A MURDER IN THE CITY
Rethinking Belonging and Nuisance with Rochester’s Crows
LILY PLAGUE
The crows first woke me up one morning in November. For the next month, the subsequent murders flying overhead would wake me three to four times a week. Their incessant cacophony vexed me. Where had they all come from? What are they doing here? Where are they going?
As it turns out, the murders’ final destination was downtown Rochester, New York. While I may have first noticed the crows this November, Rochester residents have struggled with them for years. I found many newspaper articles referencing the annual roost, but most only outlined how the city government has responded to them each year, leaving the broader problem unknown.1 As I discovered, there is more discourse about the Rochester crows than I could have ever imagined.
There are two distinct sides to the crow controversy. Drawing inspiration from Catherine McNeur’s work on the communities in 19th century New York City that supported or rejected pigs (i.e., the “pro-hoggites” and “anti-hoggites”), I dubbed the Rochesterians advocating for crow rights pro-crowites, and those who want to oust them anti-crowites.2 Half of Rochester views the crows as noisy, messy intruders; the other half sees them as intelligent, charismatic birds who deserve to share the city with humans. At its core, this is not just a debate about birds. It is about who belongs in Rochester, how we value nonhuman life, and how we respond to the animals that refuse to stay in the places we assign to them.
WHY ARE CROWS HERE?
According to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, American crows form large communal roosts in winter, gathering at night to sleep and dispersing to surrounding areas each day to forage.3 The roosts consist of both resident and migratory crows.4 Ornithologists hypothesize that crows flock to city centers, like downtown Rochester, as a “partial migration,” in which birds conserve energy by flying to nearby cities instead of far south. It is not definitively known why cities attract crows, but scientists have a couple of theories.
First, city centers act as “urban heat islands,” where heat generated by human activity is retained through dense urban infrastructure. The warmth makes cities attractive places to sleep during the cold winter months. Additionally, cities protect crows from rural predators like the great horned owl and offer consistent food sources when natural ones are scarce.5 Anthropogenic foods, however, are nutritionally poor compared to their woodland diet, and do not sustain crows well year-round.6
Crows can establish roosts in the same location for dozens, if not hundreds, of years.7 In Rochester, a roost of over twenty thousand birds has made the downtown area their annual winter home.
FIGURE ONE
A crow roost
(Tori Heisele, 2013)
CROW “REMEDIATION”
Crows have been a concern for as long as Operations Director Karen St. Aubin has worked for the city of Rochester. When I spoke to Karen about Rochester’s response to the roosts, she explained it was quite the operation. Previously, the city tried to use non-invasive loud sounds to break up the roost; they were unsuccessful. Like how communities enlist hunters to reduce white-tailed deer populations, Rochester now enlists the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to disperse roosts. Karen explained that since 2012, the USDA crow remediation has occurred annually over three days in December before the dead of winter hits. Then the crew returns for one day in March to “sweep any remaining crow roosts after winter.”
The city might not kill crows, but their methods are reminiscent of a hunt. Over those three days in December, “the USDA will chase crows all over Rochester,” she told me. The crew begins in Washington Square Park using lasers, pyrotechnics, strobe lights, and crow distress sounds to disturb roosts.8 Once the murder disperses, the team chases them to wherever they fly next, like a predator stalking prey. The city also outsources help from anti-crowites using the 311 phone number. Calling the number gives the USDA a heads-up of any crow roosts around the city. In response, the dispersal crew mobilizes to break up potential roosts. The city typically receives about a dozen 311 calls each night that range in severity. Sometimes, people make calls for only a few crows, but they are still helpful for the city to track.
Over the years, Karen has noticed a decrease in roost size. But, she admitted, “It’s hard to track the exact number of crows.”
THE ANTI-CROWITE CONCERN
When crows settle in downtown Rochester, they transgress “imagined geographies”: spatial boundaries, like forests or rural areas, where humans believe animals should belong.9 Their presence in the city disrupts these expectations and puts pressure on urban infrastructure. Karen emphasized that crows and their excrement “prevent people from going where they want to go.”
To the public, questions of belonging emerge as debates over economic value and animal welfare ethics. To Karen, the crows are an economic concern. Downtown space is scarce, and the city prioritizes human access. A roost of twenty thousand birds leaves droppings that coat benches, sidewalks, and storefronts, making public areas feel uninviting. Cleanup requires daily power washing, a dedicated team, and even biohazard suits. Though Karen mentioned no specific health risks, the suits seem more about cleanliness than genuine biohazard.
Most anti-crowites are not anti-crow, but rather anti-crow roost. Unlike other “nuisance animals” like pigeons (whom some New Yorkers call “rats with wings”) or rats, anti-crowites do not vilify crows.10 Most anti-crowites respect their intelligence and support their right to exist, just not in overwhelming numbers downtown.
