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.
Okay, I was initially totally against the DEC but reading the article really changed my mind. You need a license to own wild animals in NY. Ya know cause they should not be pets… also wildlife rehabilitation requires a license and training. Also rehabilitating means returning them to the wild. Not to mention an extra license and training for animals that are common carriers of rabies.
He has a squirrel for 7 years as a pet without a license with zero intention to rehabilitate his animals. He was using them to make money. Getting them to do tricks, wear hats and clothes. He essentially had a roadside zoo, but his customers were online. He says he was in the process of getting a license. He had the squirrel for 7 years, and was actively collecting more animals. This guy sucks, no wonder people were reporting him.
Oh man I don’t enjoy being that guy right now but for the love of all, It’s CUSTOMERS. Costumers are people who work in dress-up.
I’ve only seen this in the past few years, but it’s become such a common mistake. I don’t understand it.
Sorry, I mean you’re making a salient point about the lack of a license and all. Even so, if he’s been caring for the squirrel domestically for seven years, where do they think the supposed rabies would have come from? It doesn’t just manifest.
All these mistakes grind my gears, but this one is especially bad. Some of them make sense because of the way the word is pronounced.
Who is out there saying costumers instead of customers? Nobody says it like that.
Autocorrect says it like that, and it’s an easy one to miss if you aren’t paying close attention.
but it’s become such a common mistake. I don’t understand it.
Yeah, like how common loose instead of lose, and rouge instead of rogue is.
Naw it’s all good thanks! I’m dyslexic so I swap the vowels, I’ve always done it. Lol
They recently obtained a raccoon. Which are one of the most common animals to get rabies. He also attempted to release the squirrel when it was 8 months old. It came back injured. It could have been infected then, rabies can lie dormant for years.
Well… It’s English. Y’all’s vowels are 90 % schwa and half of the rest is completely dependent on the accent.
“Cuh-stuh-muh”. Same vowel. If English’s spelling was to be redone, I vote for a hangul-style writing system but with the vowels only implied: kx/stx/mx.
I feel like I’m going nuts, is nobody on lemmy actually reading this article? This dude turbo sucked.
Longo brought Peanut him home, ultimately caring for the squirrel for eight months before trying to release it back into the wild. He said Peanut returned to his porch a day and a half later with a broken bone sticking out of its tail, at which point Longo determined Peanut couldn’t survive in the wild alone and instead would move in with him.
Didn’t get him veterinary care though, because that would have resulted in his Cool Pet being taken away. What’s wrong with a little risk of sepsis and zero pain control for a serious injury if someone really, really wants to be a special boy??
Few people read the article. That takes extra clicks, time, and effort. People like to read the headline and work off assumptions.
Oh yeah, this guy sucks. He was using the squirrel as a money-making scheme. Check out his website if you want to get more angry.
A wildlife rehabilitator (Nessie) on TikTok pointed out that his squirrel and his raccoon would not have had access to veterinary care (ie, vaccination for rabies).
She also pointed out that showcasing wildlife in social media is currently unregulated - in person exhibitions requiring an expensive license to get. This is a bit of a loophole, and what that guy did is likely to get that loophole closed up, and impact sanctuaries that do operate within the current law while using social media platforms to fundraise.
Also, personally, the way he showcased the animals just seemed inappropriate - squirrels eating human food just seems problematic. Iirc he ran a domestic rescue, not a wildlife rescue, which is a different skill set. Wildlife rescuers avoid interacting with animals as much as possible. Animals aren’t toys and don’t have the same kinds of needs we do, and the fact they are cute shouldn’t complicate our emotions.
Social media is unregulated but owning them isn’t. He needed a license to keep them, which he didn’t have. And the “sanctuary” is just for domestics that was started last year. The website sells t shirts and options for donations. It seems like they got internet famous because of the squirrel and opened this as a way to make money.
Yeah - the more I look into it, the less sympathetic I am. There’s a lot of good reasons to have regulations for wildlife. A lot of “common sense” is just wrong (like the “mother birds abandon babies because of human scent”), and sometimes that gets animals killed unnecessarily. Folks assume because they know how to deal with a cat or a dog that squirrels and raccoons will be similar - they aren’t.
