This paper examines how a city’s relationship with birds reflects its evolving identity. It analyzes the anti-pigeon campaigns in London, England, Berlin, and Venice; the relationship between Delhi and sparrows and vultures; the cultural history of Istanbul’s seagulls; Singapore’s Hornbill rejuvenation success story; and Canada’s Bird-Friendly City Certification initiative, using London, Ontario, as an example. When do city managers focus on birds? When do the birds draw attention to themselves? When CDO citizens lobby for or against birds? When does the UN declare a bird-friendly decade? When are there avian flu outbreaks? Are birds just symbols of broader urban revisionings–collateral damage or untargeted recipients of protection? It compares the rhetoric and imagery used by cities to officially clarify their “bird” positionings. Does a city’s campaign against resident birds necessarily mean a campaign against all birds? Can a city be migrating bird-friendly and openly curb resident bird populations at the same time? It analyzes the different ways public health arguments are used both for and against urban birds, as well as how unwanted birds often symbolize changing relationships with tourists. It concludes by positing general lessons that the bird negotiations in London, England; London, Ontario; Berlin; Singapore; Delhi; Venice; and Istanbul can teach cities aiming to become more sustainable and biophilic.