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.

  • Dirac@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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

    • drspod@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Idgaf about rabies

      Now that’s a take I wasn’t expecting to see.

      • Dirac@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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

    • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • Dirac@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          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/

          • Dirac@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

      • Dirac@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Dirac@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

      • Dirac@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

        • almar_quigley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Dirac@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

          • Dirac@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • almar_quigley@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              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!

              • Dirac@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                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!

  • borf@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    168
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Peanut had been living with owner Mark Longo for seven years

    Man. What a feel-bad story. There’s a certain kind of person who takes glee in destroying others’ joy and they will use any technicality to get the excuse to do so all while blathering “the law is the law, the law is the law.”

    Seven years. What a shameful travesty.

  • ZeroTHM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ridiculous and wholly unnecessary government overreach. Every official that touched this should be fired and publicly dragged through the mud.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • joel_feila@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

          • joel_feila@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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

            • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

                • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

    • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Those officials think rabies is like a magical disease. It suddenly manifests are seven years. What a bunch of trash humans.

  • BigFig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    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

    • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh, in that case it’s totally fine and nothing to worry about at all.

  • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

  • vordalack@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Woman couldn’t let dude have a squirrel, a flipping squirrel.

  • rotten@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

    • mhague@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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”.

        • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

  • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/php/laboratories/diagnostic.html#:~:text=Rabies testing requires that the,after an animal is euthanized.

      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?

      • Master@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • borf@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, the cruelty is the point. The kind of people who made this happen have common sense just like the rest of us, that 7-year-old squirrel didn’t have rabies. They refuse to make exceptions or use common sense because they specifically want to hurt others.

      • rishado@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I feel like these are kneejerk reactions to the headline. Think with your brain not your heart (I’m not trying to be an ass, forget about the cutesy animals and think about this guy owning wild animals and exploiting them for money on social media) The cruelty is not the point. You can’t just own wild animals without a license and without veterinary care…

    • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          They could have, but if the animal had already bitten a human, that extra few weeks’ wait is dangerous.

          • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            40
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            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

          • rtxn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            These keyboard warriors don’t understand how fucked up rabies can get. Near 100% 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.

            • Talaraine@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              37
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • rtxn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                21
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                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.

                • Talaraine@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  They mean donations to whomever takes them in. Believe me, that means something to them. These guys never even tried.

                • Dirac@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  18
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Talk about bad faith arguments, lemme guess, you filed the complaint?

            • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.

            • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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?

              • rtxn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                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.

                • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

          • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Anyone bitten by a wild an 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.

            • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              the prophylactic really fucking sucks to take AFAIK, you want to avoid it just a little bit less than rabies.

              • Cypher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

                • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The vaccine was separate from the post-exposure prophylactic I had thought. I will look it up for myself.

      • hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.