Documents › Regular Meeting, 2026-09-02

14 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: CAF - Local Law Intro 10 of 2026 Local Law Introductory No. 10 of 2026 Memo from Valerie Monastra on Fowl%2FAnimals Memo on Fowl %26 Poultry from Village Manager Bryan Healy PB Memo to VB Local Law Intro 10 of 2026 Farm Animals Proposed Language on Farm Animals and Fowl - June 2026 Proposed Language on Farm Animals and Fowl - May 2026 Public Comments Received by Email - August 31 Resolution 156-2026 LL Intro 10 of 2026 Referrals Resolution 180-2026 LL Intro 10 of 2026 PH Short EAF Part 1 - Local Law Intro 10 of 2026 completed

From: Kate Elliott To: Manager"s Office; Board of Trustees Subject: Proposed pigeon ban Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 9:24:11 PM Attachments: Pigeon.pdf ***CAUTION: External sender.*** To the Mayor and Board of Trustees, I’m writing because I’m having a hard time understanding the need for a complete ban on keeping pigeons in the Village, and I keep coming back to one basic question: What specific problem is this ban actually trying to solve? If the concern is public health, I’d like to understand what evidence shows that responsibly kept domestic pigeons pose a meaningful risk. If the concern is cleanliness, odor, noise, or overcrowding, those seem like issues that can be addressed directly through reasonable rules —sanitation standards, limits on flock size, housing requirements, setbacks, and enforcement of existing nuisance laws. Those kinds of regulations would address the actual concerns without banning pigeon keeping altogether. I was also struck by comments from the May 27 work session, where the Village Attorney reportedly suggested that even a temporary moratorium might be excessive given that only one resident had expressed interest in keeping pigeons. If that’s the case, it’s hard to understand why a permanent, Village-wide prohibition is now being considered—especially one that would impact an existing keeper and his birds. I’m also concerned about the decision not to grandfather existing pigeons. Tarrytown was mentioned as a nearby example where pigeon keeping is prohibited but existing owners were grandfathered in. That feels like a reasonable and humane compromise here. If the Village believes a ban is necessary going forward, why not allow the current flock to remain? If the Board is rejecting that option, I’d appreciate an explanation of what specific harm would result from allowing these existing birds to stay under reasonable conditions. I also want to ask how “pigeon” is being defined. Would domesticated doves be included? Since pigeons and doves are part of the same biological family, that distinction matters, and it should be clearly spelled out in any law. Finally, I hope the Board will consider the animals themselves. Pigeons are intelligent, social animals that form strong bonds with each other and with their caretakers. Asking someone to disperse an established flock isn’t just regulating a hobby—it has real consequences for living creatures that have formed a home and social structure here. I’m not arguing for unlimited or unregulated pigeon keeping. If there are legitimate concerns, they should absolutely be addressed. But regulation and prohibition are not the same thing, and a ban should require a clear, well-supported justification. Before moving forward, I respectfully ask the Board to clarify:  What documented problem requires a full ban? What evidence supports the idea that responsibly kept pigeons are a risk? What less restrictive options were considered and why they were rejected? Why grandfathering was not adopted, as in other municipalities? What harm would result from allowing the existing flock to remain? How “pigeon” will be defined in the law? What consideration has been given to animal welfare impacts? If there is a specific issue at a specific property, that should be addressed directly. But a Village-wide ban feels like a very broad solution to what appears to be a very limited situation. Croton is a community that values fairness and thoughtful decision-making, and I hope those values guide this process. At a minimum, I ask the Board to reconsider grandfathering the existing birds so they can remain with their owner. Additionally, I am attaching a comprehensive study regarding pigeons and transmission of disease to humans. Kate Elliott  Piney Point Avenue  Health hazards posed by feral pigeons D. Haag-Wackernagela,*, H. Mochb aInstitute of Anatomy, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland bInstitute of Pathology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland Accepted 17 November 2003 KEYWORDS Pigeon; Zoonoses; Disease reservoir; Environment and public health; Immunocompromised host; Epidemiology; Mycoses; Food poisoning; Animal viruses Summary A comprehensive literature search of epidemiological studies and reports of transmissions of disease from feral pigeons to humans was performed. There were 176 documented transmissions of illness from feral pigeons to humans reported between 1941 and 2003. Feral pigeons harbored 60 different human pathogenic organisms, but only seven were transmitted to humans. Aerosol transmission accounted for 99.4% of incidents. There was a single report of transmission of Salmonella enterica serotype Kiambu to humans from feral pigeons, and no reports of transmission of Campylo- bacter spp. The most commonly transmitted pathogens continue to be Chlamydophila psittaci and Cryptococcus neoformans. Although feral pigeons pose sporadic health risks to humans, the risk is very low, even for humans