Hacker News Reader

I'm going to say something that people probably won't want to hear, but I hope to justify it and convince others of it as well.

Don't feed wild animals.

The difference between a pet, and a wild animal is that a pet owner takes responsibility for the wellbeing and actions of a pet.

Feeding wild animals is detrimental to their wellbeing. They become accustomed to people, and not all people are nice to animals. You won't always live there, and they may come to depend on your good will. Also, you very likely don't know what their necessary macronutrients are, and they may very well remove a large portion of their natural nutrients to just eat peanuts, or bread, or what ever you're feeding them. This is also probably not healthy for them.

They also suppress their natural instinct, which can get them killed in a number of ways, whether it's by doing riskier things, like crossing a street more often to get to the source of free food, or by behaving in a way that makes it easier for predators to prey on them.

If you've been to a national park in the US, you might have noticed how accustomed squirrels and some other animals are to people. This isn't because one person feeds them, but because a few people of the many feed them, and it's enough to change their behavior. Nobody takes responsibility for the consequences of this, so I think people should blanket avoid doing it.

To be clear, feeding animals doesn't make you a bad person, I'm not trying to condemn anyone, if anything it shows a lot of empathy, but I also think it is short sighted.

If an animal is in distress, there are tons of resources, at least in the US to help. I've saved a crow and a seagull, and taken them to wild animal rescue centers, and I encourage others to do the same.

If you're in the Bay Area, I highly recommend both visiting Lindsay Wildlife Rehabilitation Hospital, and considering it if you find an animal in distress: https://lindsaywildlife.org/

You can also usually contact the Human Society, or search, there are a lot of independent operators, I took the seagull I found to Native Animal Rescue in Santa Cruz: https://www.nativeanimalrescue.org

> I've saved a crow and a seagull, and taken them to wild animal rescue centers

This is emphatic behavior, but do know that in almost all circumstances the result is that the animal rescue centers will euthanized animals that is not endangered, has protected status, or has local biological diversity benefits. Seagulls and feral pigeons in particular are very unlikely to leave the center alive.

This also happens for larger animals like seals pups that end up separated from their mothers. From the mouth of a animal rescue centers here in Sweden, if one is lucky a eagle will see it and nature will take care of it. Only if sufficient numbers of day has passed and the pup is in clear agony will they pick it up to then have it euthanized at the center.

That said, animals should not suffer unnecessary so "rescue" in that context is still a good thing.

Absolutely. The crow I rescued was euthanized. They give you a number to check on the animals you bring in. That said, they provide great care and release thousands of rescues each year, and if they are too injured they at least get a humane end. It tears me up watching an animal die slowly.

  Lindsay Wildlife Rehabilitation Hospital

Interesting that they have a recurring event like "Nightlife" at the Academy of Sciences:

https://lindsaywildlife.org/general/kisstail-2/

I thought it was quite common to see signs up telling people not to feed wild animals, particularly in very populated areas like city parks?

I'm guessing it is fairly common knowledge already and not that unpopular of a statement for you to say.

With that said, it is fun to feed animals, so I can understand the appeal. We used to take loaves of stale bread and feed the ducks down by the lake growing up.

There are those signs.

There's also plenty of advice from wildlife experts not to feed wild animals. The exception being that it's ok to have a garden which contains food providing trees/shrubs/etc.

But people get offended when you tell them to stop doing it - "Oh, it's no harm, it's just a bit of fun".

You get a similar response when you tell people they're assholes for letting their cats roam - despite cats being massive killers of wildlife.

The sign doesn’t communicate why it’s bad. As is clear from my comment I think a lot of context matters. Also, some people don’t give a shit.

I was a bit defensive because I replied directly to a comment about someone who feeds wild animals and I wanted to avoid being accusatory and confrontational while still getting a point across.

Yes. Don’t ignore signs and guidance from local wildlife authorities.

Some animals can really fuck you up. Or you might be messing with a protected species.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-02/agro-kangaroos-addict...

If you're in the Bay Area you should also visit the Marine Mammal Center in Marin. Make sure you time it so you can take the backstage tour!

* late edit: Humane Society

I know you already know, but just posting in case it helps someone else. Be really careful about letting a squirrel get into a closed area with you, or even too close to your body. If they feel threatened (which they will once they realize they are trapped) they will f--k you up. This happened to an acquaintance of mine and he has permanent eye damage from it. They may not seem like it when they are gracefully and happily climbing trees and branches, but they are fast as hell with reflexes like lightning, and claws like knives.

Or they might just scratch you and run off, then you get to have rabies treatments. Either way, no fun.

Squirrels (and others rodents) virtually never get or transmit rabies, so that’s not really a concern.

Source: am DVM.

