BIRDS: American Crows
Prevention and Control Methods
Netting to exclude crows
from high-value crops or small areas.
Protect ripening corn in
gardens by covering each ear with a paper cup or sack
after the silk has turned brown.
Widely-spaced lines or
wires placed around sites needing protection may have
some efficacy in repelling crows, but further study is
Alternate or decoy foods;
example: scatter whole corn, preferably softened by
water, through a field to protect newly planted corn
Use with roosts, crops,
and some other situations. Frightening devices include
recorded distress or alarm calls, pyrotechnics, various
sound-producing devices, chemical frightening agents (Avitrol®),
lights, bright objects, high-pressure water spray, and,
where appropriate, shotguns.
None are registered.
None are registered
Check laws before
trapping. Australian crow decoy traps may be useful near
a high-value crop or other areas where a resident
population is causing damage. Proper care of traps and
decoy birds is necessary.
Capture single crows
uninjured in size No. 0 or No. 1 steel traps that have
the jaws wrapped with cloth or rubber.
Shooting and Hunting
Helpful as a dispersal or
frightening technique but generally not effective in
reducing overall crow numbers. Crows may be hunted
during open seasons. Check with your state wildlife
agency for local restrictions.
The American crow (Fig. 1)
is one of America’s best-known birds. Males and females
are outwardly alike. Their large size (17 to 21 inches
[43 to 53 cm] long), completely coal-black plumage, and
familiar “caw caw” sound make them easy to identify.
They are fairly common in areas near people, and tales
of their wit and intelligence have been noted in many
Three other crows occur in
the continental United States, the fish crow (Corvus
ossifragus), the northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus),
and the Mexican crow (Corvus imparatus). Fish crows are
primarily inhabitants of the eastern and southeastern
coastal United States, but their range extends into the
eastern edges of Oklahoma and Texas. Fish crows are
somewhat smaller than American crows, but in the field
they appear much alike. They can be distinguished,
however, by their calls — the fish crow call is a short,
nasal “ca,” “car,” or “ca-ha.” Northwestern crows, as
their name implies, occur in the northwest along the
coastal strip from Washington to Alaska. They are most
often seen foraging along beaches. Northwestern crows
are smaller than American crows, but in Washington state
these two species may hybridize. Mexican crows occur in
south Texas (Brownsville area) primarily during fall and
winter and are fairly small for crows. Their voice is a
low froglike “gurr” or “croak” or, in some areas, a
Ravens are similar to
crows in appearance. Two species occur in the
continental United States, the common or northern raven
(Corvus corax) and Chihuahuan or white-necked raven (Corvus
cryptoleucus). The common raven is found from the
foothills of the Rockies westward, northward to Alaska
and eastward across Canada and some northern U.S.
states, and locally in the Appalachian mountains. Common
ravens can be distinguished from crows by their larger
size, call, wedge-shaped tail, and flight pattern that
commonly includes soaring or gliding. In contrast, crows
have a frequent steady wing-beat with little or no
Chihuahuan ravens occur in
the Southwest, including portions of western Kansas,
Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona and
rarely in south-central Nebraska. This raven, which is
smaller than the common raven and somewhat larger than
the American crow, can be distinguished from the crow by
its call, slightly wedge-shaped tail, and flight pattern
that includes gliding. The white neck feathers, which
account for its other name, are seldom visible in the
American crows are widely
distributed over much of North America. They breed from
Newfoundland and Manitoba southward to Florida and
Texas, and throughout the West, except in the drier
southwestern portions. During fall, crows in the
northern parts of their range migrate southward and
generally winter south of the Canada-US border.
American crows do best in
a mixture of open fields where food can be found and
woodlots where there are trees for nesting and roosting.
They commonly use woodlots, wooded areas along streams
and rivers, farmlands, orchards, parks, and suburban
areas. Winter roosting concentrations of crows occur in
areas that have favorable roost sites and abundant food.
Crows are omnivorous,
eating almost anything, and they readily adapt food
habits to changing seasons and available food supply.
They belong to a select group of birds that appear
equally adept at live hunting, pirating, and scavenging.
Studies show that crows consume over 600 different food
About one-third of the
crow’s annual diet consists of animal matter, including
grasshoppers, beetles, beetle larvae (white grubs,
wireworms), caterpillars, spiders, millipedes, dead
fish, frogs, salamanders, snakes, eggs and young of
birds, and carrion such as traffic-killed animals. The
remainder of the crow’s diet consists of vegetable or
plant matter. Corn is the principal food item in this
category, much of it obtained from fields after harvest.
