Trial judge ponders wild pigeon ticket

A case in Prince Albert has a judge asking what makes a bird a pet.

On Monday, Gail Sakamoto, the owner of Gail’s Switch a Stitch, went to trial for a bylaw ticket she’d received in early April for feeding wild pigeons within city limits.

About a week after she got the ticket, Sakamoto spoke with paNOW about the pigeons she’s been keeping as pets ever since one fell in between the walls in her business more than four years ago.

She had been feeding wild birds earlier in the year, but after a warning and ticket from Prince Albert’s bylaw officers Sakamoto insisted she’d stopped feeding any pigeons that weren’t her pets.

She’s entered a not guilty plea for a ticket she got after that, which led to Monday’s trial regarding City bylaws in Prince Albert Provincial Court.

Riderville

Riders Have Options Heading into Tuesday CFL Draft

3h ago

Weekend hockey

PAGC set to host largest Senator's Cup tournament to date

4h ago

VAISAKHI MELA

Hundreds flocking to P.A. for Vaisakhi Mela celebration

4h ago

The testimony of Special Constable Cathie Rosen recalled the previous complaints of Sakamoto feeding wild pigeons out of the back window of Gail’s Switch a Stitch.

Rosen had responded to the February and March complaints, noting she’d counted 15 pigeons inside an area on the second floor of the business in the March incident.

Sakamoto paid the more than $100 ticket resulting from that.

The ticket at issue was written on April 6, relating to an April 5 call to Rosen from bylaw officer Suzanne Stubbs, who “happened to observe” pigeons gathering around an open window behind Sakamoto’s business. She’d also noted a lot of feces and feathers on the sidewalk, largely around that area, Rosen testified.

Upon cross-examination, Rosen said she had no way to distinguish if the birds she saw flying in and out of the window of Sakamoto’s business were pets or wild pigeons.

She also said she hadn’t actually witnessed the birds eating, since she observed the second floor window from outside on a weekend when the business was closed.

Sakamoto was also called as a witness in the trial, and most questions revolved around her relationship with the birds.

At one point the City of Prince Albert’s Crown, Nicole Sawchuk, asked Sakamato if the birds, some of which she’s had since they were babies, “magically appeared in your building and you’ve raised” them?

Sakamoto’s response was “yes.”

Her questioning led Sakamoto to say “I have 14 (pigeons) on the premises now.”

Final arguments

Defence counsel, Melissa Isbister, closed her case by saying Sakamoto’s pigeons are hand-reared, tame and captive.

She referenced the provincial wildlife act, The Captive Wildlife Regulations, which states “a person may hold in captivity, without a license… common pigeons.”

Sawchuk’s rebuttal was that because a bylaw exists locally, those regulations do not apply in this case.

Sawchuk’s final arguments stated that the pigeons have been tamed by feeding and are not domestic pets, saying “simply, they’re accustomed to being fed.”

She pointed out the birds were not acquired from a store or breeder.

The justice of the peace, Justice Young, asked many hypothetical questions of the lawyers.

One of them was, if you’ve have a bird for their whole lifetime, can they still never be considered domestic?

He used the comparison of a dog that someone may see outdoors and take home.

He also asked if there is a legal definition of a pet.

Sawchuk’s argument is that being domesticated is the distinction.

Isbister argued the pigeons at Switch a Stitch are pets that Sakamoto can distinguish from one another because they respond to names, and some are physically distinguishable because of deformities. They also have created nests within their enclosure, she said.

Justice Young reserved his decision until July 13.

Bylaw officers in Prince Albert have rarely – if ever – issued a ticket for this.

claskowski@jpbg.ca

On Twitter: @chelsealaskowsk