Rodents "virtually never" transmit a disease that virtually always kills you, and consequently doctors virtually always send you to rabies treatment when bitten by rodents (but it's not as bad nowdays, just standard shots).

Source: was bitten by rodents.

That’s surprising, given the CDC’s view on the matter:

“[Small rodents] are almost never found to be infected with rabies and have not been known to transmit rabies to humans.

In all cases involving rodents, the state or local health department should be consulted before a decision is made to initiate postexposure prophylaxis.”

https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/exposure/animals/other.html

My dad did the same thing and knew he had to stop when he turned around in his kitchen and his friendly squirrel was standing there asking for a peanut.

Be careful because squirrels can really do damage if they get into your attic or house.

Here in Sweden someone had pigeons flying to their balcony all the time and they got reported for keeping them as a pet. The city dropped them off in another town but they flew back and were ordered to be put down because native species are not allowed to be kept as pets and they were unwilling to adapt to not living on the balcony.

> Here in Sweden someone had pigeons flying to their balcony all the time and they got reported for keeping them as a pet. The city dropped them off in another town but they flew back and were ordered to be put down because native species are not allowed to be kept as pets and they were unwilling to adapt to not living on the balcony.

If the motivation of these laws is to protect the animals, I can't think of a more backwards response.

Unless the intention is to preserve wild behavior and prevent domestication, i.e. removing some individuals from the population to (in a way) preserve the species.

Probably.

Some cockatiels that proved very hard to catch this summer after they escaped were ordered to be put down by some hunters as well. They can survive our winters in urban areas and pose a risk to the native birds.

It's really weird around London to see flocks of parakeets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_parakeets_in_Great_Brita...

But they're pigeons. Balconies are their natural habitat. I don't think there's any species of bird that's more at home with humans.

Pigeons hardly need protecting. They are nuisance animals in most areas.

They become a nuisance when people try to domesticate that. Which is why there are laws against doing so.

Pigeons are a nuisance without any assistance from people trying to domesticate them.

This is probably the real motivation, not concern for the wildness of the birds. Neighbors thinking you harbor disease and so on.

It's not just about "neighbours harboring disease". Pigeons are the B-17 of animal kingdom, they carpet bomb everything with their excrement as they fly. You start feeding them, and suddenly the entire block has to clean their balconies and cars every day.

Then you are being ignorant. The idea is not to protect a few animals, it is to protect all animals, and all pigeons in this case.

It may not protect the individuals in this case but it does help protect the "wildness" of the animals as a group.

Likely the neighbors were complaining about the side effects.

Wait until you hear about all the ways government applies that same authority to "protecting" people

In Brazil, if you cage the animal you have clearly crossed the line. I don't think anybody was ever successfully persecuted by having a pet they didn't cage, but I do know there is no lack of attempts.

> I've wondered, though. What constitutes a pet?

We don't need categories to be so rigid.

I have some squirrels in the yard who recognise me and follow me around until I feed them.

I call them 'yard pets'.

Sometimes they come into the house when they are too excited, but I've never had trouble escorting them out.

I don't particularly like the idea of laws getting in the way of my relationship with animals, even if they are wild.

To get a bit pedantic you're on the path to domesticating those squirrels, most wildlife professionals wouldn't consider them wild any more.

My father worked for WI DNR for many years and it always irked him that people feeding the wildlife didn't think they were doing any harm when they were making the animals co-dependent on that food source.

> To get a bit pedantic you're on the path to domesticating those squirrels...

To be even more pedantic: No, they're not.

> Domestication should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of an animal to reduce its natural avoidance of humans, and to accept the presence of humans. Domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition towards humans.

It shouldn't be difficult to imagine how taming could lead to domestication.

That said, I personally don't believe there to be anything wrong with having a fully domesticated line of squirrels and other animals. My personal favourite would be a domesticated line of Tasmanian Devils.

I'll even go as far as to say that if habitat loss continues unabated then domestication of more and more species may become necessary.

Domesticated echidnas would be great. They could help keep ant populations in check.

I had a 3 month battle trying to keep meat (protein eating) ants out of my house last year. I eventually caved and had a professional pest controller spray a barrier around the perimeter of my house.

6 months later and the first signs of ant repopulation are starting to appear. I dislike having to use strong poisons as they are indiscriminate and we need to have healthy insect populations as part of the ecology (plant pollination, breakdown of dead organic matter etc).

One or two echidnas might have been able to deal with my ant problem in a few days. Maybe an echidna hire service (Uber for echnidnas?) could work.

Plus they are just plain cool animals to see walking around.

The variety of life on Earth is so cool.

