CUTENESS AND CONFRONTATION
How Geese Claim their Right to the City
NATHANIEL FISHER
One day in mid-April 2025, I took an afternoon stroll along the river path of the University of Rochester. Suddenly, I heard a hissing noise. Assuming it was a cat or some other fuzzy critter, I walked towards it. Too late did I realize that it was, in fact, a nesting goose. Coming to the defense of its partner, another goose flew directly at me, seeming to become impossibly large as it filled my field of view. Being both the dignified academic and rugged outdoorsman that I am, I immediately turned tail and ran away, spraying mud up the back of my pants and t-shirt. A few weeks later, the eggs they fended me away from hatched, the goslings that emerged heralding a new spring. This year, I have kept my distance from that goose nest and eagerly await the emergence of the goslings once more.
Geese are animals with unique ecologies and anthropologies. They are one of the only animals commonly found in urban environments that are willing to conflict with humans in a direct manner, as opposed to avoiding such encounters. Yet despite their classification as a so-called “nuisance animal” by some, geese are often accepted and respected as urban denizens in a way that is typically elusive to other species. At the University of Rochester, this relationship takes the form of what I term a respectful commensalism, where geese benefit from anthropogenic structures, like green space, with little sacrifice on our parts. In other places along the Atlantic Flyway, and in Rochester, Minnesota, there is a more material cost to the relationship between geese and humans, but archival research and field observation of student-geese interactions at the University of Rochester suggests that the attitude of greater respect than we have for other nuisance animals remains.1 This is likely due to their aesthetics, resilience, and confrontational behavior which, together, makes their agency more apparent than other more-than-human urban denizens. This appearance of agency leads to greater respect from human residents of the city. As urbanization spreads and greater numbers of more-than-human residents join the urban ecosystem of Rochester, New York, and other cities, it will become increasingly moreimportant to examine our collective feelings towards these neighbors to build a better future of coexistence.
“But that honking down on the pond, like angry
taxis, stops him: late geese on their way–he thinks–
homeward. But geese are home, wherever. A continent.
Are acting without accomplices; no past
or future to know. That squawky banter is
an irremediable thing.”
(Stephan Sandy, Parking Lot, 2002)
The story of North American geese is a rollercoaster of sharp dives, swift rises, and accidents that changed the direction of the ride entirely. The migratory Canada goose (Branta canadensis) is native to North America, breeding in the northern parts of the United States and Canada in the warmer months and migrating south in the winter. In the 19th and early 20th century, overhunting and habitat loss caused populations of Canada geese to crash to the point of endangerment.2 Individuals as well as environmental conservation and recreation groups began recovering Canada goose populations in the mid 20th century. The methods they used, combined with the development of modern city planning, resulted in both the explosion and subspeciation of Canada goose populations into several distinct breeds.
One key figure in this narrative is Dr. Charles Mayo. The founder of the famous Mayo Clinic, Mayo bred migratory Canada geese (Branta canadensis) with captive geese at his estate in Silver Lake, Minnesota. These captive geese are suspected to either be non-migratory subspecies, such as the giant Canada goose (Branta canadensis maxima), or captive geese that never learned migratory behavior. This cross resulted in the creation and subsequent radiation of a non-migratory subspecies named the “resident Canada goose,” which has since spread across the Midwest and into upstate New York. These resident Canada geese have their stronghold in Rochester, Minnesota, but they have also spread throughout much of the middle and eastern United States.3 At the same time, the regulation of hunting and conservation of wetland habitats has contributed to rescuing populations of the migratory geese. New York State is classified as part of the Atlantic population of geese, which contains significant amounts of both migratory Canada geese and resident geese.4 As a result, the University of Rochester, the site of my study, is home to both resident and migratory Canada geese.5
Many institutions, such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), consider geese to be nuisance animals. This is because geese, resident geese in particular, are territorial, graze heavily, and produce significant amounts of biological waste. By occupying and affecting space with both their bodies and waste, geese present a nuisance to humans. As a result of this, the DEC has stated a long-term goal of more than halving the state’s population of resident geese while avoiding population reductions in migratory geese.6 Certain private institutions, frequently golf courses, experience more nuisance from migratory and resident geese than elsewhere.7,8 As with certain other animals, such as various seagull species, cities and suburbs create incredibly attractive environments for geese.9,10 Geese strongly prefer to forage and heat in relatively open areas with high visibility next to bodies of water. A plethora of anthropogenic spaces fit this preferences, including sports fields, parks, golf courses, and school grounds.11
In spite of the nuisance that geese can present, my ethnographic observations indicate that geese do not often actively conflict with university students living in close proximity to them. In fact, these interactions indicate a level of respect for the geese. Students tend to avoid entering the personal space of the geese but also do not usually go out of the way to avoid them. Moreover, those who do come near the geese do not express disgust at all, remaining largely neutral to their presence. In contrast, other nuisance animals, one example being rats, are often labeled as “disgusting wreckers” for their disruption of sidewalks.12 Geese also disrupt sidewalks through their fecal output, but while there is occasionally an element of fear or nervousness when passing close to geese, that is all. Students walking the river path had little reaction to the presence of geese; they generally do not intrude on their space or instigate conflict, and the presence of goslings typically kicks off bouts of adoration and photography. Most students seem unbothered by the geese, and sometimes even fond, especially in contrast to other nuisance animals. Some were seen shying away from the geese, seemingly intimidated by their presence; university’s grounds department, however, receives no complaints about the geese, as I learned. This appearance of respect, combined with their definition as nuisance animals, raises the question of how and why these categorical nuisance animals are respected.
