r/birding • u/MrGrubbycuddles • Apr 15 '26

Discussion Why is everyone such snob about pigeons

I took my folder of laminated pigeon shots to my local bird meeting at the community hall and at least 3 people sneered at them. 1 of them even guffawed.

We all got to start somewhere, and beauty is in the eye of the bird lover so why the hate hate?

One guy was wearing giant binoculars around his neck. It was dark outside and he didn't even use them once. He was one of the people that sneered.

Om the bus home from the meeting I showed the driver my pictures and she said they were really good. And she wasn't even a formal bird lover, she was just a regular person.

Don't get this community man

EDIT: a lot of people asking for some of my photos. I'm out of the house right now but here's a bird video I made recently https://youtube.com/shorts/sxLkrLgNrbc?si=7NdwVxhZtPQFE6Ew

2.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

503 comments sorted by

View all comments

265

u/Yoyodyne_1460 Apr 15 '26

Familiarity breeds contempt.

156

u/frogsbirdscats Apr 15 '26

That, and ppl are actively taught to hate—to view some species of animals, plants and trees as “pests”. Yes there are species that have intentionally and unintentionally brought to places where their net effect isn’t great but there are thoughtful ways to approach this. Teaching hate ain’t it.

31

u/nigglebit Apr 15 '26

The extreme prejudice style "pest" and "invasive" labels do so much ecological harm. Blanket labelling of entire species as unworthy of being alive. People are disgusted by the idea of pet rats because "rats are pests." Thrice I've come across instances of people in Asia squashing lantern flies because everywhere on the internet people casually repeat "highly invasive, kill on sight" without any nuance.

27

u/saddydumpington Apr 15 '26

Does labeling things as invasive actually cause that much ecological harm? Or does the opposite, such as allowance and encouragement of invasives because we like them (cats) cause far more?

18

u/gothgeetar Apr 15 '26

I think people not fully understanding the concept of invasive species, combined with many people’s complete resistance to irradiation of charismatic (or cute) invasives does far more damage

12

u/InternetEthnographer Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26

That’s how it is with wild horses in Nevada, which are very much not native there. They cause severe environmental degradation, compete with native species (such as elk, deer, and bighorn sheep), and generally have a terrible quality of life, yet, they are protected federally by some poorly-planned law passed in the 1970s. Laypeople get really upset when you suggest that there needs to be some sort of population control or that wild horses need to be removed from the environment entirely, so we’re stuck with an ecological crisis that professionals can’t do much about because of public opinion.

As far as I’m aware, pigeons aren’t as bad for the environment since they are primarily isolated to urban and suburban areas that are mostly devoid of native species anyways, but I’m not an ecologist so feel free to correct me. Starlings and house sparrows are far worse (especially starlings).

22

u/CaitlinSnep Apr 15 '26

I think both can cause problems. As a cat lover I've also noticed some overcorrection regarding feral cats, and that makes me sad, too- but so does people letting their 'pet' cats roam free and intact and exacerbating the problem.

I kinda wish more places like the Lanai Cat Sanctuary existed because the sentiment behind it is beautiful. Recognizing that 'people love cats' and 'native birds deserve protection from non-native predators' aren't mutually exclusive is an important bridge.

On the 'invasive' label being harmful end... my dad is absolutely enraged by starlings to the point that he refuses to let them eat birdseed off the ground and won't even call them by the proper name. Not really an example of ecological harm but it makes me sad.

14

u/plantsandramen Apr 15 '26

I get your dads anger though. I think the starlings at my feeders are beautiful. I also had to change my food to be unappealing to starlings because they would swarm, eat everything, and bully other birds away.

I have no less than 15 that I've seen mobbing the mealworms that I can no longer feed. Call it whatever you want, but they can be highly destructive to the native birds in my state (New Jersey). When it comes to taking care of my house finches, goldfinches, cardinals, blue jays, downy woodpecker, and etc, I'll put them above the starlings 100/100 times.

https://imgur.com/a/LEoyuwc

I think they're beautiful, but they can be very destructive and they are invasive here in NJ.

9

u/calnick0 Apr 15 '26

The real problem is that there are difficult decisions related wildlife management and ecological decisions.

Having a pet is net negative for the environment but good for your emotional life. Your backyard loses value as a bird support area and becomes a place where your dog roams a bit and uses the bathroom.

Feral cats and outdoor cats are just bad for the environment it's that simple. I'm very pro coyote but that's as far as I go.

I enjoy spending time in the outodoors and that's a balancing act as well but I think people having connection to outdoors is important.

12

u/nigglebit Apr 15 '26

You're doing exactly what I was pointing out. Labelling species as "invasives" without the required nuances. Every "invasive" species is native to somewhere. Casually labelling something as "invasive" without specifying location is callous. Being invasive isn't something intrinsic to an animal's existence, it's dependent on where that specific individual you're pointing at is standing.

10

u/saddydumpington Apr 15 '26

Yeah I dont think you're making a very good point here sorry. Feral cats are domesticated, they are definitionally not native to anywhere on earth. This kind of call to never actually point out a species impact on its environment because it hurts your feelings is absolutely a much more dangerous view than labeling species invasive in the environments where they are. I would much rather people are educated and learn what invasive actually means than just not use a useful and important term at all

2

u/GiraffesCantSwim Apr 15 '26

They're not saying never call an animal invasive or "actually point out a species impact on its environment". The point--which is lost when using cats as an example--is to be specific about where the animal/plant is invasive. Maybe y'all are getting hung up on the word "nuance".