Crows also consume acorns, various wild and cultivated
fruits, watermelon, wheat, sorghum, peanuts, pecans,
garbage, and miscellaneous other items.
General Biology, Reproduction, and Behavior
Crows are among the most
intelligent of birds. Experiments indicate that American
crows can count to three or four, are good at solving
puzzles, have good memories, employ a diverse and
behaviorally complex range of vocalizations, and quickly
learn to associate various noises and symbols with food.
One report describes an American crow that dropped palm
nuts (Washingtonia sp.) onto a residential street, then
waited for passing automobiles to crack them. Crows are
keen and wary birds. Consider the number of crows that
scavenge along highways; how many have you seen hit by
autos? Crows can mimic sounds made by other birds and
animals and have been taught to mimic the human voice.
The myth that splitting the tongue allows a crow to talk
better, however, is not true and is needlessly cruel.
Crows often post a
sentinel while feeding. Although studies indicate that
the sentinel may be part of a family group, unrelated
crows and other birds in the area likely benefit from
the sentinel’s presence.
Crows begin nesting in
early spring (February to May, with southern nests
starting earlier than northern ones) and build a nest of
twigs, sticks, and coarse stems. Crow pairs appear to
remain together throughout the year, at least in
nonmigratory populations, and pairs or pair bonds are
likely maintained even within large winter migratory
flocks. The nest, which is lined with shredded bark,
feathers, grass, cloth, and string, is usually built 18
to 60 feet (5 to 18 m) above ground in oaks, pines,
cottonwoods, or other trees. Where there are few trees,
crows may nest on the ground or on the crossbars of
telephone poles. The average clutch is 4 to 6 eggs that
hatch in about 18 days. Young fledge in about 30 days.
Usually there is 1 brood per year, but in some southern
areas there may be 2 broods. Both sexes help build the
nest and feed the young, and occasionally offspring that
are 1 or more years old (nest associates) help with
nesting activities. The female incubates the eggs and is
fed during incubation by the male and nest associates.
The young leave the nest at about 5 weeks of age and
forage with their parents throughout the summer. Later
in the year, the family may join other groups that in
turn may join still larger groups. The larger groups
often migrate in late fall or winter.
Few crows in the wild live
more than 4 to 6 years, but some have lived to 14 years
in the wild and over 20 years in captivity. Recently, a
bird bander reported a crow that had lived an incredible
29 years in the wild. Adult crows have few predators,
although larger hawks and owls and occasionally canids
take some. Brood losses result from a variety of factors
including predation by raccoons (Procyon lotor),
great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus), and other
predators; starvation; and adverse weather.
One important and
spectacular aspect of crow behavior is their
congregation into huge flocks in fall and winter. Large
flocks are the result of many small flocks gradually
assembling as the season progresses, with the largest
concentration occurring in late winter. The Fort Cobb
area in Oklahoma, a communal roost site, holds several
million crows each winter. In Nebraska, Wisconsin, and
possibly other states, crows appear to be roosting more
commonly in towns near people, resulting in mixed
opinions on how to deal with them. These flocks roost
together at night and disperse over large areas to feed
during the day. Crows may commonly fly 6 to 12 miles (10
to 20 km) outward from a roost each day to feed.
studies indicate that roosting crows may have two
distinct daily movement patterns. Some fly each day to a
stable territory, called a diurnal activity center,
which is maintained by four or five birds throughout the
winter and apparently then used as a nesting site in
spring. Although these stable groups of crows may stop
at superabundant food sources such as landfills,
individuals within the groups typically fly different
routes and make different stops. Other crows appear to
be unattached and without specific daily activity
centers or stable groups. Although they use the same
roosts as the activity-cen-ter crows, these unattached
birds, possibly migrants, are not faithful to any
specific location or territory and more regularly feed
at sites such as landfills.