Legitimate wildlife rescues with ambassador animals don’t typically present them as pets. An animal being unreleasable is a fail state. A legitimate rescue will be trying to make the most out of a bad situation. When I’ve talked to keepers or watched vids online, they understand it as tragic that the animal will not be able to live its life independently - the fact that they can make money because people like getting to see cute animals is just trying to get something good out of it.
Squirrels aren’t domestic. They aren’t supposed to live with us.
[I’m not a wildlife expert, but I’ve shoveled shit as a volunteer at lots of different types of refuges and have chatted with many of the types of folks who run these places]
Yeah agreed.
These people suck, and got those animals killed unnecessarily.
I read the article and can’t believe someone could read the same thing and come away thinking, “this guys sucks.”
You can’t believe people would be angry that someone illegally kept an animal an forced it to perform for his own profit?
You must be really unfamiliar with the history of animals in circus performances.
This would apply to anyone uploading a picture or video of their pet, no? All those pictures of sleeping cats today are coming from people forcing their pets to perform for their own profit. They even came up with a cute name to disguise this disgusting exploitation and indentured servitude: “caturday.”
It makes me sick.
He took an animal from the wild. Domesticated animals are different from wild animals. He was also still taking animals from the wild as seen by the most recent racoon he kept as a pet. Wild animals require licenses for a reason.
In general, I would suspect most folks uploading cat pics have their cat legally and hopefully have them vaccinated for rabies. Two pretty big differences lol.
Everyone is really leaning on the legality aspect as if that determines the morality of keeping a squirrel as a pet or posting said pet on social media.
Also, how is this squirrel going to be infected with rabies after living indoors for 7 years? By everyone’s measure here, every squirrel should be euthanized since any one of them could potentially have rabies at any time under any circumstances, and they all live in close proximity to humans.
Also, how is this squirrel going to be infected with rabies after living indoors for 7 years?
How does one verify the squirrel was actually inside for 7 years after it bites them?
How does one verify that any mammal they come into contact with doesn’t have rabies? Apparently, it’s an epidemic, and anyone and everyone could have it.
It’s been interesting seeing people’s reactions to this versus Tiger King.
Yea, when it’s a tiger its bad but when its a squirrel it’s ok. Plus big cat rescue (Carroll Baskins rescue) actually has licenses, State organizations regularly send seized animals to them, and they have an active program to rehabilitate wild bobcats.
This is so true. I actually went there before Tiger King even aired. They were very transparent that their organization used to breed tigers and rent them for TV/advertisement usage. But in Tiger King they just show this crazy man ranting about how “She used to do this too, she’s just the same as us!” But like, they’re not fucking hiding it. They literally told us on the tour how they realized that doing things like using big cats for advertising brands (think like leopard in a high end jewelry ad, for example) just sort of drives people to view them as pets and seek them out. And whether folks agree or disagree with that isn’t really the point, my point is that BCR (even before Tiger King) was wildly transparent about their history and their transformation/changing of opinions over the years.
It actually sort of makes me angry with the documentary makers. Like I’m definitely upset with media illiterate folks only getting “Carol Baskin killed her husband” because Joe Exotic wouldn’t shut up about it. But like… Joe literally tried to hire a hitman. And that’s not a theory or a guess. He did it. And folks just eauate them. But the film makers didn’t really do a good job covering this aspect about BCR’s transparency. It just feels irresponsible to me I guess. There’s more but it’s not fresh in my mind any longer. I wanna say there was some stuff about people they interviewed that was weird. Like I think Carol’s husband’s old secretary that got replaced tried to steal or something? I don’t remember. But they just don’t include that context.
Oh yeah, that fucking show was bullshit. For whatever reason they decided Carole made a better “bad guy”. Even though she was actually a victim, and they lied to her about the direction the show was going in. Even though her life story seems to be amazing. The things she has survived and is still making it her life’s mission to help big cats, it’s just awe inspiring.
The only charge is “potential to spread rabies” and they killed the animal to test for that (for some reason). So, if the test comes back negative, they will make full repariations right?
full repariations
And surely such reparations would take into account future lost revenue, as they would be expected to it this were a regular person against a corporation.