involved in occupations that bring them into close contact with nesting sites. In sharp contrast, the immunocom- promised patient may have a nearly 1000-fold greater risk of acquiring mycotic disease from feral pigeons and their excreta than does the general population. Q 2003 The British Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. High numbers of feral pigeons live in almost every large city in the world and they are frequently encountered by humans.1 However, the health hazard that they pose has not been adequately assessed. Clinicians are confronted by the need to educate people about the risk of contracting disease most often when they are clearing feral pigeon excrements or culling them from buildings. However, many people have casual interactions with pigeons that range from feeding them in public parks to handling tamed birds that nest on window- sills. In addition, immunocompromised patients need advice about limiting exposure to potential vectors of zoonotic diseases, even when it concerns seemingly innocuous traditions such as feeding pigeons in the park. Extermination that is intended to greatly reduce pigeons around human popu- lations does not appear to work as well as restricting feeding,1 are protested by those sensi- tive to the plight of animals, and most importantly, may pose increased hazards to human health from disturbance of the nesting environment and hand- ling of carcasses. On the other hand, animal protection activists sometimes deny that pigeons pose any health hazard.2 In spite of the large distribution of feral pigeons and their successful acclimation to humans, there are no reviews of the scientific literature on this topic. This paper aims to give clinicians information that will help them assess the risk to human health from feral pigeons. 0163-4453/$30.00 Q 2003 The British Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2003.11.001 Journal of Infection (2004) 48, 307–313 www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jinf *Corresponding author. Address: Pestalozzistrasse 20, CH- 4056 Basel, Switzerland. Tel.: þ41-61-267-3946; fax: þ41-61- 267-2791. E-mail address: daniel.haag@unibas.ch Methods The review of older literature, which comprises sources not readily accessible to clinicians by standard scientific publication search engines, was accomplished by perusal of bibliographic refer- ences in Italian, French, German, Dutch and English publications (Tables 1 and 2). More recently cited sources were collected by searches with key words like ‘pigeon’, ‘dove’ and ‘Columba livia’ in the medical database PubMed. Only those papers that showed confirmed, or in the case of one large outbreak presumptive diagnosis of disease in humans,3 are included in this review (Tables 1 and 2). All published reports of transmissions of pathogenic organisms from feral pigeons to humans were included for analysis and tabulation. For the review of food-related infections, the commodity term was used in conjunction with the terms ‘food and outbreak and human’ (Table 3). Commodities chosen for comparison ranged from extremely common sources, such as milk to infrequently eaten specialty foods such as snake. For this evaluation, each publication was not perused individually for applicability to food related illness in humans, and thus, it only indicates relative frequency of reports of outbreaks for each commodity. Results Epidemiological investigations Seventy-seven epidemiological studies of feral pigeon populations identified human pathogenic organisms coming from 60 cities and regions. Analysis revealed that feral pigeons harbored a Table 1 Pathogenic organisms identified in feral pigeon populations Viruses Western equine encephalomyelitis (WEE)23 Rubella24,25 St Louis Encephalitis23,26 West Nile virus (WNV)21,22,24 Influenza24 Bacteria Clostridium perfringens12 Listeria monocytogenes27 Salmonella enterica serovar Anatum28 serovar Anatum var. 1515 serovar Derby28 serovar Arizonae29 serovar 1,4,12:27: g,[m],t:e,n,x29 serovar Java30 serogroup E31 serovar Enteritidis30 serovar Kiambu11 serovar Typhimurium12,16,29–33 serovar Typhimurium Typ 69025 serovar var. Copenhagen25,28 Yersinia spp.25 Campylobacter jejuni13,14,16,17,31,34 Campylobacter coli13,17 Escherichia coli (STEC, VTEC)35–37 Coxiella burnetti24,25,38,39 Chlamydophila psittaci8,24,25,30,32–34,38–55 Fungi Allescheria boydii56 Aspergillus spp.56,57 Candida albicans56,58–63 Candida glabrata59,60,63 Torulopsis (Candida) glabrata29 Candida guillermondii59,60,62,63 Candida humicola63 Candida intermedia62 Candida krusei56,59,60,62,63 Candida lambica63 Candida lipolytica63 Candida lusitaniae60,62 Candida parapsilosis62,63 Candida pseudotropicalis60,62 Candida rugosa60,62,63 Candida tropicalis59,60,62,63 Candida zeylanoides63 Chrysosporium spp.56 Cryptococcus albidus62–64 Cryptococcus laurentii62,63,65 Cryptococcus neoformans29,58,62,63,66–76 Cryptococcus terreus62 Cryptococcus uniguttulatus65 Debaromyces hansenii65 Geotrichum spp.59,63 Geotrichum candidum56 Histoplasma capsulatum77 Hansenula anomala63 Kloeckera apiculata63 Paeciliomyces spp.56 Pichia membranaefaciens62 Rhizopus spp.56 Rhodotorula spp.56 Rhodotorula glutinis63 Rhodotorula rubra29,62,63 Saccharomyces cerevisiae62,63 Saccharomyces oleaginosus62 Saccharomyces telluris59,60,62 Scopulariopsis spp.56 Streptomyces spp.56 Torulopsis candida62,63 Trichosporon beigelii63 Trichosporon capitatum63 Trichosporon cutaneum56,62,63 Trichosporon pullulans63 Protozoas Toxoplasma gondii30,78,79 Total 60 pathogens as designated by genus and species. D. Haag-Wackernagel, H. Moch 308 total of 60 different human