By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Instagram-famous squirrel, Peanut, and a raccoon named Fred were euthanized by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to test for rabies. The agency seized the animals from their owner, Mark Longo, who had kept Peanut as a pet for seven years and amassed over 537,000 Instagram followers documenting Peanut’s life. According to the agency, it is illegal to keep young wildlife as pets due to the potential risk of spreading diseases like rabies. Longo and his wife run an animal sanctuary named after Peanut, and are appealing for donations to help with legal fees and to keep the sanctuary running.
Read the original article here
The story of Peanut, the Instagram-famous squirrel, sent shockwaves through the online community and left many of us grappling with profound sadness and anger. The news of Peanut’s euthanization after being taken from his owner’s home in New York state is not just a tragic end for a beloved pet but a direct reflection of the failures within our systems and among ourselves as a society. I can’t help but feel a deep connection to the outrage, confusion, and sheer disbelief that has emerged in response to this event.
The notion that Peanut, a squirrel who had shared a life and bond with his owner for over seven years, was euthanized over a potential rabies suspicion is incomprehensible to me. It raises the question of how far we have strayed when our desire to ‘protect’ turns into a devastating action that deprives an individual of their cherished companion. In this case, the supposed righteousness of saving the squirrel somehow led to its death, and that irony is haunting. The fact that both Peanut and his raccoon companion Fred were euthanized just to check for rabies seems excessively cruel and extreme. Surely, there were other ways to investigate without resorting to destruction.
I reflect on the numerous layers of failure that allowed this incident to unfold. It’s hard not to place some blame on the owner for not securing the proper permits, creating an environment ripe for disaster. However, the role of the authorities is equally troubling. Is the swift action against a harmless pet really justifiable? The speed at which officials moved to euthanize these pets, especially under questionable pretenses, reveals an underlying dysfunction in our institutions. They acted swiftly to administer a death sentence instead of exploring humane alternatives. The people who claimed to care for animals made a choice not anchored in empathy but in rigid adherence to the law.
On social media, Peanut became a sensation—a cute little squirrel that brought joy to thousands. His existence inspired many, and one can’t help but feel a deep sense of loss not just for the animal, but for the joy he represented. The luxury of cute videos and heartwarming posts took a dark turn when the realization set in that Peanut’s life hung by a thread due to his owner’s inability to navigate the legal complexities of keeping a wild animal as a pet. The criticism directed towards the owner is warranted to an extent, but could this situation have played out differently? Would Peanut still be alive today if there had been a more compassionate approach to handling such unique situations?
People have a tendency to forget that behind every viral video, there exists a living, breathing creature, and that creature carries emotions and memories just as we do. Peanut was not just content. He was family to his owner, a detail that seems to have been lost in the rush to intervene for the supposed greater good. Instead of focusing on the humanity of the situation, some chose to report the owner to authorities, perhaps feeling vindicated in their quest to uphold the law. It’s disheartening to think that with everything else happening in the world, some chose this particular battle to fight, and it ended in tragedy.
Amidst the sadness, a sense of anger also bubbles up. It’s infuriating that our systems function this way. I find myself questioning the ethics of a system that sees death as a quick fix to a potential problem rather than exploring more compassionate solutions. The aftermath of Peanut’s passing isn’t simply a tale of one pet, but a representation of what happens when we become more attached to regulations than the lives those regulations govern.
The overarching question remains: why does it feel like the laws designed to protect us can sometimes lead to unimaginable tragedy? It seems absurd that in the act of what was purported