Surely.
Sadly I think the monetary value of a cat is like $15 reimbursed. I imagine a squirrel is worth even less.
How about the monetary value of a social media influencer with half a million followers
One that was being kept illegally? Probably worth a fine
It’s because rabies infects the brains of animals, so that’s the tissue that is tested.
I’m wondering why the people who were caring for the animals didn’t just get them rabies shots in the first place.
I wonder why animal control officers who handle animals suspected of having rabies DON’T HAVE THEIR FUCKING RABIES VACCINATION. I needed a thousand dollar shot just to volunteer for a fucking animal shelter.
to test for rabies, couldnt they have just observed the animal in some quarantine for the gestation period of the disease?
They could have, but if the animal had already bitten a human, that extra few weeks’ wait is dangerous.
got it, this was pure animal control spite. they only claimed a bite after they seized the animal ‘for testing’. their timeline is bullshit.
at least some good came of it
Longo and his wife moved to Upstate New York last year to start P’Nuts Freedom Farm Animal Sanctuary, which is named for his pet and officially opened in April 2023
Not necessarily, they’re asking for donations for legal battles.
Anyone bitten by
a wildan animal should be treated for rabies. To wait for the animal to be tested, quickly or slowly, is just foolish. This animal could have been quarantined and observed without any danger to the bite victim.edit: the animal needn’t be wild, just as this one was not.
the prophylactic really fucking sucks to take AFAIK, you want to avoid it just a little bit less than rabies.
The newer vaccine is far less painful and even then, there’s not much that’s as bad as rabies.
You want to avoid rabies harder than anything other than being immolated… and really that still might be preferable because it is faster.
The vaccine was separate from the post-exposure prophylactic I had thought. I will look it up for myself.
These keyboard warriors don’t understand how fucked up rabies can get.
Near100% fatal once the infected becomes symptomatic, and it’s probably one of the worst disease-related deaths I can imagine. I’d rather take a cyanide pill.I live near a forest where the fox population had to be culled because of the potential contact between humans or their pets and infected animals. There were billboards and television announcements that warned against approaching a wild animal that is acting friendly because it’s an indicator of infection.
These animals lived with their owner for years and were consistently photographed for Instagram. Yeah, people know how bad rabies is. They clearly didn’t have it.
And officials are saying that no wildlife rehab service in the entire state of New York could take these two in? Internet famous, celebrity animals? Man, whoever believes that, I’ve got some land to sell ya.
They clearly didn’t have it.
How can you tell? The incubation period of rabies can last for years.
Internet famous, celebrity animals?
They were squirrels on Instagram. That amounts to nothing.
Talk about bad faith arguments, lemme guess, you filed the complaint?
They mean donations to whomever takes them in. Believe me, that means something to them. These guys never even tried.
There is a prophylactic for rabies. The squirrel had to be destroyed because it bit a human whose job it was to work with animals suspected of having rabies. These people are already trading human well-being for the sake of the price of a slightly expensive shot. It’s theater to suddenly pretend to give a shit about rabies after you’ve had one of your employees get bit.
Just have to chime in and say 100% fatal once symptomatic. I really hope someone corrects me but I’m pretty sure there has never been a confirmed case with a recovery; we have a treatment that works, but has to be given relatively soon after exposure.
Edit: lol, was the downvote for me hoping I was wrong, or being wrong?
There were cases where symptomatic patients survived, but the number is in the lower single digits and they all suffered debilitating neural damage. I wouldn’t call it recovery, no.
The immunoglobulin treatment aims to eliminate the pathogen before it can infect the nervous system. Once that happens, once the headaches start, it’s game over.
Oh wow, that’s pretty awesome (not the debilitating neural damage part), I was always under the impression that by the first symptom it was a death sentence.
I still never want anything to do with it, but at least it isn’t as bleak as I had been lead to believe.