pathogenic organisms (Table 1). Five pathogens were viruses, nine were bacteria, 45 were fungi, and one was a protozoan (Table 1). However, only five pathogens were routinely transmitted to humans (Table 2). There were single case incidences for transmission of Salmonella enterica and Toxoplasma (Table 2). In general, there was a notable lack of transmission of pathogenic viruses and bacteria to people from feral pigeons. Confirmation of the link between pigeons and fungal disease There is a long-recognized link between pigeons and fungal diseases in humans, and, indeed, almost all (17 of 18) investigations of feral pigeon populations were positive for Cryptococcus spp. Review of the literature indicated that Cryptococcus neoformans and Chlamydophila psittaci were the most widespread zoonotic pathogens in feral pigeon populations (Table 2). C. neoformans caused diseases in immunocompromised as well as in immunocompetent patients,4 but primarily in immunocompromised patients (Table 2). C. neofor- mans was acquired by 11 patients of whom seven were immunocompromised (Table 2). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that in the United States Cryptococcus spp. result in 0.2–0.9 cases per 100,000 in the general population per year.5 However, the CDC also reports that AIDS patients have a 1000-fold higher risk, with an annual reported incidence of 2–4 cases per 1000 persons.5 The pigeon is not an amplifying host of Cryptococ- cus, but its excrements offer an ideal environment for its growth.6 Therefore, it appears that the risk of illness associated with pigeons from Cryptococ- cus is now largely a function of the immune status of the human population rather than from people just having contact with birds. This is not a new concept,7 but the emergence of AIDS over the past 30 years and the associated increase in mycotic disease reiterates that a change in the human population rather than carriage rates by feral pigeons has occurred overtime. Similar to the situation with Cryptococcus, Aspergillus and Can- dida infections also appear to implicate a decline in human immune function as the primary risk factor for contraction of illness from feral pigeons (Table 2). Chlamydia and Histoplasma infections in humans did not necessarily show an association with immunocompromise of the host (Table 2), although it cannot be ruled out without full knowledge of each individual case. An outbreak of Chlamydophila psittaci infection involved at least 35 persons and it was due to human contact with feral pigeons that Table 2 Association between human practice and illness contracted from feral pigeons Pathogen Number of illnessesa Description of contact Salmonella enterica 1 Environmental exposure11 Chlamydophila psittaci 29b Environmental exposure41,42,44,45,80–82 10 Handling a sick or dead pigeon40,47,82–84 8 Pigeon feeding42,82,83,85,86 Histoplasma capsulatum 23 Environmental exposure3 68 Exposure in a hospital setting77 Aspergillus spp. 13 (13) Exposure in a hospital setting87–90 Candida parapsilosis 12 (12) Exposure in a hospital setting91 Cryptococcus neoformans 5 (2) Environmental exposure67,92–95 5 (4) Exposure in a hospital setting75,96 1 (1) Wound inflicted by a pigeon97 Toxoplasma 1 Environmental exposure78 Total cases 176 a Number of patients who were immunoincompetent. b Additional cases are reported, but not enumerated39,98 (Haag-Wackernagel, unpublished). Table 3 PubMed references returned for outbreaks per food commodity Milk 168 Goat 18 Egg 112 Juice 18 Fish 96 Hamburger 16 Vegetable 96 Horse 14 Shellfish 92 Rabbit 11 Fruit 79 Wild boar 10 Chicken 79 Deer 6 Cheese 73 Duck 5 Beef 66 Pigeon 0 Dairy 64 Alligator 0 Pork 48 Snake 0 Turkey 37 Ostrich 0 Searched on October 22, 2003 at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en- trez/query.fcgi. Search terms were ‘commodity and food and outbreak and human’. Health hazards posed by feral pigeons 309 varied in intensity (Tables 1 and 2). According to the literature, C. psittaci has a worldwide average seroprevalence of 45.8% as determined by review of 33 epidemiological investigations. An earlier 1965 review suggested a seroprevalence of 28.7% in feral pigeon populations in different cities and regions.8 In preparation for this review, sampling of feral pigeons in Lucerne revealed a mean prevalence of 56% seropositive feral pigeons (H. Wackernagel, unpublished results). All investigations of feral pigeon populations have been seropositive for C. psittaci (Table 1), which suggests that this organism is commensally associated with the pigeon host. However, there was no evidence that a high prevalence rate in pigeons is necessarily associated with a high probability of infections in humans that encounter pigeons. Two reports describe infections in humans with Histoplasma capsulatum (Table 1), which was the pathogen associated with the highest number of cases in a single outbreak. Because all of the fungal pathogens, including Cryptococcus, Chlamydophila, and Histoplasma, are known to be transmitted by inhalation of aerosolized organisms, the data suggests that 175 of 176 (99.4%) of described transmissions resulted from airborne excreta, which includes dried feces, ocular dis- charges, and crop milk.9 However, other methods of transmission are possible if close contact occurs, as evidenced by one report of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis of a HIV-positive drug abuser follow- ing injury inflicted by a feral pigeon (Table 1). Contact is sometimes brief, and the patient does not always recall any encounter with birds.9 Pigeons are not reported to be a common