Ongoing changes in
land-use patterns may result in associated impacts on
crow populations and behavior. Historically, crow
populations have benefited from agricultural development
because of grains available as a food supply and because
trees became established in prairie areas where
agriculture and settlement suppressed natural fires. The
combination of food and tree availability favored crows,
and in some areas with abundant food and available roost
sites, large winter roosting concentrations became
established. As the current trend toward sustainable
agricultural systems continues, which may include a
variety of crops and rotations with nongrain crops, food
availability and associated patterns of crow roosts may
The growing number of
crows that nest and roost in urban areas also raises
questions. Are urban habitats now selected because of
adaptive changes in crow behavior, or are changes in
rural settings making urban sites comparably more
suitable? One study described two neighboring but
distinct crow nesting populations — one that was urban
and somewhat habituated to people and another that was
rural and relatively wary of people. Will crows that are
hatched in urban areas be habituated to people to such
an extent that they will be more difficult than their
rural counterparts to disperse from problem sites?
Understanding such factors may lead to better options
for managing crows in ways compatible with the needs of
Damage and Damage Identification
Complaints associated with
crow damage to agriculture were more common in the 1940s
than they are today. Although surveys indicate that
overall crow numbers have not changed appreciably, the
populations appear to be more scattered during much of
the year. This change has resulted apparently from the
crows’ response to changing land-use patterns. Farming
has become more prevalent in some areas, generally with
larger fields. Woodland areas are generally smaller, and
trees and other resources in urban sites provide crow
habitat. Overall, the amount and degree of damage is
highly variable from place to place and year to year.
Several variables enter into the complex picture of crow
damage, including season, local weather, time of
harvest, amount of crop production, and availability and
distribution of wild mast, insects, and other foods.
Although crows cause a
variety of damage problems, many of these are more
commonly associated with other animal species. Crows may
damage seedling corn plants by pulling the sprouts and
consuming the kernels. Similar damage may also be caused
by other birds (pheasants, starlings, blackbirds) and
rodents (mice, ground squirrels). Crows at times damage
ripening corn during the milk and dough stages of
development. Such damage, however, is more commonly
caused by blackbirds; for further information, see
Blackbirds. Crows consume peanuts when they are
windrowed in fields to dry, but other birds, especially
grackles, cause the greatest portion of this damage.
Crows may also damage other crops, including ripening
grain sorghum, commercial sunflowers, pecans, various
fruits, and watermelons. In rare situations, crows may
attack very young calves, pigs, goats, and lambs,
particularly during or shortly after birth. This
problem, which is more often associated with magpies or
ravens, is most likely to happen where livestock births
occur in unprotected open fields near large
concentrations of crows.
Another complaint about
crows is that they consume the eggs and sometimes the
young of waterfowl, pheasants, and other birds during
the nesting season. Overall, such crow depredation
probably has little effect on the numbers of these
birds. However, it can be a problem of concern locally,
particularly where breeding waterfowl are concentrated
and where there is too little habitat cover to conceal
nests. For example, nests are more easily found by
crows, as well as by other predators, when located in a
narrow fence row or at the edge of a prairie pothole
that has little surrounding cover.
Large fall and winter crow
roosts cause serious problems in some areas,
particularly when located in towns or other sites near
people. Such roosts are objectionable because of the
odor of the bird droppings, health concerns, noise, and
damage to trees in the roost. In addition, crows flying
out from roosts each day to feed may cause agricultural
or other damage problems. On the other hand, the diet of
crows may be beneficial to agriculture, depending on the
time of year and surrounding land use.
Finally, in some
situations, large crow flocks may become a factor in
spreading disease. At times, they feed in and around
farm buildings, where they have been implicated in the
spread of transmissible gastroenteritis (TGE) among
swine facilities. At other times, large crow flocks near
wetland areas may increase the potential for spread of
waterfowl diseases such as avian cholera. The scavenging
habits of crows and the apparent longer incubation time
of the disease in crows are factors that increase the
potential for crows to spread this devastating disease.
Also, crow and other bird (blackbird, starling) roosts
that have been in place for several years may harbor the
fungus (Histoplasma capsulatum) that causes
histoplasmosis, a disease that can infect people who
breathe in spores when a roost is disturbed.
Crows are protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a federal act resulting from
a formal treaty signed by the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. However, under this act, crows may be controlled
without a federal permit when found “committing or about
to commit depredations upon ornamental or shade trees,
agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when
concentrated in such numbers and manner to constitute a
health hazard or other nuisance.”
States may require permits
to control crows and may regulate the method of take.
Federal guidelines permit states to establish hunting
seasons for crows. During these seasons, crows may be
hunted according to the regulations established in each
state. Regulations or interpretation of depredation
rules may vary among states, and state or local laws may
prohibit certain control techniques such as shooting or
trapping. Check with local wildlife officials if there
is any doubt regarding legality of control methods.
