“Presidents might come and Presidents might go, but the White House squirrels presumably could go on forever,” Richard Neuberger told his Senate colleagues in a 1955 speech condemning relocation of some squirrels to distant areas. Neuberger referred to the Eastern gray squirrels living on the White House grounds, who have amused and challenged presidents and staff at least as far back as Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. Publicized by Neuberger, relocation of these charismatic squirrels set off a firestorm, leading to framing of a history-dependent rationale for the special standing and protection of White House squirrels.
This paper compares and contrasts: (case 1) the aborted relocation of White House squirrels and (case 2) relocation of nearly eighty squirrels living in Lafayette Park (across from the White House) in the 1980s. Adopting a network approach to Lafayette Park, wildlife experts documented interactions within an assemblage of the park’s squirrels, rats, pigeons, dedicated human provisioners of peanuts, trees, animal welfare groups, etc. Case 2—resolved with squirrel removal—evidenced the limits and challenges of early network analysis.
Both cases involved the human-animal bond. Whereas in case 1 the human-squirrel bond played a key role in the squirrels’ protection, in case 2 emphasis on preservation of “historic landscaping themes” led to the squirrels’ relocation. In case 1 ecologists worked with the human-animal bond; in case 2, around the bond.
The paper analyzes situational nonhuman charisma, convenient fluidity in animal classification (squirrels as pets, wild animals, and pests), and challenges to the application of network analysis.