source of food-borne illness Only two reports describe transmission of Sal- monella enterica (S. enterica) to humans from either domesticated or feral pigeons, one of which occurred outside the general time frame of 60 years for this review. Illness in 20 soldiers in the Dutch army occurred in 1933 that clearly implicated S. enterica serovar Typhimurium variant Copenhagen as the causative agent that contaminated lemon pudding made with eggs from domestic pigeons.10 It appears to be the only case of food-borne transmission from pigeons to humans in the literature. Feral pigeons resulted in a case of salmonellosis from S. enterica serovar Kiambu11 (Table 2). Given that S. enterica serovar Typhimurium variant Copenhagen and Campylobacter, which are common food-borne pathogens, are fre- quently recovered from feral pigeons as well as from domesticated pigeons used for food,12 – 17 it is surprising that there are no other reports of food-borne transmission to humans from pigeons in the literature. To pursue the idea further that there is a low risk of transmission of common food-borne bacteria between pigeons and humans, an independent risk assessment was performed. A feral pigeon popu- lation of around 5000–8000 birds that was sampled in Basel, Switzerland in preparation for this review harbored C. psittaci, Campylobacter spp., S. enterica serovar Typhimurium variant Copenhagen, and Aspergillus fumigatus (Haag-Wackernagel, unpublished data). However, records from the Department of Internal Medicine of the University Hospital in Basel showed that there were no direct transmissions of disease from feral pigeons to humans between 1997 and 2003 (Flueckiger and Haag-Wackernagel, unpublished data). In addition, a search of the literature revealed that, other than the 1933 outbreak, there were no reports of food- borne illness from either domesticated or feral pigeons since 1933 (Table 3). This finding is unexpected given that contact between pigeon and human is a frequent occurrence as compared to what probably happens with wild boar, snake, ostrich and alligator (Table 3). Illness was noted to occur in the literature base for rabbit, which is another feral animal that is sometimes domesti- cated and bred for food and kept as a pet. Therefore, it appears that the risk of transmission of food-borne disease from pigeon to human is comparatively low, in spite of pigeons being frequent carriers of common food-borne pathogens. Other suggested associations between pathogens and feral pigeons One case of Toxoplama gondii is reported (Table 1), which occurred in an elderly woman. Therefore, all immunocompromised patients, including pregnant women who are at higher risk for contracting toxoplasmosis, should be advised to avoid feral pigeon populations and their nesting sites. Cur- rently, there is no experimental evidence that pigeons are an important vector for the recently emerged viral disease of human pathogenic avian influenza18 and the epidemiological association between feral pigeons and humans in regards to this disease is only speculative.19 Although it appears that feral pigeons are seropositive for West Nile virus, there is no epidemiological evi- dence that they are an amplifying vector as are crows.20–22 D. Haag-Wackernagel, H. Moch 310 Discussion Epidemiological screening programs of animal reservoirs often identify pathogens that have never been, or are seldom, transmitted to humans. In regards to zoonotic disease transmitted from the feral pigeon to humans, all viruses, Yersinia, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Toxoplasma are in this category. Therefore, the results of many of the epidemiological investigation herein reviewed were only relevant for assessing the health of the feral pigeon populations rather than for assessing their hazard to human health. Thus, the mere isolation of a pathogen from pigeons does not justify their extermination, although people should be educated about the risk factors for acquiring mycotic disease. The low number of 176 reported transmissions in the literature that spans approxi- mately 60 years underestimates risk, because many cases are not published or the sources of the infections are not recognized. However, in spite of the worldwide distribution of feral pigeons, the close and frequent contact they have with humans, their use as food, and the high prevalence of carriage of human pathogens, zoonotic disease caused by feral pigeons is infrequent. Healthy people who are exposed to feral pigeons and their nesting sites, or who have increased exposure from hobbies or occupations involving feral and domesti- cated pigeons, should be informed of these risks and advised of appropriate ways to protect them- selves. These methods include wearing coveralls, face masks, other respiratory protection, washing hands and by disinfection against excreta dust with antiseptics. If possible, sick pigeons should be avoided, or at the very least, handled with great care to prevent exposure to excreta. The literature reiterates that the immunocompromised patient is at considerably higher risk for contracting oppor- tunistic disease from feral pigeon populations. Since opportunistic pathogens have a multitude of vectors besides feral pigeons, disease prevention is probably best attained by educating the immuno- compromised patient to limit contact with all avian sources and to follow guidelines for maintaining hygiene under any circumstance where close con- tact with pathogenic organisms might occur. 1. Haag-Wackernagel D. Die Taube. Basel: Schwabe and Co. AG; 1998. 