Prevention and Control Methods
Exclusion generally is not practical for most crow
problems, but might be useful in some situations. For
example, nylon or plastic netting might be useful in
excluding crows from high-value crops or small areas.
Protect ripening corn in small gardens from crow or
other bird damage by placing a paper cup or sack over
each ear after the silk has turned brown. The dried
brown silk indicates that the ear has been pollinated by
the corn tassels, a necessary step in corn grain
Lines. Another excluding
or repelling technique used historically to protect
fields from crows is stretching cord or fine wire at
intervals across the field at heights about 6 to 8 feet
(1.8 to 2.4 m) above the ground. Sometimes aluminum or
cloth strips or aluminum pie pans were tied to the
wires. More recently, the concept of stretching widely
spaced lines or wires over or around sites needing
protection from certain birds has received increased
attention. Crows were included in two studies at
sanitary landfills, but results were somewhat
conflicting. One report from South Carolina indicated
that a 20 x 20-foot (6 x 6-m) wire grid repelled crows,
but another from New York indicated that parallel wires
stretched 10 x 10 feet (3 x 3 m) apart and 80 x 80 feet
(24 x 24 m) above the ground did not repel them.
The reason this technique
has worked for certain birds is not completely clear,
but the wires appear to represent an obstacle that is
difficult for a flying bird to see, especially when
rapid escape may be necessary. Various species respond
differently to lines, and generally adult birds are more
repelled by lines than juveniles. Other factors such as
season and/or biological activity of the birds, type of
lines or wires, spacing, and height need further
research and development to better understand the
potential usefulness of lines in bird management.
Agricultural Crops. Some reports indicate that
providing an alternate or decoy food source will reduce
crop damage caused by crows. An example would be
scattering a grain such as whole corn, preferably
softened by water, through a field where crows are
damaging newly planted corn seedlings. Although this
technique has been reported to be helpful in some
situations, it has not been well tested.
Tree Roosts. Thinning
branches from specific roost trees or thinning trees
from dense groves reduces the availability of perch
sites and opens the trees to weather effects. Such
vegetation management has effectively dispersed
starling/blackbird roosts, and the same biological
concepts indicate probable effectiveness in dispersing
crow roosts. When roosts occur in a small number of
landscape trees near homes or along streets, they
usually are in fairly dense trees where thinning the
branches will reduce the trees’ attractiveness as
roosts. Roosts in tree groves or woodlots usually occur
in dense stands of young trees. Thinning about one-third
of the trees improves the tree stand, especially if
marked by a professional forester. Such thinning
successfully dispersed blackbird/star-ling roosts from
research woodlots in Ohio and Kentucky, and from at
least two problem roost sites in Nebraska. In dense
cedar thickets, bulldozing strips through the roost site
to remove one-third of the habitat has also been
successful in dispersing birds, but soil disturbance
with this method may be hazardous if soils harbor fungal
spores of the human respiratory disease histoplasmosis.
For further information on roost dispersal, see Bird
Frightening is effective in dispersing crows from
roosts, some crops, and other troublesome sites. In a
recent study in California, crows were successfully
dispersed from urban crow roosts using tape-recorded
“squalling” calls (given by a crow struggling to escape
from a predator) and a portable tape player commonly
used by hunters to attract animals. Such dispersal
allows crows to be moved from problem sites to sites
where they are less likely to interfere with people.
In addition to recorded
distress or alarm calls, frightening devices include
gas-operated exploders, battery-operated alarms,
pyrotechnics, (shellcrackers, bird bombs), chemical
frightening agents (see Avitrol® below), lights (for
roosting sites at night), bright objects, clapper
devices, and various other noisemakers. Beating on tin
sheets or barrels with clubs can help in scaring birds.
Spraying birds as they land, with water from a hose or
from sprinklers mounted in the roost trees, has helped
in some situations. Hanging mylar tape in roost trees
may be helpful in urban areas. A combination of several
scare techniques used together works better than a
single technique used alone. Vary the location,
intensity, and types of scare devices to improve their
effectiveness. Supplement frightening techniques with
shotguns, where permitted, to improve their
effectiveness in dispersing crows. Ultrasonic (high
frequency, above 20 kHz) sounds are not effective in
frightening crows and most other birds because, like
humans, they do not hear these sounds. For a more
detailed discussion of frightening techniques, see Bird
owl models can frighten crows from gardens and small
fields. These are made from a plastic owl model with a
crow model attached in such a way that the crow appears
to be in the owl’s talons. Movement is supplied by
mounting the model on a weather vane and by adding wind-
or battery-powered wings to the crow.