No, rabies is an absolutely bizarre virus. The progression of the disease is highly variable. The person peanut bit could star displaying symptoms before peanut. Once symptoms show up, you are essentially dead. Rabies has one of the highest death rates of know human diseases. The only definitive way to test for rabies is testing brain tissue. The amount needed for a high confidence result is too much for the animal to survive. So the animal is always euthanized. That why having all pets that can be vaccinated, vaccinated is so important.
Like 7 years in a house?
Rabies vaccine is only made for a handful of animals. For example a vaccine is made for domestic sheep but not for domestic goats. Goats and sheep are closely enough related that goats owners have their animals vaccinated using the sheep vaccinations but since they have not been officially tested, you can’t say the animals have been vaccinated for rabies in a legal capacity so the petting zoo has a big sign about the rabies risk in goats.
I think this is mostly a case on NY state’s sick of people ignoring their wild animal laws and with NYC especially they can’t allow for people to just keep whatever animal they want and think it’s okay. If Peanuts owner had been licensed as an actual wildlife rehab, it would have been different but wildlife are not pets even when they are friendly.
- Years.
Since keeping the squirrel was stupidly illegal, he couldn’t get a rabies shot for it at a vet.
Likely because it is illegal to keep wildlife as pets.
Unfortunately rabies testing requires samples of the brain. This is why if you are bitten by an animal you suspect of having rabies, a professional should catch it and test the animal. The tests that exist for diagnosis in living humans are not reliable.
In this case I didn’t open the story to see why they believed a domesticated squirrel needed to be tested.
Edit: somebody that didn’t interact with the animals complained they might have rabies?
No. Its illegal to own as a pet. Someone reported him for that. When they were collecting peanut he bit someone and That’s why they put him down.
deleted by creator
That guy sucks for keeping wild animals without the proper certification and training resulting in no medical care for the animals.
At the same time I’m also skeptical of how the state handled it because I feel it’s important to remember that policies and how situations are handled can always use improvement.
For example, how did the investigator get bitten? Were they wearing proper protective gear and following procedure? Was he or she properly trained to detain animals like a squirrel? If the state is going to send people to confiscate wild animals a bite incident is a big fucking deal and there should be an internal investigation as to how that happened. For both the future safety of the employees and animals.
This whole situation sucks.
I think this is a fantastic story of perspective. Not doing the bare minimum to ensure you retain control over the animals you claim to love (and most certainly capitalized on monetarily) vs NYS immediately escalating this to baffling levels of stupid instantly.
“What radicalised you?”
TBH this really shouldn’t radicalize you. This is what people are supposed to do when an animal bites somebody. The thing that was done incorrectly was creating a situation where an animal could bite a person.
Maybe the squirrel bit that guy because the squirrel knew deep down that guy was here to fuck up the squirrels life which he did by inserting himself into the situation.
Maybe creating that squirrel’s situation was wrong and the handler could have taken steps to prevent an animal attack on the inspector, such as a pen or harness?
They caused the animal to bite, they kinda deserve it, no?
Besides, they probably got vaccinated for rabies regardless? That’s the only thing you can do…
The bite is the fault of the handler and not the inspector.
The inspector probably did get vaccinated, the animal almost certainly never has, but vaccine isn’t guaranteed to work so to know if they need to be held longer or receive an additional inoculation they need to take a sample from the animal.
Someone else mentioned the lack of PPE when going to handle Peanut, so that’s definitely a strike against the inspector.
But more to the point, why was Fred euthanized? He didn’t bite anyone!
Yeah fr the euthanization of Fred is definite grounds for lawsuit.
As for PPE, I feel like its possible the inspector was unaware of the location of Peanut or perhaps the handle created a situation where an attack was likely, given it roams his home in the videos and he isnt certified.
I could be wrong, though, maybe an inspector really was stupid enough to find the squirrel in a cage, open it, and try to yank it out.
This would be my villain origin story when they are talking about “what drove him to commit atrocities”
Squirrel girl (a way op char), but like in Squirrel girl: The extinction of humans.
Wild squirrels are not legal pets in NY—not that the legality necessitates this cruel outcome.
Just another thing to add onto the dumpster fire that is NY.
Oh no. It was against the law so they killed it.