2. Anonymous. Taubchen, mein Taubchen. In: www.animal- peace.org/Archiv/rft/rft96116.html, vol. 2003. Animal Peace; 2003. 3. White F, Hill H. Disseminated pulmonary calcification. A report of 114 cases with observations of an antecedent pulmonary disease in 15 individuals. Am Rev Tuberc 1950;62: 1—16. 4. Buchanan KL, Murphy JW. What makes Cryptococcus neofor- mans a pathogen? Emerg Infect Dis 1998;4:71—83. 5. Anonymous. Cryptococcosis. In: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ dbmd/diseaseinfo/cryptococcosis_t.htm, vol. 2003. Centers for Disease Control; 2002. 6. Kaplan W. Epidemiology of the principal systemic mycoses of man and lower animals and the ecology of their etiologic agents. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1973;163:1043—1047. 7. Rippon JW. Pathogenesis and epidemiology of opportunistic mycotic infections: a review. Am J Med Technol 1977;43: 226—228. 8. Meyer K. Ornithosis. In: Biester H, Schwarte L, editors. Diseases of poultry. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press; 1965. p. 657–770. 9. Anonymous. Compendium of measures to control Chlamy- dophila psittaci (formerly Chlamydia psittaci) infection among humans (Psittacosis) and pet birds. In: www.avma. org/pubhlth/psittacosis.asp, vol. 2003. National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians; 2002. 10. Clarenburg A, Dornickx CGJ. Nahrungmittelvergiftung bei Menschen in Zusammenhang mit Tauben paratyphose. Zschr Hyg Inf Krankh 1933;114:31—41. 11. Lacassin F, Mino JC, Benoit C, et al. A propos d’un cas de salmonellose aviaire [A case of avian salmonellosis]. Rev Med Intern 1995;16:77—78. 12. Fukata T, Uemura T, Baba E, et al. Isolation of Clostridia, Salmonellae and Coccidia from wild pigeons in Japan. Br Vet J 1986;142:291—293. 13. Kinjo T, Morishige M, Minamoto N, et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni in feral pigeons. Nippon Juigaku Zasshi 1983;45:833—835. 14. Megraud F. Isolation of Campylobacter spp. from pigeon feces by a combined enrichment-filtration technique. Appl Environ Microbiol 1987;53:1394—1395. 15. Sambyal DS, Sharma VK. Screening of free-living animals and birds for Listeria, Brucella and Salmonella infections. Br Vet J 1972;128:50—55. 16. Woerlen F. Zum Befall der Stadttauben und Mowen mit Salmonellen und thermophilen Campylobacterarten auf dem Gelande eines suddeutschen Schlachthofes. Tierarztl Fakul- tat, Munchen: Ludwig-Maximilian-Universitat; 1990. 17. Fernandez H, Gesche W, Montefusco A, et al. Wild birds as reservoir of thermophilic enteropathogenic Campylobacter species in southern Chile. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 1996;91: 699—700. 18. Perkins L, Swayne D. Pathogenicity of a Hong Kong-origin H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus for emus, geese, ducks, and pigeons. Avian Dis 2002;46:53—63. 19. Guan Y, Shortridge KF, Krauss S, et al. H9N2 influenza viruses possessing H5N1-like internal genomes continue to circulate in poultry in southeastern China. J Virol 2000;74: 9372—9380. 20. McLean RG, Ubico SR, Docherty DE, et al. West Nile virus transmission and ecology in birds. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2001; 951:54—57. 21. Komar N, Burns J, Dean C, et al. Serologic evidence for West Nile virus infection in birds in Staten Island, New York, after an outbreak in 2000. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2001;1: 191—196. 22. Komar N, Panella NA, Burns JE, et al. Serologic evidence for West Nile virus infection in birds in the New York City vicinity during an outbreak in 1999. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7: 621—625. Health hazards posed by feral pigeons 311 23. Gruwell J, Fogarty C, Bennett S, et al. The role of peridomestic birds in the transmission of St Louis encepha- litis in southern California. J Wildl Dis 2000;36:13—34. 24. Plissier M, Andre S. Sur l’aptitude du pigeon urbain a developper des anticorps inhibant l’hemagglutination par le virus de la rubeole. Bul Acad Nat Med (Paris) 1976;160: 224—227. 25. Dorrestein M, Korbel R, Schneeganss D. Einige Befunde zum Gesundheitszustand von freilebenden Stadttauben (Columba livia). In: Tagung der Fachgruppe “Geflugelkrankheiten” der DVG; 1990. p. 77—87. 26. Kokernot RH, Hayes J, Will RL, et al. Arbovirus studies in the Ohio-Mississippi Basin, 1964—1967. II. St Louis encephalitis virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1969;18:750—761. 27. Sixl W, Stunzner D, Withalm H. Epidemiologic and serologic study of listeriosis in man and domestic and wild animals in Austria. J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol 1978;22: 460—469. 28. Pannwitz E, Pulst H. Vorkommen von Salmonellen bei Stadttauben und Mowen. Mhefte Vet Med 1972;27:373—375. 29. Agrimi U. Studio degli aspetti sanitari delle popolazioni di piccioni della citta di Roma e sviluppo di metodologie incruente di gestione e controllo. Final report of the convention between the Animal Rights Office of Rome and the Superior Institute of Health [Convenzione tra Ufficio Diritti Animali del Comune di Roma e Istituto Superiore di Sanita]; 1999. 30. Pacetti A, Fabbi M, Altabev R, et al. Der Gesundheitszustand der Tauben in der Stadt Bozen. In: 3. Internat. Tag. Infektionskrankheiten in den Alpenlandern; 1994. p. 47—49. 31. Casanovas L, de Simon M, Ferrer MD, et al. Intestinal carriage of campylobacters, salmonellas, yersinias and listerias in pigeons in the city of Barcelona. J Appl Bacteriol 1995;78: 11—13. 32. Kopschitz M. Der Verseuchungsgrad der Wiener Stadttauben. Wien tierarztl Mschr 1976;63:304—306. 