Err, I would be against a cull of pigeons, but allowing them to reduce numbers through reduced food (not necessarily starving but making them less likely to breed successfully) seems like a good idea. Nice joke campaign though.

You object to "deploying hawks to kill and terrorize them"

A clear indication of the reality that there is in many cases a WIDE gulf between "animal rights" and "environmentalism".

Whether or not it is immoral for YOU to kill and eat a pigeon is a very separate matter from whether there is anything wrong with a hawk doing so! Apparently you object to the natural world with all its diversity and splendor.

Worse, this indication that you disapprove of the hawk (or presumably any other predator) casts doubt upon your real reasons for objecting to humans eating meat. At LEAST when you argue that we humans are in some way "superior" to the other animals, some sort of higher non-animal form of life that doesn't HAVE to eat meat and so is behaving better by abstaining you make some sort of sense --- even though I might disagree with this "religion" (in quotes, but we are in the realm of discourse of religions). But when you express that feeling with regard to the hawks that's a very different sort of "religion" -- one which I not only diusagree with but would oppose.

I am an animal. I accept that reality. I eat, "sh*t, and will die. I am no better than the pigeon, no better tha than the hawk. You are also, but if that is too uncomfortable a thought, believe what you want. Just don't try to ram your religion down my throat and PLEASE -- stop saying that we are for the same things. Any person expressing views you just have I classiffy as ANTIenvironmental.

I thought the article was about Ken Livingston vs pigeons, not hawks vs pigeons... hello??? wakey wakey...

all power to the hawks,except livingstone

Introducing hawks to a man made environment like Trafalgar Square is no more "natural" than poisoning pigeons, it is a form of anthropogenically-induced animal suffering. I would be prepared to debate the ethics of allowing hawks or other predators kill pigeons in a truly natural setting, but in the present context it is irrelevent.

Some AR people consider that we should not harm animals because humans are just animals ourselves. Personally I disagree. I do consider that in one way at least, humans are a superior species (discounting marginal cases such as the very young and the mentally impaired), in that we do not have to kill other animals to survive, and we know good from evil and can choose good. Whether some other animals also have the same ability is a moot point; there is some evidence that dolphins also show the same sort of freedom of choice, and altruism is well documented in domestic dogs. But whether or not that is the case, this does not take away the fact that as members of the moral community we have a moral duty to do what is right.

If you think that is ramming anything down your throat, then you are doing the same. The commandment "thou shalt not ram anything down anybody's throat" seems just as much part of your "religion" as decent treatment of animals is part of my "religion". And by preaching non throat ramming to the unwashed masses on indymedia you are guilty of throat ramming yourself. So the statement "you should not tell anyone else what to do" is self contradictory and therefore nonsense.

If you are convinced that your particular beliefs about animals are right then by all means ram as hard as you like to convince us, you have a right, and indeed a duty to do so. But do not then scream "unfair" or accuse us of throat ramming when we then do the same back.

Why interfere with animals on any level? They're a different tribe from you. Leave them alone. You're not any fucking 'master-race'. Pricks.