A Growing Call for Kindness Towards Animals

Even as recent years report an increase in complaints about urban birds such as house crows and rock pigeons, the marked rise in reported animal cruelty and welfare cases from 2023 to 2024 (SPCA, 2024) - the highest over a 12-year period - reflects a growing public kindness towards animals and willingness to speak out and act on animal welfare issues. This is a powerful sign that true progress is measured not just by economic success, but by how we care for, and live well alongside the vulnerable and voiceless.

Acknowledging Real Challenges, Addressing Root Causes

As Singapore continues to urbanise and intensified human-wildlife interactions are anticipated, it is all the more important to prioritise resources towards compassionate, ethical, and sustainable approaches, to achieve Singapore’s vision of a City-in-Nature grounded in genuine interdisciplinary innovation. The fact that urban bird culling continues to be repeated over decades suggests that current approaches may not adequately address underlying root causes.

Taking Responsibility Together as a Community

Moving towards compassionate coexistence is not the responsibility of authorities alone, although they make crucial decisions. While current non-lethal approaches are appreciated, we respectfully call for renewed and reflective strategies that reconsider the limitations of existing approaches.

Culling, especially visible and audience violence such as shooting, is a serious decision with long-term implications for our societal moral values and should be used only as a true last resort that is socially legitimate, involving meaningful participation from diverse stakeholders broadly representative of the community.

Call to Action

We call on both our leaders and community to support the following:

1. Publish comprehensive data to guide evidence-based, transparent decision-making

• Population census counts of urban birds
• Reports on the relative efficacy of different management methods
• Economic costs of cleaning disamenities, and trapping and culling
• Public perception surveys on attitudes toward coexistence and various population management approaches
• Ecological, health, social and cultural impact assessments

For example, claims such as “crow attacks” should be nuanced and clearly categorised, e.g., "swooping over head", "landing on the head", "pulling at hair", or "pecking on skin". Culling decisions should not rely solely on complaint reports, which may be skewed even if individually valid.

2. Enhance legal protection for unprotected urban birds

• Remove the four urban bird species (house crow, rock pigeon, white-vented Javan myna, and common myna)  from the exemption schedule under Section 5C of the Wildlife Act (WA), which currently allows these species to be trapped and killed without approval from the Director-General of Wildlife Management (DGWM).
• This change would ensure that any culling measures are congruent with Section 42 of the Animals and Birds Act (ABA), which prohibits animal cruelty defined as “unnecessary suffering,” and which currently still applies to these exempted species.
• Explicitly state that bird control contractors fall under the definition of “owners” under Section 41(c)(1)(a)(iii) of the ABA (currently defined as “includes a person in charge of the animal”). Thus they have a duty of care to ensure that the birds are not subjected to “unreasonable or unnecessary pain or suffering”.

3. Implement community safeguards for last-resort culling

To ensure that any culling is truly a last resort and humanely implemented, a consultation and oversight process must be implemented:

• Community Consultation: Engage residents, animal welfare groups, and stakeholders before culling, reviewing rationale, methods, and expected outcomes.
• Ethical Oversight: Independent observers from animals welfare organisations should be present during operations to ensure ethical and legal compliance.
• Transparency: Authorities to publish post-culling reports detailing numbers, methods, justifications, and any incidents.

Four Reasons to Reconsider Culling House Crows

1) Need for current house crow population data

Despite the tripling of crow-related feedback from around 5000 in 2020 to 15,000 in 2025 (The Straits Times, Feb 2026), there is no publicly available population census of house crows in Singapore in 2025.

In 2003, Brook et al (2003) estimated 130,000 house crows (1.9 birds/ha) in Singapore. In 2015, Tan et al (2020) estimated around 7,295 house crows (0.134 birds/ha), a 92% decrease from 2003.

Without an updated house crow population census for 2025, it is difficult to determine whether their population has rebounded (and to what extent) or stabilised, and whether increased feedback reflects a real population surge or increased public reporting. 

2) Need for more robust public perception data. 

Presently, there is no large-scale public perception survey conducted on Singapore citizens and residents’ attitudes towards house crows and various population management methods. 

In their study on human–crow conflict in Greater Tokyo, Kurosawa et al. (2003) compared formal crow complaint records with questionnaire responses from ordinary residents. They found that crow complaints were biased - responses to the questionnaires by ordinary citizens showed that “garbage scattering” was rated as the most serious problem, followed by “noisy calls”. "Assaults on humans” were less significant, suggesting that this had been over-represented in complaint data, which may not necessarily reflect the views of broader society.