For anti-crowites, the issue is less about ethics and more about economics. While it was the noise that bothered me, downtown residents have more concrete concerns. The influx of birds deters people from visiting parks and downtown shops and can crowd shared urban space. Context, culture, and scale determine which animals people consider nuisances. For example, media like Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds have not helped the crow’s reputation.
Who gets labeled “too many,” and where?11 In Rochester, animals cross that threshold when they intrude on human-dominated areas. Anti-crowites do not want fewer crows overall, just fewer within the city itself.
ZOÖPOLIS IN PRACTICE
To understand the pro-crowite stance, I joined the “Rochesterians for Crows” Facebook page. In February 2012, the page was created “in response to the city’s intolerable actions against the massively intelligent and often misunderstood bird that tends to polarize communities across the nation.” It has since grown to over a thousand followers, with most being crow enthusiasts, not organized activists. Pro-crowites share a vision like urban scholar Jennifer Wolch’s idea of “zoöpolis”: a city that makes room for animals in everyday life rather than pushing them out.12
The page boasts pictures of crow artwork, memes, and short-form video content. Much of it is content of cute animals, like a child interacting with crows or a mother crow feeding her baby. People will also post information about proposed wildlife bills and how to promote crows in the area, such as setting out crow-friendly foods.
FIGURE TWO
Crow meme
(Rochesterians for Crows, n.d.)
Starting each November, posts from “Rochesterians for Crows” increase, often criticizing municipal efforts to disperse the birds and calling for action. Pro-crowites have economic concerns as well, and many express frustrations over the high cost of crow management and propose alternative solutions. Members circulate petitions and suggest ideas, such as offering car wash gift certificates to residents during peak crow season. Another post suggested that the city utilizes the crows in eco-tourism efforts to attract enthusiastic birders during the slow season. He states, “I’d pay cash to experience a massive crow roosting such as the ones your elected officials are spending your taxes trying to disperse. Rebrand Rochester as Crow City and place a few tiny ads in some birding magazines. The hotels will soon fill, the restaurants will have to hire more staff, and EVERYBODY WINS. Especially the crows. Who were there first.”
FIGURE THREE
Crow art
(Rochesterians for Crows, n.d.)
While anti-crowites might not vilify the crows, pro-crowites take a moral issue with anti-crowites. They exhibit a more-than-human relationship with crows, where people mediate their relationships with each other through their care and connection with animals. Pro-crowites often view attitudes toward crows as a reflection of a person’s broader moral values.13
CONCLUSION
What began as a series of sleepless nights last winter has become an entry point into a larger conversation about urban ecology, public space, and the ethics of coexistence. The annual arrival of crows in Rochester is more than a seasonal inconvenience; it reveals questions about who gets to inhabit Rochester and under what terms. The debate between pro-crowites and anti-crowites reflects broader tensions between economic priorities and moral responsibility. As the crows continue to return each winter, they challenge us to reconsider the boundaries we draw between human and nonhuman residents and to reflect on what belonging truly means.
NOTES
1. “City of Rochester Dispersing Thousands of Crows.” 2013. Daily Record, Dec 03. https://ezp.lib.rochester.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/city-rochester-dispersing-thousands-crows/docview/1465786303/se-2.
2. McNeur, Catherine. 2011. “‘The Swinish Multitude’: Controversies over Hogs in Antebellum New York City.” Journal of Urban History 37 (5): 639–660.
3. Bird Alliance of Oregon. “Urban Crows.” Bird Alliance of Oregon. https://birdallianceoregon.org/our-work/rehabilitate-wildlife/having-a-wildlife-problem/urban-crows/.
4. Townsend, A. K., & Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2018, August 8). Where do crows go in winter? All About Birds. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/where-do-crows-go-in-winter/.
5. McGowan, K. J. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions about crows. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/crowfaq.htm.
6. Marzluff, John M., Kevin J. McGowan, Roarke Donnelly, and Richard L. Knight. “Causes and consequences of expanding American Crow populations.” Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world (2001): 331-363.
7. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. “American Crow Overview.” All About Birds. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/American_Crow/overview.
8. A 2002 USDA study evaluated the use of lasers to disperse crow roosts and found lasers alone to be ineffective. However, researchers suggest they may work in combination with other deterrents. Gorenzel, W.P.; Blackwell, B. F.; Simmons, G.D.; Salmon, T.P.; and Dolbeer, R.A., “Evaluation of lasers to disperse American crows, Corvus brachyrhynchos, from urban night roosts” (2002). USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. 466. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/466.
9. Jerolmack, Colin. 2008. “How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem Animals.” Social Problems 55 (1): 72.
10. Ibid.
11. Connors, John Patrick, and Anne Short Gianotti. 2023. “Becoming Killable: White-Tailed Deer Management and the Production of Overabundance in the Blue Hills.” Urban Geography 44 (10): 2121–2143.
12. Wolch, Jennifer. 2009. “Zoöpolis.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 7 (2): 21–47.
13. Benson, Etienne. 2013. “The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States.” The Journal of American History 100 (3): 691–710.