33. Soldati G, Pavesi M, Fontana M, et al. Determinazione della prevalenza di alcuni agenti eziologici in piccioni di cattura della citta di Modena. Suppl Ric Biol Selvaggina; 1996. pp. 335—340. 34. Haag D, Gurdan P. Uber den hygienischen Zustand der Strassentauben in Basel. Swiss Vet Schweizerische Zeits- chrift fur Veterinarmedizin 1990;7:19—22. 35. Dell’Omo G, Morabito S, Quondam R, et al. Feral pigeons as a source of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli. Vet Rec 1998;142:309—310. 36. Schmidt H, Scheef J, Morabito S, et al. A new Shiga toxin 2 variant (Stx2f) from Escherichia coli isolated from pigeons. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000;66:1205—1208. 37. Morabito S, Dell’Omo G, Agrimi U, et al. Detection and characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in feral pigeons. Vet Microbiol 2001;82:275—283. 38. Rehacek J, Kocianova E, Brezina R. The possible significance of urban populations of the pigeon Columba livia f. domestica in propagating Coxiella burnetti und Chlamydia psittaci in Bratislava. Biologia (Bratislava) 1984;39:293—300. 39. Kaaserer G, Kaaserer B, Sixl W, et al. Zur Ornithose verwilderter Stadttauben in Innsbruck (Tirol). In: Interna- tionales Arbeitskolloquium uber Naturherde von Infektion- skrankheiten in Zentraleuropa, Graz 24.2—28.2.1976; 1976. p. 373. 40. Meyer K. Pigeons and barn yard fowls as possible sources of human psittacosis or ornithosis. Schweizerische Medizi- nische Wochenschrift 1941;44:1377—1379. 41. Levinson D, Gibbs J, Beardwood J. Ornithosis as a cause of sporadic atypical pneumonia. JAMA 1944;126:1079—1084. 42. Fallet GH. Variete nouvelle de pneumonie atypique. Thesis no 2007, Faculte de Medecine, Geneve: Universite de Geneve; 1950. 43. Lepine P, Sautter V. Sur l’infection des pigeons parisiens par le virus de l’ornithose. Bull Acad Nat Med 1951;135: 332—338. 44. Shaughnessy H. Psittacosis in wild pigeons. In: Beaudette F, editor. Psittacosis. Diagnosis, epidemiology, and control. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1955. p. 90—98. 45. Babudieri B. L’ornitosi: sua presenza e frequenza in Italia. Terapia 1956;317:3—19. 46. Weyer F, Lippelt H. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Taubenor- nithose in Deutschland. Zeitschrift fur Hygiene 1956;143: 223—246. 47. Parry W, Griffith A. An epidemiological study in Liverpool. The Medical Officer 1962;23:181—182. 48. Ortel S. Untersuchungen uber Ornithose bei verwilderten Haustauben. Zentralbl Bakteriol 1966;200:298—303. 49. Brion A, Vacher M. Les pigeons de Paris. Bulletin Academi- que veterinaire France 1970;43:311—317. 50. Henry M, Hebrant F, Jadin J. Importance and distribution of serological findings of ornithosis—psittacosis in semi-dom- estic pigeons. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiale 1977;70:144—151. 51. Milon A, Geral M, Pellerin J, et al. Enquete sur le portage et l’excretion de Chlamydia psittaci par les pigeons semi- domestiques (Columba livia) de l’agglomeration Toulou- saine. Rev Med Vet 1983;134:559—565. 52. Chiba N, Arikawa J, Takashima I, et al. Isolation and serological survey of chlamydiosis in feral pigeons and crows in Hokkaido. Nippon Juigaku Zasshi 1984;46:243—245. 53. Batta M, Dhingra P, Dwivedi P, et al. Chlamydiosis in birds from Punjab: serological survey. Indian J Anim Sci 1993;63: 526—527. 54. Salinas J, Caro MR, Cuello F. Antibody prevalence and isolation of Chlamydia psittaci from pigeons (Columba livia). Avian Dis 1993;37:523—527. 55. Pospisil L, Veznik Z, Hirt M, et al. Detection of chlamydia in the intestines and lungs in pigeons and humans. Epidemiol Mikrobiol Immunol 1996;45:123—126. 56. Ramirez R, Robertstad GW, Hutchinson LR, et al. Mycotic flora in the lower digestive tract of feral pigeons (Columba livia) in the El Paso, Texas area. J Wildl Dis 1976;12:83—85. 57. Bassi M, Chiatante D. The role of pigeon excrement in stone biodeterioration. Int Biodetn Bull 1976;12:73—79. 58. Weiland E, Bohm KH, Sasu MB. Serological tests on semi-wild pigeons and on pigeons immunized with killed bacterial antigen for antibodies against Cryptococcus neoformans (with a contribution to the fluorescence microscopic test for complement fixing antibodies). Z Med Mikrobiol Immunol 1971;156:159—167. 59. Kocan R, Hasenclever HF. Normal yeast flora of the upper digestive tract of some wild columbids. J Wildl Dis 1972;8: 365—368. 60. Kocan R, Hasenclever HF. Seasonal variation of the upper digestive tract yeast flora of feral pigeons. J Wildl Dis 1974; 10:263—266. 61. Hasenclever HF, Kogan RM. Candida albicans associated with the gastrointestinal tract of the common pigeon (Columbia livia). Sabouraudia 1975;13:116—120. 62. Vidotto V, Gallo MG. Study on the presence of yeasts in the feces of the rock pigeon (Columba livia Gmelin 1789) from rural areas. Parassitologia 1985;27:313—320. 63. Gallo MG, Cabeli P, Vidotto V. Presence of pathogenic yeasts in the feces of the semi-domesticated pigeon (Columba livia, Gmelin 1789, urban type) from the city of Turin. Parassitologia 1989;31:201—212. 64. Kielstein P, Hotzel H, Schmalreck A, et al. Occurrence of D. Haag-Wackernagel, H. Moch 312 Cryptococcus spp. in excreta of pigeons and pet birds. Mycoses 2000;43:7—15. 65. Mattsson R, Haemig PD, Olsen B. Feral pigeons as carriers of Cryptococcus laurentii, Cryptococcus uniguttulatus and Debaryomyces hansenii. Med Mycol 1999;37:367—369. 66. Littman ML, Schneierson SS. Cryptococcus neoformans in pigeon excreta in New York City. Am J Hyg 1959;69:49—59. 67. Littman ML. Cryptococcosis (torulosis). Current concepts and therapy. Am J Med 1959;27:976—998. 68. Emmons CW. Prevalence of Cryptococcus neoformans in pigeon habitats. Public Health Rep 1960;75:362—364. 