Rupprecht's (2017) study on urban residents’ willingness to coexist with animals in Brisbane (n = 123) and Sapporo (n = 163) found that pigeons and crows were highly contested species in both cities, i.e., neither clearly wanted nor clearly unwanted. While the modest sample sizes caution against overgeneralisation, findings indicate that urban residents often hold mixed or ambivalent attitudes toward these birds.

3) Tackle the root cause for long-term effective house crow population management

Culling may not be effective in the long-term as it does not address the root cause, which is the availability of anthropogenic (human-generated) food.

Lim et al. (2003) observed that “the population of the house crow has increased dramatically over the last 16 years, despite active (but moderate) culling by government authorities since 1973” (p. 692). Notably, even with sustained lethal control, the population continued to grow. Author viewed that this pattern of high growth is likely due to the access to large amount of human refuse, as “house crows are highly dependent on anthropogenic (human-generated) food” (p.685). 

Furthermore, Brook et al. (2003) observe that “a large population of house crows reside in Johor Baru, Peninsular Malaysia” and that “coastal surveys imply substantial intermixing of these two populations” (p. 815). This suggests that culling house crows in Singapore may create a population vacuum that is quickly filled by immigration from Johor. Effective management of the house crow population is therefore most likely to succeed through active deterrence by reducing access to human-derived food sources, given their strong association with anthropogenic waste.

4) Possible unintended consequences

House crows are part of Singapore’s urban ecosystem, and removing them without understanding broader ecological interactions can produce unintended consequences.

In a study conducted in the UK, Inger et al (2016) found that “despite a relatively rich scavenger community and a positive relationship between carcass removal and species richness, overall carcass removal was dominated by a single species, the Carrion crow” (p.2). Authors note that “habitat fragmentation may be a driving force behind the dominance of crows as scavengers” as it may “suppress the activity of some scavengers” and favour species like corvids who can “transmit information on carcass location socially to monopolise carcass resources” (p.2).

In Singapore, citing Lim et al (2003)’s observation - that the increase in house crow population was mirrored by a decline in Javan myna population, and areas like the public housing estates where house crows were abundant had comparatively less Javan mynas - Yap (2003) cautions that the sudden removal of house crows may “lead to an ecological release and impel an explosion in myna numbers” (p.162).

Three Reasons to Choose Non-Lethal Alternatives (Rock Pigeons)

1) Non-lethal methods can effectively and sustainably manage pigeon populations

Studies from Italy and Spain show that oral contraceptives with nicarbazin, combined with reducing feeding and deterrence devices like bird spikes that block roosting and nesting, can sustainably reduce pigeon populations over three to six years (Ferri et al., 2009; Dobeic et al., 2011; Ferri et al., 2011; Albonetti et al., 2015; González-Crespo & Lavín, 2022, 2023).

Cities like Basel, Augsburg, and Paris have successfully used pigeon lofts (enclosed spaces where eggs are humanely removed or swapped and feeding is carefully controlled) to regulate pigeon reproduction. These lofts help protect buildings from damage caused by droppings, encourage positive human-pigeon interactions, and improve pigeon health (Animal Aid, 2024; PICAS UK, n.d.; Stephens, 2025; Weyrather, 2021).

2) Trapping and culling pigeons can be cruel and involves risks

Pigeon culling in Singapore has involved inhumane acts like stomping on pigeons, sweeping them into dust pans and dumping them into trash bags while alive (TODAY, 2019; Ee & Michael, 2023). Trapping primarily captures adult birds, leaving infant pigeons (squabs) to die of starvation. Trapped birds are likely to suffer distress when confined and may get injured trying to escape.

The use of alpha-chloralose and carbon dioxide causes suffering and panic, as the birds lose their ability to control body temperature and overall function (Ee & Michael, 2023). This has raised serious ethical concerns amongst the scientific community (Humane Society of the United States, n.d.). Moreover, alpha-chloralose baits could be ingested by other animals such as community cats, pet dogs, and other urban wildlife, and the effects could be lethal if not actively treated (Tegner et al,2022; Windahl et al, 2022; Dikjman et al, 2023).

3) Serious health risks and ecological impact posed by pigeons are not well-evidenced

While public health concerns and cleanliness issues from pigeon droppings are understandable, scientific evidence shows limited and inconclusive links between pigeons and disease transmission to humans, with negligible risk for most except those with serious respiratory conditions (Ee & Michael, 2023). A study by Baker et al. (2019) examining histoplasmosis cases in Southeast Asia between 1932 and 2018 found only 21 cases, with no clear connection to pigeons.

End the Cull, Choose Coexistence

As a City-in-Nature, Singapore can lead by investing in long-term, ethical and socially legitimate urban bird population management.

Sign to support a compassionate Singapore.