“We leave them alone and stay out of their way.”
(University of Rochester Horticulture and Grounds Department, 2025)
At the University of Rochester, the cognitive and cultural conditions necessary for students to accept and respect nuisance animals comes from the geese’s territorial behavior, resilience, and aesthetics. Rats are another animal that challenges socio-spatial boundaries, yet are often met with disgust, unlike geese, which are often met with begrudging respect.13 This cannot be explained solely by the rats’ ability to invade human territories, as geese often reside in the same areas. Thus, our greater ease of a commensal relationship between campus dwelling and urban geese must stem from traits exclusive from rats and other nuisances.
Their behavior and resilience make their agency extremely apparent—a trait unique amongst nuisance animals. Rather than run at the sight of humans, or even during conflict with them, geese tend to stand their ground. Contrary to rats, mice, seagulls, crows, and other nuisance animals, this provides not just a sense, but a visceral experience of the geese’s agency. Geese even remain resistant to the use of deterrence technology, such as pyrotechnics and remote-controlled cars; to this date still the most effective non-lethal tactic is the use of dogs.14,15 It is difficult to remove geese from an area short of lethal means, as even if one does manage to scare them off with a dog, their mobility allows them to simply move to another area until the threat has ended, then easily return. At the same time their aesthetics, especially during the fledging of each breeding season’s goslings, generate empathy towards the geese, softening any blow their assertion of agency may have on the human psyche.
FIGURE ONE
Cuteness
(Nathaniel Fisher, 2025)
FIGURE TWO
Confrontation
(Nathaniel Fisher, 2025)
A much less apparent aspect of the geese’s agency is their very use of the urban environment. In this, the geese are much like kittiwakes, a cliff-nesting seabird that has come to inhabit the inland city of Newcastle off the River Tyne in Northeast England.16 The geographer Helen Wilson has shown how, much like many other animals, kittiwakes inhabit Newcastle not because they are forced to, but because of the opportunities it presents.17 She argues that framings of the city as a last resort for animals fleeing environmental crisis denies animal agency. As with Northeast England, Upstate New York is full of areas much less inhabited by humans, yet geese return to the University of Rochester’s River Campus each year because of the ideal nesting area that certain anthropogenic structures create.
One may interpret these actions of habitation by urban geese as political acts of denizenship, of claiming a right to the city. By better understanding the impact that our perceptions of agency and other traits have on our feelings towards geese, we can apply these concepts to other more-than-human urban denizens. If the visibility of agency impacts these feelings in such a manner, then perhaps we can apply our understanding of other animals to produce such a sense for them, generating new urban praxis to fold more than human denizens into our society and culture in a respectful manner. While many other animals inhabit cities en masse, urban planners are remarkably slow to recognize their agency, as it has not been forced upon us the way that that of the geese has. Other urban animals assert denizenship, and by learning to recognize their more subtle methods of agency perhaps we can learn to respect them as living beings too.
NOTES
1. Sklerov, Ferrel, et al. “Dep, the Port Authority, USDA Announce Third Year of Canada Geese Mitigation Measures for City-Owned Properties.” DEP, the Port Authority, USDA Announce Third Year of Canada Geese Mitigation Measures For City-Owned, 25 June 2011, www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press_releases/11-48pr.shtml. See also “Nuisance Canada Geese.” Department of Environmental Conservation, dec.ny.gov/nature/animals-fish-plants/nuisance-wildlife-species/canada-geese.
2. Ankney, C. Davison. “An embarrassment of riches: Too many geese.” The Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 60, no. 2, Apr. 1996, p. 217, https://doi.org/10.2307/3802219.
3. Ibid.
4. Stiller, Joshua. Canada geese in New York, Residents or Visitors? New York State Conservationist. 2019.
5. The subjects of the fieldwork I conducted are likely migratory geese. There is no data on the mapping of subspecies population in Rochester, but I was able to infer the species of the campus geese by their lack of presence in the winter months.
6. Sklerov et al., 2011.
7. Curtis, Paul D, et al Management of Nuisance Geese on School Properties and Public Spaces, Journal of Integrated Pest Management, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2022, 28, https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmac025.
8. Curtis, Paul D, et al, Evaluating and Mitigating Canada Goose Impacts to Parks, Schools, and Golf Courses, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, 2016, https://hdl.handle.net/1813/48035.
9. Braband, Lynn., Geese on School Grounds, New York State IPM Program, 2016, https://hdl.handle.net/1813/44456.
10. Curtis et al., 2016.
11. Ibid.
12. de Bondt, Herre, et al 2023. Rats claiming rights? More-than-human acts of denizenship in Amsterdam. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 46: 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12530.
13. Ibid.
14. Goose control Rochester, NY: Eviction Nuisance Wildlife Control. Eviction Nuisance Wildlife Control |. (2017b, April 7). http://www.evictionwildlife.com/goose-control-rochester-ny
15. Holevinski, Robin A, et al “Hazing of Canada Geese Is Unlikely to Reduce Nuisance Populations in Urban and Suburban Communities.” Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1, no. 2 (2007): 257–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24875087.
16. Wilson, Helen F. “Seabirds in the city: Urban futures and fraught coexistence.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 47, no. 4, Aug. 2022, pp. 1137–1151, https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12525.
17. Thomson, Melanie. “Placing the wild in the city: ‘thinking with’ Melbourne’s bats.” Society & Animals, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, pp. 79–95, https://doi.org/10.1163/156853007×169360.