Clapper devices (Tomko
Timer-Clapper) have been reported by the Nebraska Game
and Parks Commission as successful in dispersing crows
from waterfowl concentration areas where crow roosting
was destroying a multiple-row shelterbelt and where
there was concern that crows were aggravating the spread
of avian cholera. A clapper device intermittently
“claps,” producing a sound much like a twig snapping or
like two boards clapping together. The device can be
placed up in trees or at other sites close to crow
perches, making it perhaps more significant to crows as
a frightening device. Clappers have also been used to
frighten and disperse other birds (starlings, grackles,
swallows) and to repel deer at night. Like many other
frightening techniques, clappers appear to be most
effective with wary populations. Populations that have
habituated to people or disturbance to such an extent
that they have lost their wariness, may not respond.
Avitrol®. Avitrol® (active
ingredient: 4-aminopyridine) is a Restricted Use
Pesticide and chemical frightening agent, available in a
whole-corn bait formulation (Double Strength Whole Corn)
for use in dispersing crows. It is only for sale to
certified applicators or persons under their direct
supervision and only for those uses covered by the
Avitrol® baits contain a
small number of treated grains mixed with many others
that are untreated. Birds that eat the treated portion
of the bait behave erratically and/or give warning cries
that frighten other birds from the area. Generally,
birds that eat the treated particles die. Overall,
because of the type of damage problems associated with
crows, Avitrol® is unlikely to be used often. This
product is included here, however, because situations
may arise in which its use would be helpful. Before
using this product for crow control, it is best to
contact a qualified person trained in bird control work
(someone from the Cooperative Extension or
USDA-APHIS-Animal Damage Control, for example) for
technical assistance. For additional information on
Avitrol®, see Blackbirds and European Starlings.
No repellents are registered for crow control.
Recent studies show that conditioned aversion learning,
a form of repellency, can reduce egg and possibly fruit
and grain crop depredation by crows. Further work and
registration of an appropriate agent for producing a
conditioned aversion response are needed.
No toxicants are registered for crow control.
Special Local Needs 24(c) registrations have been sought
for DRC-1339 (3-chloro p-toluidine hydrochloride) by
USDA-APHIS-ADC for limited, small-scale use.
Trapping is often less attractive than other
techniques because of the wide-ranging movements of
crows, the time necessary to maintain and manage traps,
and the number of crows that can be captured compared to
the total number in the area. Trapping and removing
crows, however, can be a successful method of control at
locations where a small resident population is causing
damage or where other techniques cannot be used.
Examples include trapping damage-causing crows near a
high-value crop or in an area where nesting waterfowl
are highly concentrated.
Two types of traps can be
used to successfully capture crows. First, individual
crows may be captured uninjured with No. 0 or No. 1
steel traps that have the jaws wrapped with cloth or
rubber. These sets are most successful if placed at
vantage points in areas habitually used by crows or if
baited with a dummy nest containing a few eggs. Check
such traps at least twice daily. Crows captured in this
way might be used, if necessary, as initial decoys in
the Australian crow trap described below, but the small
number of captures is otherwise unlikely to affect a
A second and more commonly
used trap for crows is the Australian Crow Trap (Fig.
2), a type of decoy trap. These traps are most
successful if used during the winter when food is
scarce. Australian crow traps should be at least 8 to 10
feet (2.4 to 3 m) square and 5 to 6 feet (1.5 to 1.8 m)
high. If desired, construct the sides and top in panels
to facilitate transportation and storage. Place the trap
where crows are likely to congregate. The most
attractive bait is meat (such as slaughterhouse offal,
small animal carcasses) or eggs. Whole kernel corn, milo
heads, watermelon, and poultry feed may also work and
may be preferred where carnivores such as feral dogs
might be attracted to the trap. Place the bait under the
ladder portion of the trap. Also provide water. After
the first baiting, the trap should not be visited for 24
hours. Once the birds begin to enter the trap, it should
be cared for daily. Replace the bait as soon as it loses
its fresh appearance. Remove all crows captured except
for about five to be left in the trap as decoys. Remove
captured crows after sunset when they are calm (to
Fig. 2. Australian crow
trap: (a) completed trap, (b) end view, and (c) plan of
Should any nontarget birds
be captured, release them unharmed immediately.
