Again, we’re talking some extremely specific and hypothetical situations here. What specific kind of non-dangerous animal is struggling to find food and coming to humans to find it but being denied? Most humans will feed the animal anyway, as long as they aren’t afraid of it.

I agree that the way we treat our planet is careless and reckless, but there are many better solutions than teaching wild animals to coexist with us in cities. Some animals, like falcons, will naturally adapt to cities, and some won’t. To force that relationship, or to even insist it should be so, is ridiculous.

You say “non-dangerous” animals, but where would we draw that line? Most wild animals are dangerous, penguins included. Again, we’re talking some very specific animals and conditions here.

I agree that food distribution would even out, but who is to say when it will do so. Most cities already have naturally occurring ecosystems in their parks, so adding new species will only disrupt that flow that has started to build. Besides that, you’re essentially talking about crafting new ecosystems, and who is to say where the food sources would level out at? It’s definitely dangerous to attempt teaching an animal to be dependent on humans without conducting research on how this will not only affect that species but also how it will affect surrounding species, especially since we’re talking about parks and cities.

How could pigeons go extinct any time soon? They’re basically an everyday facet of any city, and their numbers are huge. They’re not going away any time soon. While I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t try to help species who are struggling, I just feel there are far better ways to do so than bringing them into our cities.

I think your heart is in the right place, but your practicality is way off the mark.