69. Littman ML, Borok R. Relation of the pigeon to cryptococ- cosis: natural carrier state, heat resistance and survival of Cryptococcus neoformans. Mycopathol Mycol Appl 1968;35: 329—345. 70. Partridge BM, Winner HI. Cryptococcus neoformans in bird droppings in London. Lancet 1965;14:1060—1061. 71. Castanon-Olivares LR, Lopez-Martinez R. Isolation of Cryp- tococcus neoformans from pigeon (Columba livia) droppings in Mexico City. Mycoses 1994;37:325—327. 72. Currie BP, Freundlich LF, Casadevall A. Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of Cryptococcus neoformans isolates from environmental (pigeon excreta) and clinical sources in New York City. J Clin Microbiol 1994;32: 1188—1192. 73. Bohm KH, Abdallah IS, Trautwein G, et al. Demonstration of Cryptococcus neoformans in pigeon droppings. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B 1967;14:419—431. 74. Yamamoto Y, Kohno S, Noda T, et al. Isolation of Cryptococcus neoformans from environments (pigeon excreta) in Nagasaki. Kansenshogaku Zasshi 1995;69: 642—645. 75. Staib F, Heissenhuber M. Cryptococcus neoformans in bird droppings: a hygienic-epidemiological challenge. AIDS-For- schung 1989;12:649—655. 76. Focker A, Lumeij J, Houver D, et al. Isolation of Crypto- coccus neoformans from the feral pigeon (Columba livia) droppings in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Report of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University; 2001. 77. Dean A, Bates J, Sorrels C, et al. An outbreak of histoplasmosis at an Arkansas courthouse, with five cases of probable reinfection. Am J Epidemiol 1978;108:36—46. Am J Epidemiol 108(1): 36—46. 78. Niederehe H. Toxoplasma-Infektion bei verwilderten Tau- ben. Tierarztl Umschau 1964;19:256—257. 79. Mushi EZ, Binta MG, Chabo RG, et al. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii and Chlamydia psittaci in domestic pigeons (Columbia livia domestica) at Sebele, Gaborone, Botswana. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 2001;68:159—161. 80. Fritzsche K. Aktuelle Fragen der Ornithose. In: Jahreskon- gress 1960 fur arztliche Fortbildung, vol. 16.; 1961. p. 75— 86. 81. Anonymous, Killer Pigeons. Pest Control News 1998;46:21. 82. Vater G. Ornithose. Strassentauben - Erregerreservoir und Ansteckungsquelle. Der Praktische Schadlingsbekampfer 2003;7/8:15—21. 83. Morgan H, Finland M. Serologic findings in patients with primary atypical pneumonia. Am J Clin Pathol 1948;18:593. 84. Henry K, Crossley K. Wild-pigeon-related psittacosis in a family. Chest 1986;90:708—710. 85. Meiklejohn G, Beck M, Etaton M. Atypical pneumonia caused by psittacosis-like virus. J Clin Invest 1944;23:167—175. 86. Seibert RH, Jordan Jr WS, Dingle JH. Clinical variations in the diagnosis of psittacosis. N Engl J Med 1956;254:925—930. 87. Gage A, Dean D. Aspergilllus infection after cardiac surgery. Arch Surg 1970;101:384—387. 88. Burton J, Zachery J, Bessin R, et al. Diagnosis and effective treatment with amphotericin B. Ann Intern Med 1972;77. 89. Metha G. Aspergillus endocarditis after open heart surgery: an epidemiological investigation. J Hosp Infect 1990;15: 245—253. 90. Kistemann T, Huneburg H, Exner M, et al. Role of increased environmental Aspergillus exposure for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with corticosteroids in an intensive care unit. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2002;204:347—351. 91. Greaves I, Kane K, Richards N, et al. Pigeons and peritonitis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 1992;7:967—969. 92. Procknow J, Benfield J, Rippon J, et al. Cryptococcal hepatitis presenting as a surgical emergency. JAMA 1965; 191. 93. Arasteh K, L’Age M, Futh U, et al. CD4 lymphocyte count in HIV-positive persons exposed to Cryptococcus neoformans. Zentralbl Bakteriol 1995;283. 94. Lam C, Lam W, Wong Y, et al. Pulmonary cryptococcosis: a case report and review of the Asian-Pacific experience. Respirology 2001;6:351—355. 95. Fessel WJ. Cryptococcal meningitis after unusual exposure to birds. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1354—1355. 96. Symmers WW. Cryptococcus neoformans in bird droppings. Lancet 1967;21:159—160. 97. Gatti M, Di Silverio A, Cespa M, et al. Primary unusual cutaneous cryptococcosis in an HIV former drug-abuser patient. Mycoses 1997;40:101—102. 98. Babudieri B. Epidemiologie und Virologie der Ornithose beim Menschen. Archiv Exp Vet Med 1964;18:5—18. Health hazards posed by feral pigeons 313 From: Doug Simmons To: Brian Pugh; Manager"s Office Subject: Regarding proposed pigeon ban in the village Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 4:49:33 AM ***CAUTION: External sender.*** Dear Mayor and Board of Trustees: I'm deeply concerned that the motivation driving the proposed pigeon ban is being personally directed at my neighbor. He followed the rules in building his coop in which he currently and immaculately cares for his beloved pets. They are beautiful creatures. It's wrong to use the law to deny a single citizen the right to pursue his happiness in a legal manner. I've just learned there's an agenda item on tomorrow's board meeting to schedule a public hearing on this issue. I'm curious to hear the board's thoughts on the sudden need for this law. If the law is to become a reality he must be grandfathered in as has happened in similar circumstances in Westchester County. Doug Simmons Finney Farm Road From: Gem Mitchell To: Manager"s Office; Board of Trustees Subject: In support of grandfathering the pigeons Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 1:53:22 PM ***CAUTION: External sender.