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.
Ignoring the rabies comment, a squirrel isn’t a pet it’s a wild animal. Taking wild animals from their environment and keeping them as a pet is illegal and should be. Its is terrible the animals were killed, but it is the “owners” fault. He should have taken the squirrel to a wildlife rehabilitation so it could be returned to the wild. But instead he kept it to do tricks for him. He endangered the animals and anyone who interacted with them. This is a consequence of his actions?
Also, don’t ignore the rabies comment. I stand by the logic that the rate of 2 cases per year for ~60 years is such an absurdly low rate that using this to justify these actions taken here is equally absurd. Maybe NYC needed these laws in the year 1900, when we were still reading by candlelight, but we’re in 2024. Squirrels are known to have absurdly low rates of rabies (source below). Squirrels are intelligent, can coexist with humans and pose minimal risk to public safety. Squirrels and humans have lived together for such a long time, and the history of pet squirrels is well documented. Honestly, if this was a raccoon even, I’d maybe bite my tongue a bit more, as they’re known to be major carriers of rabies. Again, an unvaccinated dog or cat is more likely to give you rabies than a squirrel. (Which, for cats in NY, has a rate ~300 rabies cases between 2008-2020, and ~8 dogs. (source: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/3/450)) Compare to 4 wild squirrel cases catalogued in the entire United States over a similar timespan (source: https://meridian.allenpress.com/jwd/article/59/4/734/496393 ; see table 1) So please, do tell me why you chose to ignore the rabies comment.
Because he kept a squirrel, racoon, dog, cat together in his home to interact with everyone who lived there. Also civilians could come visit the animals. Oh and taking the racoon in the car to get dunkin donuts. https://www.instagram.com/pnuts_freedom_farm/reel/DB6NyE9ONLM/
Raccoons tend to get rabies, and could infect the squirrel. Also they took animals from the wild to keep as pets to make money. These people suck, they do not have the best interest of the animals at heart.
This is an excellent point, and I was unaware of the raccoon’s presence. Was the raccoon also seized? It didn’t mention it in the original article.
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.
