Peanut, who has amassed more than half a million Instagram followers, was euthanized by officials to be tested for rabies.
Peanut, the Instagram-famous squirrel that was seized from its owner’s home Wednesday, has been euthanized by New York state officials.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation took Peanut, as well as a raccoon named Fred, on Wednesday after the agency learned the animals were “sharing a residence with humans, creating the potential for human exposure to rabies," it said in a joint statement with the Chemung County Department of Health.
Both Peanut and Fred were euthanized to test for rabies, the statement said. It was unclear when the animals were euthanized.
Respectfully disagree, but I see your point and the logic you derived it from. I just think that this view is reductive and follows an argument from authority bias. Your point that he should have taken the animal to a wildlife rehabilitation center is valid, but I think that after caring for a creature for seven years, your argument sorta loses merit. Perhaps the species isn’t domesticated, but that individual creature formed a relationship with that man, and someone made the decision to snitch on him apropos of nothing. When strangers tried to forcefully remove this bonded animal, it made the decision any animal would to defend itself. I can’t talk too much about the rabies testing post bite, because the logic there is sound, but the rest of the logic isn’t.
Not exactly related, but maybe if people weren’t so indoctrinated to consider wild animals as simply beasts to be avoided, instead of living creatures that are a part of our environment that we have a relationship with, then we wouldn’t lack the empathy to protect their habitats and their role in our environment. I don’t advise people to go and capture animals as pets, and I don’t think that what this mans decision over 7 years ago was the best one, but he made that decision and formed a bond with a creature that was taken from him on account of some anon Karen. That’s fucked. Period.
If he simply just had the squirrel and it only interacted with his family sure, I’d agree. But he recently obtained a raccoon, and instead of taking it to a rehab he decided to keep it, ensuring it could never be returned to the wild. Respecting wild animals and their environment means leaving them be, and helping them to stay wild. They were not doing that. https://www.instagram.com/pnuts_freedom_farm/reel/DB6NyE9ONLM/
The raccoon angle is new information to me, and adds a large factor that I will consider. I still believe that the outcome is tragic, that the laws should be different so as to prevent these tragedies. We’ve been encroaching on these species’ habitats and while some have the opinion that “nature” is separate from human life, and would argue that we should separate ourselves from the natural world and not engage with it, I argue that that is precisely the problem. We’re not separate from nature or “the wild”, and we can’t pretend that ignoring them does anything. Ultimately, they will not ignore us, because we’re here, and we’re an intrinsic part of their environments.
Furthermore, I find your argument a bit two-faced. Intervention and engagement is okay if they’re pests or have a 0.0006% (rough figure based on actual calculations) chance of having rabies, but that’s it, huh? How would you respond if this was a pest in your home? I assume you’d alert animal control or an exterminator, and wash your hands of it once they were out of your hair, regardless of the outcome.
All of that being said, the presence of the raccoon complicates things enough for me to say that I think this was an unavoidable outcome given the animal control system, but still it should’ve been handled differently and just because this is “normal” doesn’t mean that it isn’t short in the morality department.
I agree it is tragic these animals were destroyed, especially when it was so easily available.
I’m not quite sure what you were referring to here. But what I meant was that the addition of the raccoon shows a pattern. If it was just one animal then yeah that’s not great but it’s not terrible. And yes because it was a squirrel and had a very low chance of having rabies it was minimally dangerous. Keeping a squirrel vs a bobcat are two different things. But if someone makes the wrong choice and takes a baby animal long enough that it can no longer be returned to the wild, then yes they should keep it if they can safely do so, both for the animal and the people. A license also requires a certain amount of training, and confirms that the animal is safe and the community is safe from the animal. And no, I would relocate them if possible. I have helped return a fawn that a neighbor mistakenly though had been abandoned. I have helped bats, birds, possum, snakes, frog, chipmunks, and even mice navigate out of my house/garage. I have also found injured animals and did the best I could for them. Twice a called a local wildlife rehab because of a injured animal. One of which was a bat, he was released back to the wild this past spring. I love animals and that is why I do my best to learn what is best for them.
For me the fault all falls the owner. I had ferrets and they can have allergic reactions to vaccines, and vaccines were not required. I always vaccinated them because of this exact reason. If they ever bit someone, all it would take is that person to raise a stink for my animal to be killed. It wouldn’t matter if it was their fault or not. Because at the emd of the day animal control is there to protect people. They have to do terrible things sometimes to protect people. The laws are there for a reason and they cannot pick and choose when to follow them. They were notified of an issue and after they had to investigate, what they found was illegal. The outcome can be terrible without the people who executed it being terrible.