Studying habits and movements doesn't seem all that unusual to me. People do it all the time, it's called gossip, and when they get bored they watch TV where t

Studying habits and movements doesn't seem all that unusual to me. People do it all the time, it's called gossip, and when they get bored they watch TV where there are made-up people you can track. The other option, to ignore him entirely, not track his movements and pretend he doesn't exist, is also a way we treat animals. Squirrels, pigeons, sparrows, ants, spiders... Yes, there is a striking parallel that's why the Onion parody was hilarious. But despite the grain of truth there isn't anything inherently evil about the tone. As for telling the population not to feed him for his own good: is that a good thing or a bad thing to do? Ignore for a moment, parallels and parodies, and judge the facts as you know them. (Personally, I don't agree that they should admonish people for feeding him, but it has very little to do with the idea of misplaced paternalism.)