.
The issue of pigeon control has recently hit the headlines in the USA with one New York City Council Member proposing a total feeding ban in New York city, with $1000 fines for anyone caught feeding pigeons. This has, inevitably, fuelled debate over the various control options that could be employed by the City Council to reduce pigeon flock size in the city. Although PiCAS International does not condone the uncontrolled feeding of feral pigeons, particularly where excessive feeding is concerned, a total feeding ban is unworkable. Before any action is taken to provide an area-wide pigeon control system in New York city an independent in-depth study must be undertaken followed by a structured, humane and effective control programme.
One of the control options that has been proposed for New York city is the use of OvoControl P and, apparently, trials have already taken place within the city to assess the effectiveness of the new contraceptive. Other cities in the USA are also undertaking trials of the drug. Although PiCAS International is deeply opposed to the use of this drug to control pigeon populations, due to the inevitable increase in coccidia amongst flocks that are being fed the drug, there is a need for an independent, expert and non-commercial body to collate information resulting from these trials. PiCAS International is therefore appealing to any organisation that has undertaken trials with OvoControl P, or is actively trialling the drug, to contact us and share information, particularly information relating to welfare assessments of target flocks.
*Wim Peters
Veterinary Surgeon and renowned expert in pigeon health
Posted in News | 
| 
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
December 25th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Laurie Spiegel Says:
Re: the question of Ovocontrol P use:
The danger to all species, animal and human alike, that antibiotic-resistent
coccidia would evolve due to random-dose random-schedule administration of this
coccidiostat to feral pigeon populations far outweighs any reason presented for
its use as a method of pigeon population control.
This is especially true in cases such as New York City or Los Angeles where no
current pigeon census has even established that the pigeon population is
increasing (and the latest USGS data indicate it has been decreasing), which are
in migratory bird flight paths, where endangered raptors that prey on pigeons
would ingest it, and/or the presence of coccidia is already endemic to the
pigeon population.
Website: http://www.eartotheearth.org/reports/0610_festival/ferals.html
December 27th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Donald Jenner, Ph.D. Says:
Clearly there are levels to this whole discussion.
At the political level, the action of New York City councilmember Felder is just plain imprudent. The admittedly informal polling done indicates a 60/40 split in favor of the pigeons; anecdotal evidence supports the view that most people while not actively engaged with feeding or whatever, are passively favorable to leaving the poor birdies alone. Felder was remarkably stupid; his “report” was ill-considered and poorly researched — as a very good answer from attorney Lori Barrett (http://www.enidcrow.com/pigeonpeoplefeldercritique.htm) demonstrates. Felder has painted himself into a corner, and it will be interesting to see if this man-who-would-be-Comptroller can get out of it without leaving too many footprints behind.
Of greater concern: This is an “off-label” use of the Innolytics product. Innolytics admits this. The company’s own research makes clear that pigeons require vastly more nicarbarzin to have the effect than is required for enteric disease (notably coccidiosis) prevention in agrobiz chicken farming. At the same time, both EPA and Innolytics house studies as to residual and ecological effects are far from compelling as to thoroughness, in particular. Call this a time-bomb.
Effectiveness is also limited by the need for rather careful supervision of dose administration. Even if city staff were reliable for this (I dispute that for good reasons), they have other work to do, cannot be relied on to be in all the places birds gather to feed, &c..
Substantial evidence (e. g., various papers published from Haag-Wackernagel and his UniBasel team) suggests that measures of this sort backfire. Pigeons are superbly adapted to a competitive life in a human-dominated environment. Clearly the genetic predisposition which rendered them capable of domesticity has been a survival trait, and after millenia is now very well honed indeed. Such evidence as exists indicates that even draconian control measures, while short-term effective are long-term ineffective — even to the point of resulting in a slight uptick in pigeon fecundity and resultant population.
Most especially, it seems unlikely the measure is all that necessary. The report you cite and others I have seen show a small but steady decline in pigeon population. The pigeons are adjusting.
So: Bad politics (sort of an avitrol redivivus for us in New York). Bad veterinary medicine. Bad science. Bad stats. This is not a winning approach.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Johanna Clearfield Says:
My objection to Ovocontrol P and/or any other human-introduced birth control is not only the danger it poses to all of the other animals and/or birds that are part of the eco-system (and the highly negative impact, especially in NYC where many endangered migratory birds pass through and who prey on pigeons); but it is also in the group-think that wildlife should automatically be scaled back. Rather than consider that, after hundreds of years of decimating natural habitat, wilderness should be restored. We have some modicum of consensus that “reparations” are required when it comes to such reprehensible and systematic oppression such as the American legacy of brutality in the form of slavery — and so called “affirmative action” is one of the “reparations” which our courts have recognized make sense in an effort to balance such egregious historical cruelty. But, of course, we don’t think in these terms when it comes to our wildlife. We live in a country which has — since its inception — systematically destroyed over 96% of its wild forests. While we focus on this or that method of “population control” for animals we are completely distracted from considering how and in what ways we could give back some of this stolen habitat. In giving back, the so-called “over population” may prove to be nil to nothing. My rejection of this and other population control methods has more to do with man’s myopia than the critical environmental impact it would have. However, I would venture, both of these issues need serious consideration.