***  Dear Mayor, Manager and Board of Trustees: I'm deeply concerned that there may be personal motivation driving the proposed pigeon ban on our neighbor. He followed the rules of record in building his coop in which he currently and immaculately cares for his beloved pets. They are beautiful creatures who have a long history of helping humans and are highly intelligent! It's wrong to modify the law to deny a single citizen the right to pursue his happiness in what has been and should remain a legal pursuit in our village. It’s recently come to light that there's an agenda item on tomorrow's board meeting to schedule a public hearing on this issue. Why is there a sudden need for this law? If the law is to become a reality, he must be grandfathered as has happened in similar circumstances throughout Westchester County. The sounds of cooing doves and pigeons is beautiful to the ear and calming to the soul. Surely our precious village can accommodate a few of these special residents! I know many others in our village feel as I do on this matter.  I trust our elected officials will operate in a balanced and fair way. Thank you for your attention, Georgiana E Mitchell (GEM) 12 Prickly Pear Hill Road From: Croton-on-Hudson NY via Croton-on-Hudson NY To: Manager"s Office Subject: Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 11:31:25 AM ***CAUTION: External sender.*** Submitted on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 11:31am Submitted values are: Choose One: Public Comments for Board Meeting Please include any questions or comments: Shouldn’t trustee Len Simon recuse himself from any deliberations regarding the “pigeon coop” law? This law seems specifically designed to address an issue with Trustee Simon’s neighbor and it is my understanding that some of the impetus for this legislation is a complaint by Trustee Simon regarding the pigeon coop ==Please provide the following information== Your Name: James C. Miller Email Address: Street: 18 wolf road City: Croton State: New York Zipcode: 10520 Organization: Phone Number: The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.crotononhudson-ny.gov/node/2/submission/45756 From: Croton-on-Hudson NY via Croton-on-Hudson NY To: Manager"s Office Subject: Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:45:36 AM ***CAUTION: External sender.*** Submitted on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 10:45am Submitted values are: Choose One: Village Manager's Office Please include any questions or comments: Dear Mayor, Village Trustees and Village Manager, We appreciate your dedication to the village and its residents. This note is regarding Local Law 10. We are not able to attend tonight's meeting but feel strongly that you are overreaching when you decide to reshape a law to specifically target an individual community member and his pets especially since he has complied with all Village rules and regulations. There has been no credible information brought forward to indicate that there is a health hazard being caused by this individual and his pigeons, or that he has been slacking off on their hygiene or care. To have them unilaterally removed by trustee vote, pitting the rights of one community member against another in this way seems arbitrary, troubling and frankly, scary, especially since there are so many other ways in which the situation can be handled. To abruptly remove this individual's pet birds is putting them at risk and is astonishingly cruel. You are literally breaking the heart of a community member and putting his flock in harms way. You are probably familiar with how difficult it is to re-home pets. If there is such a ground swell of support a new law, then by all means change it in away that seems democratic and without favortism and let the situation of this one person and his pigeons be grandfathered. Andrea Furey & David Cohen ==Please provide the following information== Your Name: Andrea Furey & David Cohen Email Address: Street: 14 Morningside Drive City: Croton on Hudson State: New York Zipcode: 10520 Organization: residents Phone Number: The results of this submission may be viewed at: From: Croton-on-Hudson NY via Croton-on-Hudson NY To: Manager"s Office Subject: Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:50:36 AM ***CAUTION: External sender.*** Submitted on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 8:50am Submitted values are: Choose One: Public Comments for Board Meeting Please include any questions or comments: Dear Mayor and Trustees, I am appalled that this town is considering a ban on keeping pigeons. As a child growing up in Suffolk County, LI there were many neighbors in my community that kept pigeons and there were NEVER any issues. Pigeon keeping is an age old practice that has never caused any harm to people or the environment. During World Wars pigeons were war heroes delivering messages of importance. Today, the keeping of these gentile creatures is the same as having any other household pet. I will be totally ashamed of this Village if a ban is put on such a peaceful practice. What NEEDS to be put under review is the keeping of BEE HIVES as non-native honey bees compete with our native pollinators and put them at risk. I do wish you could all get your priorities in order!! -Amy Gardiner Cleveland Drive ==Please provide the following information== Your Name: Amy Gardiner Email Address: Street: 224 Cleveland Drive City: Croton on Hudson State: New York Zipcode: 10520 Organization: Phone Number: The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.crotononhudson-ny.gov/node/2/submission/45746