Euthanize captured crows humanely by carbon dioxide
exposure or cervical dislocation. A well-main-tained
decoy trap can capture a number of crows each day,
depending on its size and location, the time of year,
and how well the trap is maintained.
A recent study in Israel
of hooded crows (Corvus corone), which are about the
same size as American crows, indicated that decoy crows
were more important than bait to trap success. Using one
hooded crow decoy bird, however, appeared to be as
effective as using three to four, and fleshy baits did
increase success in some cases. To prevent hooded crow
escape, the ladder gap width of the American model was
reduced from 18 to 12 inches (45 to 30 cm), and 1.5 x
0.8-inch (4 x 2-cm) square rungs were used instead of
3-inch (8-cm) diameter metal rods. The potential
response of American crows to such trap modifications is
unknown but merits study.
Shooting and Hunting
Shooting is more effective
as a dispersal technique than as a way to reduce crow
numbers. Crows are wary and thus difficult to shoot
during daylight hours. They may be attracted to a
concealed shooter, however, by using crow decoys or
calls, or by placing an owl effigy in a conspicuous
location. Generally, the number of crows killed by
shooting is very small in relation to the numbers
involved in pest situations. However, shooting can be a
helpful technique to supplement and reinforce other
dispersal techniques when the goal is to frighten and
disperse crows rather than specifically to reduce
numbers. For more details on dispersal, see Bird
Crow hunting during open
season can be encouraged in areas where crows cause
problems. The helpfulness of hunting as a control
technique varies depending on crow movements, the season
in which the damage occurs, and other factors. Another
consideration is that crows tend to be more wary of
people when they are hunted and thus more easily
dispersed from roosting or other areas where their
presence is a problem. Further study is needed to better
understand the relationships between hunting and
wariness, and whether a pattern exists that might be
used to improve crow management programs.
Economics of Damage and Control
The economics of crow
damage often center around a widespread controversy over
whether crow feeding habits are harmful or beneficial.
Some say that crows earn their keep by taking harmful
insects and cleaning up carrion. Others say the damage
done far outweighs any beneficial aspects. Despite some
studies of the crow diet, little quantitative
information is available on the overall economic impacts
of crows. In addition, it appears likely that the
economics of crows in relation to agriculture or people
have changed from what they were 30 or more years ago
when many crow studies were done.
At one time several state
legislatures appropriated funds for bounties on crows
and for bombing crow roosts, and suggested all-out
efforts to eradicate the crow. Now, most state wildlife
and agriculture departments report only a few scattered
complaints of crow damage each year. At times, however,
individual farms or crops do suffer severe damage, and
concerns about large crow roosts in urban areas near
people appear to be increasing. Individuals experiencing
damage problems should weigh the costs of control
against the amount of damage, then work with the proper
authorities to develop a control program.
On the beneficial side,
the crow diet includes large numbers of insects
considered harmful to agriculture, as well as mice and
carrion. In addition, their consumption of waste grain
left in fields may help prevent undesirable volunteer
corn in the following year’s crop. The fact that crows
also eat snakes may be considered a benefit by some
Overall, crow and other
bird problems can be difficult or frustrating to resolve
satisfactorily with the methods and understanding
currently available. Persistence and use of a variety of
techniques may be necessary to help prevent damage. In
addition, further research is needed to develop damage
control methods based on an understanding of bird
problems in relation to agricultural and urban
landscapes and other natural resource systems where
The references listed
under “For Additional Information” and many others were
used in preparing this chapter. Gratitude is extended to
the authors and the many researchers and observers who
contributed to this body of knowledge. I extend special
appreciation to R.
W. Altman, retired
Oklahoma State University extension wildlife specialist,
for his contributions as co-author of the first edition
of this chapter. I also thank M. M. Beck, R. M. Case, R.
Kelly, and R. Ross for comments and helpful advice on
the first edition; J. Andelt provided typing and
technical assistance. I gratefully acknowledge M. M.
Beck, C. S. Brown, R. M. Case, and R. L. Knight for
valuable reviews of this second edition.
Figure 1 by Emily Oseas
Routman, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Figure 2 from E. R.
For Additional Information
Arvin, J., J. Arvin, C. Cottam, and G. Unland. 1975.