There’s like 14 states where you are allowed to own them. Just because there’s a law, doesn’t mean it’s a good one. You sound like the guy who’d narc of a black kid in the 1950’s for drinking from the white kid fountain at the park “cause it was against the law”.
Wild animals carry diseases and can frequently exhibit unpredictable aggressive behaviors even when handled by a seasoned professional. These laws are necessary for the safety of both people and the ecosystem.
Thanks officer!
Yeah…I hear about all these squirrel deaths and squirrel diseases and rabies issues from squirrels in the 14 states it’s legal to own in…
*edit: FYI to do a quick Google search yourselves- Not a single case of rabies in the US has ever came from a squirrel. Rats are more likely to give you a disease from them, and rats are legal to have everywhere. There is no health risk from a pet squirrel that makes it more dangerous than a dog, bird, or cat.
“I’ve never heard about it, so clearly it’s not a problem”.
Just because you’re ignorant doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous. People like you are exactly why we have laws like this - you’re not bright enough to understand why it’s a bad idea, so we have laws to protect the rest of us from your stupidity.
Yet once again, it’s completely legal in 1/3 of the country. Beyond that not a single case of rabies has EVER been documented from a squirrel in the United states. There’s literally no reason for a squirrel to be not kept as a pet for health reasons (not arguing “wild animal reasons”) and it’s not even a recommendation to get a rabies shot after a squirrel bite unless the squirrel was acting very strangely. Conversely, dogs have a much higher chance of having rabies. Further, rats have a higher likelihood of carrying any diseases that squirrels could potentially spread, and rats are allowed as pets everywhere.
So the only one ignorant of things is the guy here talking like the law existing means there must be a good reason for it, without actually understanding anything. Check your own ignorance.
Disgusting, FYI yes squirrels can carry rabies, but it is extremely, I say again EXTREMELY rare, and transmission to a human via a squirrel is even MORE rare than that. Typically rabies just outright kills small rodents such as squirrels
It isn’t that the virus outright kills them. They just typically don’t get close enough to animals that could infect them. They are prey animals so they wouldn’t approach infected animals, they would run. They are also very small so the initial bite or scratch that could infect them kills them before they actually develop the disease. But a squirrel living with a raccoon because some guy thought it was cute. Yea, that would do it
Oh, in that case it’s totally fine and nothing to worry about at all.
It is rare, but it may be worth pointing out a celebrity Squirrel will have much more frequent contact with humans than a wild Squirrel.
From reading the article, they would have been OK to keep the animals as long as they didn’t stay in the home.
What a depressing story
The statement said one of the officials involved in the investigation into Peanut and Fred was bitten by the squirrel.
Sorry but they had no real choice on this one. Vaccines can and should be administered immediately to any human bitten by an animal in all cases, but vaccines are not foolproof and the animals must be tested. The only method to test for rabies is removal of brain tissue.
Just because a wild animal is docile to some humans or has its own social media account does not mean they are pets and they should never have been in this situation unless the property owner was a certified rescue and rehab.
The dude had started getting his certification seeing as the squirrel didn’t want to return to nature and had become domesticated when the raid happened. The owner wanted to be in line with the law, but that apparently just put a giant flag on him. Also, do they have to conduct a surprise raid instead of just approaching the guy and attempting to be civil with him? I saw no information that a civil approach was taken.
The NBCNews article doesn’t mention the word raid anywhere, it says inspection. If you know more about the story then your words are plausible but going by the article your account doesn’t match. The owner waited 7 years to try for certification, supposedly.
Linking to that psyop in any context proves your worth: zero.
Removed by mod
but vaccines are not foolproof
Yes they are. Only pointing out so there is not unnecessary fear spread about rabies. It is 100% preventable before or after exposure.
Does the rabies vaccine work? The rabies vaccine works remarkably well. Studies indicate that if the vaccine is given immediately and appropriately to someone who was bitten by a rabid animal, it is 100 percent effective.
https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-details/rabies-vaccine
I don’t think the government needed to get involved. If this guy was hoarding animals then okay. He had a squirrel and the gov’t killed it? Thank you gov’t I really feel safer now knowing you killed this guy’s squirrel.
