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.
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.
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!
Was your point that it’s cause…what? We started outlawing pet squirrels? That’s such a weird stance
This guy gets it ^^^
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
- Years.
Talk about bad faith arguments, lemme guess, you filed the complaint?
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