Criticism of the Augsburg Pigeon Protection Model
Biologists have been pointing out for years that pigeon lofts can only reduce the population if a large proportion of urban pigeons actually breed in the loft. For Munich, it was calculated as an example that hundreds of lofts would be required for this. Otherwise the effect fizzles out, because the majority of the animals continue to breed outside and reproduce.
According to the Augsburg model, pigeon lofts are regularly supplied with food and eggs are exchanged for decoys in order to regulate the pigeon population.
However, in most cases without accompanying measures and with modest success. This is primarily because private individuals put out large quantities of food for feral domestic pigeons, writes the city of Zurich. Pigeons that are fed in urban spaces cannot easily be tied to a pigeon loft.
There is a consensus in wildlife biology that, in wild animals, a good food supply can increase the reproductive rate, i.e. the number of offspring. Basel closed its old pigeon lofts years ago because they had barely been of any use, says media spokesperson Anne Tschudin. “We were only able to care for around ten percent of the pigeon population.” The benefit was therefore small, while the costs were high.
The main problem with applying the pigeon loft method lies not so much in the pigeon lofts themselves — these are well-intentioned but of little effect — but in the associated additional feeding. In the opinion of all experts, a reduction in the excessively high pigeon populations can only be achieved by reducing the amount of food available. – Richard Köhler
Not every pigeon lays its eggs in pigeon lofts either. It is necessary that they are positioned in the right place and accepted by the animals.
Pigeons are very site-loyal. This is why the managed pigeon loft approach (the Augsburg model) does not work everywhere — also because a suitable location or adequate personnel cannot always be found, such as at train stations. For this reason, contraception can serve as an additional piece of the puzzle in pigeon management.
The Augsburg pigeon protection model has provoked various reactions in recent years and has led to numerous closures and a reassessment of pigeon lofts in many cities. Here are some of the most important points of criticism:
- Effectiveness of the measures
Critics doubt the actual effectiveness of the model. It is argued that the measures introduced are insufficient to significantly reduce the pigeon population or to sustainably resolve the challenges these birds present. In large cities, the concept is said to be impractical for logistical reasons, as hundreds of such pigeon lofts would need to be established and operated at considerable financial and staffing expense. - Quality of life for residents
Some residents report ongoing problems with pigeons despite the implemented measures. Contamination and noise remain a significant issue, affecting quality of life. - Financial aspects
The costs of implementing and monitoring the model are also subject to criticism. There are concerns that financial resources are being used inefficiently and that alternatives might be more cost-effective and more effective overall. - Animal welfare concerns
The model is suspected of not offering sufficiently animal-friendly solutions. Critics fear that some measures do not adequately take animal welfare into consideration and could thus cause disproportionate suffering. Is it truly ethical, fair, and effective to continuously steal the young from pigeon parents? After repeated brooding cycles and egg theft, pigeons may sense that something is wrong and seek out new or former nesting sites around the managed dovecote. Reproduction is a fundamental need of animals. Without reproduction and rearing, they are deprived of one of their most important evolutionary drives, say researchers at the University of Zurich. For this reason, pigeon pairs require a successful brood. A regular food supply continuously sustains reproductive activity, which leads to exhaustion of the parent birds and ultimately to a deterioration of their health, writes the Animal Welfare Basel-Stadt and Basel-Landschaft. Among pigeon breeders, this effect is well known and is referred to as “laying themselves to death.” In concrete terms, this means that the unnatural abundance of available food ultimately harms the pigeons. What is the difference between this method under the Augsburg Pigeon Protection Model and that of breeders who have selectively bred pigeons for high reproductive activity? - Lack of Public Involvement
A further point of criticism is the insufficient inclusion of citizens in decision-making processes. Many people feel they are not adequately informed or integrated into the measures being taken. - Long-Term Strategies
It is noted that the model, by its very nature, tends to offer short-term solutions. Long-term strategies that also address the root causes of the pigeon problem are frequently lacking. A rigorous approach would be needed against uncontrolled pigeon breeders, who are the source of the entire problem, and they should be made to bear the financial consequences. Breeders are responsible for mass animal suffering and, in the case of cat or dog breeding as well, contribute to overcrowded animal shelters.
For these and other reasons, cities are seeking alternatives: contraceptive medications, sterilization, feeding bans, hunting, etc.
The medication appears to us to be an effective means of countering the excessively large pigeon population with all its side effects. What we have done so far — feeding the pigeons and replacing the eggs — was ultimately not very successful. Martin Adamski, Head of Environmental Affairs, Bielefeld
Since 2011, the Tierpark Bern has officially been responsible for the city pigeons of Berne. As part of this role, pigeons are regularly caught, given veterinary examinations at the animal park, and the male birds are sterilised.
With the project «Stadttauben Luzern», the city has been working since 2001 to ensure that fewer, but healthier, pigeons live in Lucerne. With success: today, approximately 2’500 pigeons live in Lucerne; in 2001, there were around 7’000 in the city.
The most important measure of the project is to repeatedly remind people not to feed pigeons. Because the amount of food available is the primary factor determining how many pigeons live in a city.
As part of the project, two pigeon lofts with controlled breeding conditions were established. From both lofts, the pigeon keeper can dispose of approximately 300 kg of droppings annually. No feeding takes place in the lofts.
Even informed animal welfare advocates do not dispute that it is necessary to control and reduce pigeon populations.
The Augsburg model is marketed in many cities as a modern solution to the urban pigeon problem. On closer inspection, however, its impact proves to be limited and contradictory. Pigeon lofts with egg replacement can only genuinely reduce populations if a large proportion of the population actually breeds in the loft. In practice, however, there are usually only a few lofts, while the majority of pigeons continue to breed uncontrolled in niches, roof structures, and facades. Many municipalities adopt the model as a matter of policy, yet provide neither sufficient suitable locations nor sustainably funded management. The day-to-day work falls on a handful of volunteers who are familiar with the problems on the ground and who ultimately burn out, while the city markets the whole thing as a success.
From an animal welfare policy perspective, the Augsburg model remains a compromise: the birds are pushed out of the city center into specialised “pigeon ghettos”, their reproduction is systematically controlled, and eggs are routinely swapped. The legal and social status of city pigeons as unwanted “pests” remains untouched. It becomes problematic when the model serves as a fig leaf to continue legitimising feeding bans, deterrence measures, and covert culling operations. Rather than recognising the domestic animal population created by humans as fellow creatures entitled to protection and care, the problem is merely displaced spatially and cosmetically. A truly contemporary, hunting-critical and animal suffering-critical urban pigeon concept would need to go further: comprehensive, transparent and scientifically monitored, with clear feeding management, public education, and an honest assumption of responsibility for the urban pigeon population that humans have created.
Overall, the Augsburg pigeon protection model remains a controversial topic with both supporters and opponents. An open discussion about the advantages and disadvantages as well as alternative approaches is necessary in order to find effective and sustainable solutions for the benefit of the animals.
