4 ms·

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21938429 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21938429 > The pigeon’s fidelity can be exploited in a p

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21938429 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21938429 > The pigeon’s fidelity can be exploited in a process known as widowing, or widowhood, in which the pairs are split up and one bird is taken away to race back to the loft. > As Stewart Wardrop explains it, in a sprint race the stronger male birds will surge back to their hen and particularly their territory. But if the male birds are taken farther afield, they’re often tempted by pastures new. > Now consider the attitude of the female birds: separate them from their cocks and they will fly determinedly back to their love over hill and high water. So it’s typically the females that are entered into the prestigious race back to the UK from Barcelona. > After struggling to cross the Pyrenees, many of them appear to have their fidelity rewarded with an exhausted watery end in the Channel.

angrais 5y ago
Thanks for the link and a good read. While this is possible, this is not something I would say most pigeon racers would do in practice. In this way, perhaps a small portion are giving a bad name to the rest?
- aphexairlines 5y ago
  Thanks for engaging with an open mind. I agree that there's an incentive for owners to keep racing pigeons healthy, that owners can be caring, and that it can be a more comfortable life than in the wild. I just disagree with the racing part -- there's no need to make birds fly over half of europe then the english channel purely for entertainment.
  - lovemenot 5y ago
    I agree - the civil tone in these posts is refreshing. While I personally share your opinion, I wouldn't make our opinion a universal. 'theres no need..." is a bit stronger than I would say it because this wording sounds objective. Other people apparently do see the need. For several decades, I have seen no need to eat birds or other land animals. While others have continued see the need. It's a difference of perspective.
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      But surely there is a difference between some folks seeing a need to do it, and there actually being a need to, no? Someone might say they _need_ to race the birds, and they might feel that in their bones to be true, but does that actually make it true? I'd say no. There are lots of great hobbies that don't involve putting the animals in those stressful and potentially fatal situations, so someone making the claim that they need to do it just sounds like mental gymnastics to me, personally.
      - lovemenot 5y ago
        Yes, I think the term is the crux of it. By declaring that something that someone enjoys doing for whatever reason is not necessary, in situations like this, one appears to be implicitly attempting to erode their right to do it. Anyone can think of many things they do for fun which are not necessitated. Perhaps it would be better to be more explicit, if that's how you feel: "Everyone should refrain from ...'

angrais 5y ago

Thanks for the link and a good read. While this is possible, this is not something I would say most pigeon racers would do in practice. In this way, perhaps a small portion are giving a bad name to the rest?

aphexairlines 5y ago
Thanks for engaging with an open mind. I agree that there's an incentive for owners to keep racing pigeons healthy, that owners can be caring, and that it can be a more comfortable life than in the wild. I just disagree with the racing part -- there's no need to make birds fly over half of europe then the english channel purely for entertainment.
- lovemenot 5y ago
  I agree - the civil tone in these posts is refreshing. While I personally share your opinion, I wouldn't make our opinion a universal. 'theres no need..." is a bit stronger than I would say it because this wording sounds objective. Other people apparently do see the need. For several decades, I have seen no need to eat birds or other land animals. While others have continued see the need. It's a difference of perspective.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    But surely there is a difference between some folks seeing a need to do it, and there actually being a need to, no? Someone might say they _need_ to race the birds, and they might feel that in their bones to be true, but does that actually make it true? I'd say no. There are lots of great hobbies that don't involve putting the animals in those stressful and potentially fatal situations, so someone making the claim that they need to do it just sounds like mental gymnastics to me, personally.
    - lovemenot 5y ago
      Yes, I think the term is the crux of it. By declaring that something that someone enjoys doing for whatever reason is not necessary, in situations like this, one appears to be implicitly attempting to erode their right to do it. Anyone can think of many things they do for fun which are not necessitated. Perhaps it would be better to be more explicit, if that's how you feel: "Everyone should refrain from ...'