Mexican crow invades south Texas. Auk 92:387-390.
Bent, A. C. 1964. Life
histories of North American jays, crows and titmice.
Dover Pub., Inc., New York. 495 pp.
Chamberlain-Auger, J. A.,
P. J. Auger, and E. G. Strauss. 1990. Breeding biology
of American crows. Wilson Bull. 102:615-622.
Conover, M. R. 1985.
Protecting vegetables from crows using an animated
crow-killing owl model. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:643-645.
Dimmick, C. R., and L. K.
Nicolaus. 1990. Efficiency of conditioned aversion in
reducing depredation by crows. J. Appl. Ecol.
Good, E.E. 1952. The life
history of the American crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos
Brehm. Ph.D. Diss., The Ohio State Univ., Columbus. 203
Goodwin, D. 1976. Crows of
the world. Comstock Publ. Assoc., a div. Cornell Univ.
Press, Ithaca, New York. 354 pp.
Gorenzel, W. P., and T. P.
Salmon. 1993. Tape-recorded calls disperse American
crows from urban roosts. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:334-338.
Friend, M. 1987. Avian
cholera. Pages 69-82 in
M. Friend, ed. A field
guide to wildlife diseases, Volume 1. General field
procedures and diseases of migratory birds, US Dep.
Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., Resour. Publ. 167,
Houston, C. S. 1977.
Changing patterns of Corvidae on the prairies. Blue Jay
Ignatiuk, J. B., and R. G.
Clark. 1991. Breeding biology of American crows in
Saskatchewan parkland habitat. Can. J. Zool. 69:168-175.
Johnsgard, P. A. 1979.
Birds of the Great Plains, breeding species and their
distribution. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 539 pp.
Kalmbach, E. R. 1937.
Crow-waterfowl relationships. US Dep. Agric., Cir. 433,
Washington, DC. 36 pp.
Kalmbach, E. R. 1939. The
crow in its relation to agriculture. US Dep. Agric.,
Farmer’s Bull. No. 1102, rev. ed. Washington, DC. 21 pp.
Kilham, L. 1989. The
American crow and the common raven. Texas A&M Univ.
Press, College Station. 255 pp.
Knight, R. L., D. J.
Grout, and S. A. Temple. 1987. Nest-defense behavior of
the American crow in urban and rural areas. Condor
Knopf, F. L., and B. A.
Knopf. 1983. Flocking pattern of foraging American crows
in Oklahoma. Wilson Bull. 95:153-155.
Maccarone, A. D. 1987.
Sentinel behaviour in American Crows. Bird Behav.
Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim,
and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and plants, a
guide to wildlife food habits. Dover Publ., Inc., New
York. 500 pp.
Mott, D. F., J. F. Besser,
R. R. West, and J.W. DeGrazio. 1972. Bird damage to
peanuts and methods for alleviating the problem. Proc.
Verteb. Pest Conf. 5:118-120.
Moran, S. 1991. Control of
hooded crows by modified Australian traps.
Pochop, P. A., R. J.
Johnson, D. A. Agüero, and
K. M. Eskridge. 1990. The
status of lines in bird control — a review. Proc. Verteb.
Pest Conf. 14:317-324.
Schorger, A. W. 1941. The
crow and the raven in early Wisconsin. Wilson Bull.
Stouffer P. C., and D. F.
Caccamise. 1991. Capturing American crows using alpha-chloralose.
J. Field Ornithol. 62:450-453.
Stouffer P. C., and D. F.
Caccamise. 1991. Roosting and diurnal movements of
radio-tagged American crows. Wilson Bull. 103:387-400.
Sullivan, B. D., and J. J.
Dinsmore. 1990. Factors affecting egg predation by
J. Wildl. Manage.
Terres, J. K. 1980. The
Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds.
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 1109 pp.
Weeks, R. J. 1984.
Histoplasmosis, sources of infection and methods of
control. US Dep. Health Human Serv., Public Health Serv.,
Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia. 8 pp.
Yahner, R. H., and A. L.
Wright. 1985. Depredation on artificial ground nests:
effects of edge and plot age. J. Wildl. Manage.
Scott E. Hygnstrom; Robert
M. Timm; Gary E. Larson
PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
WILDLIFE DAMAGE — 1994
Division Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources
University of Nebraska -Lincoln
United States Department
of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service Animal Damage Control
Great Plains Agricultural
Council Wildlife Committee