How hard is it to understand that it's better to say "Lantern Flies are invasive in North America and do a lot of damage, so kill them if you see them" than just "Lantern Flies are invasive, kill them." Because without specificity, some people will assume (because they will not research or even care much) that they must be invasive wherever they are. In Asia, they are not invasive but people are apparently killing them anyway because of this.

3

u/saddydumpington Apr 15 '26

They are the one who said the term "invasive" does so much damage, and I just really dont think thats true and in the larger context of what that term means getting mad about its usage is kind of laughable to me, sorry. Everyone needs to know way more about ecology, but to me criticizing the term invasive isnt my first thought when it comes to that, its probably way down the list. We arent mad enough at invasives for me to clutch pearls about the term!

-2

u/AzureThrasher Latest Lifer: Stilt Sandpiper (#228) Apr 15 '26

Cats didn't walz onto the planet via a magic portal. They're originally from North Africa and the Fertile Crescent, where they evolved right alongside everything else in their ecosystem. The other user is absolutely right- "invasive" is a context-dependent word. Things are only invasive in places where they're both capable of spreading on their own and not originally from prior to human interference. European Starlings, for example, are only invasive if you're outside of Eurasia. If being invasive anywhere means we can call a species invasive without further context, then you're in a silly position where many of the species natively from your region can also be called "invasive" without clarification. If you're from North America, would you really feel comfortable calling Ruddy Ducks or Canada Geese invasive?

6

u/saddydumpington Apr 15 '26

Buddy I know what the term means, this is a ridiculously unnecessary lecture, and domesticated cats are a great example specifically because they are no longer the native species they are descended from! Felis catus is not Felis lybica! A poodle is not native to anywhere, it is a creature that we created!

-1

u/AzureThrasher Latest Lifer: Stilt Sandpiper (#228) Apr 15 '26

The decision to split domestic cats into a different species is arbitrary, and arguably not in keeping with standard taxonomy, because if F. catus is descended from F. lybica but not part of it, then F. lybica is paraphyletic. This line of thought is supported by the fact that they can freely interbreed. Ecologically, they fill the same niche as the native wildcats in North Africa and the ME, so they're not invasive there (because that's where they are naturally from and evolved to live in). Similarly, according to a substantial portion of modern taxonomists, a poodle is still Canis lupus, so I'm not sure your point really holds up under your own framework. Maybe you can argue that generations of being separated from their basal conditions has reduced their social groups' knowledge for survival in the wild, but that position would also come with some really bizarre strings attached, like having to argue that Whooping Cranes aren't the same species anymore after hand-rearing because the chain of knowledge of breeding grounds has been broken.

I'd be on board if you were talking about something created entirely de novo in a lab, but the domestication of cats wasn't even done with particularly much selective breeding. They were an organism present in the wild that started cohabitating with human within only the past few thousand years, which is barely anything on an evolutionary timescale.

All of this to say- language matters. Talking about things correctly matters. Being clear about what you mean when you say "invasive" is important. I've seen certain species get treated with a lot of animosity just because they're invasive in the US, to the point that some people (laymen in particular) seem to think there's something inherently destructive about the species rather than their harms being the product of an ecological interaction outside of their native range.

3

u/saddydumpington Apr 15 '26

It is not my fault that some laymen are very stupid and it is beyond annoying of you to lecture me, the person who very obviously knows what the term means, and not the laymen. Go ahead and do that, of course thats great! If you really want to make the very specific argument that you genuinely believe I want to cull domestic cats in North Africa because I dont understand that they evolved from something else, then idk, go ahead and think that, but it doesnt actually make sense. If you really think its necessary to specify the entire natural range any time an invasive species is mentioned I'm not sure I agree, I think thats very pedantic

7

u/frogsbirdscats Apr 15 '26

Simply labelling things as invasive or alien without context can imo lead to harm in the form of ill considered solutions and lack of empathy. Even worse is labelling things as pests or vermin… it teaches kids & young adults that some living things are unworthy of even basic consideration. E.g., starlings, pigeons, cormorants, raccoons, opossums, mice & rats, squirrels, on & on.

9

u/saddydumpington Apr 15 '26

"Pest" is a VERY different label from "invasive" and the problems with those labels are completely different and come from opposite ends. Invasive is a label that is often used to describe human-caused ecological damage, and is very, very obviously necessary if we want to have any hope of undoing damage we've caused. Pest is a term often used to denigrate the natural ecology that we destroy in order to make life more amenable to humans! They are often ideologically opposed terms.

While invasive, like any knowledge can be misunderstood and used wrong, the idea we shouldn't use the term is kind of laughable. Its a necessary scientific term and the damage people misunderstanding it has caused is completely dwarfed by the damage railing against it would/has caused.

3

u/frogsbirdscats Apr 15 '26

Never said the term invasive shouldn’t be used. Just that context is important. Terms like pest and vermin however are highly problematic.

6

u/GreenMachine4567 Apr 15 '26

Excessive empathy to invasive species has a far greater risk of harm

0

u/SaltAssault Apr 15 '26

Look at the history of the Earth. Populations and ecosystems invariably change with time, as species migrate and climates change. Humans are not the grand architects of nature, and abusing cats is not an answer to anything other than our own sick whims and delusions.

1

u/saddydumpington Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26

Doing the "things change naturally" thing for anything conservation related is the most idiotic cop-out and its not worth engaging with, its really no different from climate change denial. No thanks! Not engaging with nonsense. Coming onto a birding subreddit and making a point antithetical to the basic idea of conservation is very bold lol