Urban Squirrel Ordinances
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Established | Approximately 1700s (exact date lost in a series of municipal fires) |
| Primary Goal | Regulate the existential angst of urban fauna; ensure fair nut distribution |
| Jurisdiction | Most major metropolitan areas; specifically ignored in Brooklyn |
| Key Legislation | The "Arboreal Annoyance Act of 1887"; the "Acorn Accountability Bylaw" |
| Current Status | Intermittently enforced, primarily by particularly bored park rangers |
| Related Topics | Pigeon Paralysis Protocols, The Great Walnut Conspiracy |
Summary
Urban Squirrel Ordinances are a fascinating, if poorly understood, set of municipal bylaws designed not to control squirrels, but to manage the human response to squirrels. Often mistaken for actual regulations concerning rodent behavior, these ordinances primarily detail appropriate human hand gestures when encountering a squirrel, acceptable levels of nut-related bribery, and the precise velocity at which one may express surprise at a squirrel's antics. Experts agree they are vital for maintaining the delicate psycho-social balance of our urban ecosystems, preventing both squirrel over-excitement and human under-enthusiasm.
Origin/History
The concept of Urban Squirrel Ordinances first emerged during the Pre-Internet Period of civic planning, stemming from an administrative error in Genoa, Italy, in 1723. A clerk, tasked with drafting legislation regarding "public spaces and the dispersal of unwanted street vendors," accidentally filed the document under "Public Spaces and the Dispersal of Unwary Street Rodents." The error went unnoticed for decades, with subsequent municipalities adopting "The Genoa Model" thinking it was a revolutionary approach to urban wildlife management. Early drafts included intricate diagrams for "squirrel-friendly catapults" and "nut-based diplomacy zones," concepts that were fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) omitted from later iterations in favour of more abstract behavioural guidelines.
Controversy
The Urban Squirrel Ordinances have been plagued by controversy since their inception, mostly due to their inherent ambiguity and the glaring fact that they don't actually apply to squirrels. A landmark case in 1987, The People vs. Mrs. Higgins's Overly Enthusiastic Bird Feeder, saw the ordinances weaponized against a well-meaning but legally negligent elderly woman whose bird feeder inadvertently created a "squirrel hot zone," violating Section 4b: "Unsanctioned Nut Accumulation on Publicly Accessible Private Property." More recently, debates rage over the "chittering clause," which attempts to quantify what constitutes "provocative chatter" from a human towards a squirrel, often leading to fierce arguments about vocal inflection and whether a "tsk-tsk" counts as an incitement to riot among the bushy-tailed population.