He had two wild animals, the first one for at least 7 years, and was making income from them without ever getting certification to house them. These rules exist to protect people and animals from harm.
The Guv’ment doesn’t just break in and trash the place, kill the animals, for shits and giggles. I’m sure they would much rather be somewhere else far away from this shitshow. Blaming the inspector is victim blaming.
Foolproof**
You can put the animals in isolation
But you cannot test for rabies without killing the animal. Rabies infections spread up the nervous system to the brain in hours, not weeks.
The animal bit a human, at that point nothing could be done.
You can vaccinate the bitten human right away without any test, which is how it’s really done. Waiting for test results is not a good idea. If the vaccine didn’t work (it does work if administered in time), then there would be no help for the person. Testing is unnecessary.
You always get vaccinated for an animal bite immediately no matter what. There are additional doses and close observation for confirmed cases.
No vaccine is 100% effective. They need to test for rabies in case the vaccine doesn’t work properly so they can take extra care to prevent issues. If it comes back negative, fine. If it comes back positive then you need to take extreme care or the person is going to die. I’d rather a squirrel, which someone should have as a pet anyway, die instead of a person. There’s no way that house was ideal for a squirrel unless they lived in a forest.
Edit: reading the information someone else posted, it is 100% effective, but not just with one shot. Several doses need to be administered several days apart. If the test comes back negative, those don’t need to be taken.
deleted by creator
Ridiculous and wholly unnecessary government overreach. Every official that touched this should be fired and publicly dragged through the mud.
OK, we have very serious, and honestly, pants-shittingly paranoid responses to rabies for a really good fucking reason:
If you show symptoms, you are dead. Period. And not a nice death.
When I was young, you saw a wild dog, lot of people would reach for their rifle, it was just their reflex.
Maybe we have to update the laws, but they are there for a reason, and one of those reasons is why we don’t have too many rabies deaths in this country, and we are still considered one of the countries with high risk of rabies.
Tl;Dr - don’t fuck with rabies.
They put the animals in isolation and re turn them when they are cleared. I know they can that’s what happened to my neighbor’s dog after it bit someone.
They do that for dogs, cats and ferrets.
Dogs, cats and ferrets
Following rabies exposure, unvaccinated dogs, cats, and ferrets should be euthanized since no licensed biologics can ensure that they do not develop rabies. If the owner declines, dogs and cats need a strict 4-month quarantine, and ferrets need strict 6-month quarantine. They also need immediate rabies vaccination. Demonstrating an adequate serological response to vaccination may result in health officials reducing the quarantine period. Quarantine should be conducted in a secure facility that ensures people and other animals do not become exposed.
Other mammals
Other mammals should be euthanized immediately.
https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/hcp/veterinarians/index.html
We do not know how long rabies incubates in all animals, and they do NOT FUCK AROUND WITH THIS!!!
I spoke to vets, their faces go to stone when rabies exposure seriously comes up, this is not a disease, it is a literal nightmare, the worst zombie scenario you can imagine made reality.
It tears apart your mind completely and there is no treatment at all. Your family gets to watch.
This is just nothing to fuck with.
Yes i know how bad rabbies is. I was pointing out you can put the animals in isolation and see if they show signs on rabbies
How long?
Ferrets can incubate for almost 6 months.
Possums can carry forever with a dormant infection.
Can the animal’s immune system defeat the infection entirely, or merely send it back to a carrier state? How do you characterize the behavior of the species in different stages of infection?
We don’t know, because experimenting on these fuckers is nightmarishly dangerous, and we would have to test literally each mammal.
The plan is to wipe out rabies forever so we never have to deal with it, which is what happened in Europe, and which we could do here except our livestock tend to graze alongside wild animals.
Considering that most mammals can carry rabbies ending the disease is impossible.
They basically ended it in Europe and Australia.
Also, incidence has plummeted incredibly over the past century, though we had an uptick a decade ago.
We could effectively eliminate it, but the greatest generation cared about that, they feared it rightfully, we don’t anymore.
The reason it’s coming back is just complacency.
