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.
Ngl, I hope whoever submitted those anonymous complaints suffers (in a manner that doesn’t affect their pets). Absolutely disgusting. Idgaf about rabies, stealing someone’s pet to kill it is morally reprehensible. Edit: Changed from wishing they suffered the same fate, to they suffered a different one, to a similar degree
Now that’s a take I wasn’t expecting to see.
Look, there has been a confirmed total of 125 cases from 1960-2018. That’s literally nothing. Of those 70% were bats. Rabies is scary, but it is not common and the level of fear and cruelty surrounding it is unwarranted, ESPECIALLY in this case. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6823e1.htm Edit: Misquoted figure, the 38% of international were dog bites, not national
You can take home a new animal every day at this rate, and still be more likely to die on your way home from work. It doesn’t mean don’t get your animals vaccinated, it doesn’t mean don’t be vigilant. It does mean don’t fucking kill peoples fucking pets.
The stupid law that makes him unable to legally keep the squirrel is preventing him from taking it to a vet to be vaccinated.
This guy gets it ^^^
The rate of rabies used to be a lot higher. Why do you think the cases have reduced so much?
Because we vaccinated dogs who used to account for most of the rabies infections prior to the 1947 vaccination push. Not because people use to have pet squirrels lmfao (source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6823e1.htm?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)
Was your point that it’s cause…what? We started outlawing pet squirrels? That’s such a weird stance
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.
Yes, and was also destroyed to test for rabies. They are still updating the article, that’s probably why you didn’t see it. :)
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.
deleted by creator
I think you’re right, my point was that they’d then feel the same pain, but an equal but different pain still probably gets the point across. Thanks for pointing that out
Making their animals suffer to make them feel pain is a bit psychotic…the original owner could not have been keeping those animals domestically anyways. They should not have been killed as a result but that’s where this starts. Wildlife belongs in the wild.
Also, you’re right that my comment was uncalled for. I was a little too passionate, and should’ve been more calm and clear headed. Of course there’s no “making their animals suffer” here, so you can put your straw man and your ad hominem back in your utility belt, my friend. My intent would’ve been more clear had I said “I hope that they can learn to be empathetic in these situations”, and I fell into the fallacy that empathy comes from feeling the same pain, which I know isn’t true. So I agree that my comment was distasteful, and have thus removed it.
I just wanna say I appreciate reading your response. It’s not normal to have a rational exchange and online. Hope you’re having a great day of the dead!
Thanks so much friend! I’m a scientist, but also a passionate person, so sometimes I let my feelings get ahead of my reason. Both are important, for sure, but if I get new information or perspective, I really want to consider it as if it came from a genuine place, even if it’s from some rando on the internet. If it’s not a fact, I’ll express as much, but if I was wrong, I want to own it.
Thanks for your kind words, it means a lot! Happy Day of the Dead to you too!
I see the logic you’re deriving this argument from, but the statement that “Wildlife belongs in the wild” is reductive and misses the point. If he grabbed the squirrel a week ago, and this happened, I’d be less passionate about this point, but 7 years is a long time. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime here. The only injury associated with this creature was because an anon Karen snitched about something that was none of their business. I know it may seem silly to you to value a squirrels life, but it isn’t to me. An imaginary threat caused harm to an animal control officer and the death of an innocent animal. That’s just not cool, and your argument that “Wildlife belongs in the wild” is just a dog whistle to justify these kinds of actions. Especially as we continue to destroy that wild, encroach on their habitats and outright kill them when they’re just trying to survive.