Pigeons and people: mortal enemies or lifelong companions? A case study on staff perceptions of the pigeons on the University of South Africa,Muckleneuk campus

Pigeons have been a part of our lives for as long as we can remember. Some people view them with joy, others disdain. Regardless of the perception, control measures are often implemented against the birds in a bid to reduce their presence in urban environments without considering the views of members of the public in the process. Complaints about pigeon activity are, typically, given more attention than praise for these birds. However, people who are pro‐pigeons are often not provided with the forum to express their views of the birds. This study explored the perceptions of staff with regard to the pigeons inhabiting the University of South Africa's Muckleneuk campus. Two hundred and forty‐six participants provided their opinions on the pigeons, their related activities and the perceived impact on staff on the campus. Recognising that both people and urban wildlife play a role of cause‐and‐effect in human–wildlife conflicts can contribute to understanding peoples' relationships and perceptions of animals which transgress the boundaries between urbanisation and nature. By considering peoples' perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards urban wildlife, management strategies can be significantly informed in the process of mitigating conflict. The study has shown that the negative perception of pigeons, which was assumed to be the position of all the people affected by the pigeons at the University of South Arica's Muckleneuk campus, is in fact incorrect. Participants would rather encourage the nesting and breeding activities of the pigeons on campus, as they felt that the human–pigeon interactions and the viewing of squabs in nests contributed positively to their work environment. Pigeon control strategies should therefore not solely be on the biological aspect of a perceived pigeon problem, but should also include the human association. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Irregular immigrants in Australia and the United States — Rights,realities, and political mobilization

This article considers the gap between the universal promise of human rights and the reality of the rights enjoyed by irregular immigrants in liberal democracies such as Australia and the United States. Against the idea that stronger international rights enforcement mechanisms will automatically improve the position of irregular immigrants, it argues that international law currently provides a warrant for the way in which countries like Australia and the United States treat irregular immigrants. After developing this argument, the article explores how irregular immigrants might employ the language of rights more effectively in their political mobilizations.     

Traversing the Fantasy: Why Leftist Academics Must Abandon the Myth of Organic Resistance and Think Again About the Problems We Face

Critical Criminology - The concept of organic resistance has stood as a cornerstone of critical social science for decades. Countless authors have claimed that minor acts of...     

Adolescent Refusal of MMR Inoculation: F (Mother) v F (Father)

F (Mother) v F (Father) concerned a dispute between parents as to whether or not their 15 and 11 year old children should receive the MMR inoculation. Mrs Justice Theis took into consideration the wishes of both parents and the two ‘intelligent, articulate and thoughtful’ minors and held that inoculation was in their best interests. The troubled history of the MMR vaccine and its importance to public health provided the backdrop. Whilst the court's efforts to establish the views of the minors are to be commended, the decision is problematic in its assessment of the minors' individual medical interests and capacities, and in the significance placed on their views when determining whether inoculation would be in their best interests.