Well, a dog is a lower risk animal than wildlife. This was a poorly socialized squirrel that bit someone, and had potentially been in contact with hundreds of other animals at an animal sanctuary. The squirrel and the raccoon aren’t legally pets in NY, and no effort was made to make them legal educational animals. From the standpoint of public health policy, what went down was pretty much by-the-books. The only way to test for rabies is to run tests on brain tissue. There isn’t a “famous TikTok Animal” exception to the rules that protect us from rabies outbreaks.
Not asking for a TikTok exemption
Those officials think rabies is like a magical disease. It suddenly manifests are seven years. What a bunch of trash humans.
If rabies ever “manifests” itself in a human being (a person experiences symptoms), there is a 99% fatality rate. In fact, only 15 people worldwide have ever recovered following the onset of symptoms, albeit with extensive brain damage.
Rabies really is a “magical” disease. Once it makes it to your brain, the blood-brain barrier protects it from any medicinal treatment possible. Your only chance is for your own immune system to defeat the infection, and again, that has only happened 15 times ever.
Yeah, I know but one thing it doesn’t do is magically manifest in a pet after seven years.
This is what government does. It finds you breaking some arbitrary rule and makes the worst possible outcome for all parties involved. Then they pretend and act like it’s for your own good.
Squirrels don’t normally carry rabies. There were plenty of other options.
Squirrels don’t normally carry rabies.
While not impossible, it’s actually considered near impossible by experts. For whatever reason, smaller mammals seem to simply not be affected by rabies.
Because they generally die before they infect others. They absolutely can get rabies. I have never seen anyone say it’s “near impossible” except pro-wild-animals-as-pets “experts”.
A couple of blogs are not sources.
Because they generally die before they infect others.
And as a result rabies within small mammals populations are non-existent, because there’s no spread vector.
I could have worded it better, but the point still stands. Many years ago there was a squirrel in my back yard that was foaming at the mouth and I called it in to an official line that dealt with that kind of stuff. They told me flat out “it’s not rabies” and explained why. That’s when I did a deep dive into rabies and small animals. Every single source says “it can happen, but almost never does”.
In my case with the squirrel, the person explained to me that in the part of the country I lived in there has never been a record of a squirrel or similar rodent with a case of rabies. And it wasn’t showing any other signs, and it’s “foamy” mouth went away after a bit.
So yes, “near impossible” isn’t the same as “entirely impossible” and also considers more than just the biological possibility of the infection.
There were no other options, imo. The inspector who was bitten likely did get a vaccine immediately, but vaccines are not guaranteed to work. There is no reliable way to test an animal for rabies without killing it.
These rules exist to help people and animals, and law enforcement followed them all to the letter.
The vaccines are not guaranteed to work, so we must sacrifice the animal in a prayer to ensure they do
Treatment for the initial exposure should at least delay spreading infection until the results of the test at specialized facilities comes back between 24 and 72 hours after euthanization, but a positive test means repeated treatments on a strict schedule will be necessary. You cannot just continuously treat everyone for rabies all the time but you also cannot just wait 10 days of quarantine to see if the animal shows symptoms, and especially with rodents because they might never show symptoms at all.
This is how the world works. Rabies sucks, but this is how we deal with it.
I completely agree, my friend. One time a toddler bit my dog so I had the police come and shoot him. Luckily the toddler did not have rabies, so we did not have to do the extended treatment for my dog.
Yes but government is ultimately good and does much good. Our politicians are mostly good (there’s 500,000+) because it’s people like us standing up to work policy. The idea that our government is innately bad and that it’s just bad people doing bad things is so tiring.
Harambe 2.0
We just jumped timelines again.
Man, I hope this one’s the right track. Last one was a fucking rollercoaster loop.
After reading the whole thing, this is heartbreaking
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
Idgaf about rabies
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.
I mean… I don’t want any harm coming to animals, so let’s leave the anonymous asshole’s pets alone.
I hope the person who did that suffers a debilitating setback that affects only them and those like them in the near future.
How’s that?
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.
Oops! They didn’t have rabies! Here you go! They’re in the bag.
Bureaucracy saves the day! /s
I don’t think bureaucracy or bureaucrats did this - just sadists loving their job.
