Killing a rescued squirrel undermines environmental efforts

Sign up for daily updates from CleanTechnica by email. Or follow us on Google News!

Social media is abuzz with people telling the story of Peanut the Squirrel and his death at the hands of New York state officials. While the story has predictably become a bipartisan dispute, I think there is a deeper issue with what happened to Peanut that should raise bipartisan concern. If anything, people of all parties who care about environmental protection and clean technology should condemn the killing more than anyone else.

Why do people fight over a squirrel?

Before I can get into why the story is important, I need to share it so we're all on the same page.

It all started seven years ago when a man found an orphaned baby squirrel in New York. It was too young to survive on its own and the mother had been killed, so there was no way to realistically release the animal back into the wild (at least as wild as animals in New York City can get). Unable to bear the thought of the little squirrel's death, the man nursed the squirrel back to health and raised it to adulthood.

Because it took so long for the squirrel to become viable, it became far too comfortable not only being fed, but also being in the presence of humans. So even when he grew up he couldn't drive the squirrel back into the trees of a park or something. He decided to keep it as a pet to keep it alive. He too was attached to it, and it to him.

Eventually, he started Instagram and other social media channels to show people how much fun he was having with his squirrel. It was a huge success as Peanut and his father had over 500,000 followers.

Mindless enforcement

Unfortunately, it was illegal to rescue Peanut and keep him as a pet. It's a law that isn't enforced that often, and many people don't realize that in some states the law prohibits keeping wild animals as pets. But some Karen in another state were offended by the sight of a pet squirrel and called the New York City Department of Environmental Conservation to report this “crime.”

Along with a second rescued raccoon, the animals were confiscated in an armed raid on the man's home, traumatizing his family. The animals were then transported away by the authorities and killed.

A better way: prosecutorial discretion

Yes, what the guy did with the raccoon and the squirrel was illegal under New York law. It would be stupid to deny that. But at the same time, no law is ever 100% enforced. Because enforcement resources are limited and common sense dictates that other measures are often a better course of action, police and regulators of all types have discretion to decide how to handle each case.

Sometimes enforcement action is necessary. In other cases, a warning is the way to go. It is also possible for law enforcement to investigate violations and help them comply, rather than crack down. Ultimately, the goal of all of these options is to further the agency's purpose (in this case, protecting animals and the environment), not to increase numbers or attract public attention.

In fact, this basic idea goes back to Sir Robert Peel, the founder of one of the first police departments in the world. He taught this principle: “To always recognize that the test of police effectiveness is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action against them.”

Although the law cannot give famous people better treatment than non-famous people, government officials should remember that this was a great opportunity to get more people nationwide to comply with relevant wildlife laws. If NYSDEC had helped him fill out the appropriate paperwork and comply with the law, they could have also worked with him to create a video educating their 500,000 fans on how they too could do this properly. If they had done that, the result would have been great.

This sets back efforts to actually protect the environment

I know some readers don't want to admit that NYSDEC did anything wrong, especially because Republicans are trying to turn this senseless act of “enforcement” into a political issue and even a campaign issue. Before I continue, I want to make it clear: I do not support this. I think that people like the Trump family, the eyeliner-wearing vice presidential candidate, and all the other people trying to blame Kamala Harris for this are just as thoughtless and idiotic as NYSDEC.

The simple fact is that this was a government agency. For those who don't know or pretend not to know, in US law there is a concept called federalism. State governments enjoy a high degree of independence from the federal government because they are sovereign states that have entered into an agreement for mutual defense and resource sharing. Trying to blame this on a federal official (Vice President Harris) is ignorant at best and deeply dishonest at worst.

That being said, people of all or no party should be upset about this, especially those of us who care about the environment (supposedly the reason NYSDEC exists). Why? Because senseless killing like this gives the entire environmental protection enterprise a bad name.

Few environmentalists want to violate the rights of others, establish a communist dictatorship and mindlessly kill in the name of the environment. When some thoughtless state officials kill a pet that had 500,000 fans on social media, they send the message that environmentalists are actually evil people who care more about preserving the power of the state than protecting real animals.

Worse, when people who claim to be environmentalists defend this stupidity and evil, it confirms people's fears about environmental policy. When right-wing figures try to paint us all as evil, defending evil out of a misplaced need to defend Kamala Harris plays right into their hands!

If we were at all smart, we would all be against it and call NYSDEC for it. We should all demand reforms in dealing with these cases, with education and animal welfare being the main goal, rather than mindless rule-following and abuse of power.

Featured Image: An AI-generated meme floating around social media protesting the death of Peanut. (fair use)