Echidnas and the platypus are the only egg-laying mammals, known as monotremes. The average lifespan of an echidna in the wild is estimated around 14–16 years. When fully grown, a female can weigh up to 4.5 kilograms (9.9 lb) and a male can weigh up to 6 kilograms (13 lb).[8] The echidnas' sex can be inferred from their size, as males are 25% larger than females on average. The reproductive organs also differ, but both sexes have a single opening called a cloaca, which they use to urinate, release their faeces and to mate.[1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echidna

Reposting from below.

Eastern grey squirrels were deliberately introduced into city parks for the enjoyment of people.[1]

Also wild animals are flexible enough in their behaviour to accommodate interactions with humans.

If you observe them carefully, you can see them switch from 'normal' behaviour to the behaviour they use when interacting with people.

It's kind of like when you speak two languages and can switch from one to the other in an instant.

[1] The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States Etienne Benson J Am Hist (2013) 100 (3): 691-710.

Sure, but that's not really relevant here. The parent still considers them 'wild' despite providing alternate food source which changes their behavioral patterns.

Somewhat similar to photographers baiting animals for more dramatic photos: https://www.audubon.org/news/why-you-shouldnt-feed-or-bait-o...

If you want to keep wildlife truly wild you should do your part to minimize the impact you have on their habitats and behaviors.

> The parent still considers them 'wild' despite providing alternate food source which changes their behavioral patterns.

Who says this is changing their behavioural patterns? Maybe native people in north america have been randomly feeding grey squirrels for thens of thousands of years.

Maybe for longer in Eurasia?

In fact if it weren't in the animals behavioural repertoire to recognise the opportunity of taking food from people, then we wouldn't even be able to get them to understand.

> Who says this is changing their behavioural patterns?

Can you guarantee 100% that is isn't? No, of course not. Then just leave them alone. What is it with people feeling they can just constantly interfere with animals lives. These are not your pets, not your playthings to do as you wish.

You must be a vegan to hold such strong opinions on this. I wonder how widely your view is shared by other vegans... I certainly see no problem with offering an animal food, though I wouldn't cage or otherwise forcibly tame an animal.

>Eastern grey squirrels were deliberately introduced into city parks for the enjoyment of people.[1]

Did not know — thanks for this.

Also, this has to be the dumbest move in the history of urban planning (considering squirrels track record as an invasive species). It'd appear someone didn't think this through 100%.

Where is the zoologist on the city board when you need one, right?

> We don't need categories to be so rigid.

For the purposes of law we do.

> I don't particularly like the idea of laws getting in the way of my relationship with animals, even if they are wild.

And yet there is a case to be made for these laws to prevent animals from abuse, etc. These kinds of laws are usually well-served by having an attached definition of what constitutes a pet as it is used in the law. The more defined a law is, the less likely it is to get in the way where it isn't supposed to.

For the purposes of law we do.

Law is a good servant and a bad master. Ultimately decisions are imposed by humans and unthinking obedience to the law is just as totalitarian as unthinking obedience to a leader. It's the unthinking obedience bit that's the problem.

As I mentioned in another comment, I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. Any law is better served by being more specific, thus reducing the chance that it is inappropriately applied. Of course, there is always the recourse to change the law.

(I am going to assume for the purposes of this discussion that we are not discussing what might be termed immoral laws, where the argument can be made (quite strongly) that they should be disobeyed even if it is the law.)

I will much, much rather have a clear cut law than uncertainty. It is not hard to make clear laws but it's impossible to make "interpretation" clear and always the same.

I hate the Finnish judicial system.

Meh, I'm just talking about everyday interactions with squirrels in the yard. You're not telling me I'm going to need a lawyer to negotiate that, are you? :-)

It's consensual, the squirrels enjoy the interaction and so do I. Either is free to defect anytime.

Fun fact. Squirrels in most north american cities are not wild creatures, they were deliberately introduced into parks to create what was called 'communal pets'.

The thinking was that the need to care for them would be a positive influence on people.

There is a paper on it:

The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States Etienne Benson J Am Hist (2013) 100 (3): 691-710.

Of course. I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. But if the law is there, it should be codified properly, so that you shouldn't need a lawyer to deal with something the law was never intended to address.

> For the purposes of law we do

No we don't. That's why we have judges

And judges never give out different sentences based race or affluence....

Is squirrel a race now?

No but the person going in front of the judge is where the less clear the law is, the more of a chance for bias.

sure if you mean it by the old sense of a species (cf. the human race)

Judges are not lawmakers. They serve to interpret the laws accurately. Of course, often the laws are not codified very specifically, so it is left to judges to interpret it as straightforwardly as possible.

gave a cookie to a squirrel outside my dorm room at university (3rd story, he came in off the roof) and the little dude showed up for a few days. It was really cute. Then one day I come home and find the room trashed and a hole in the screen. He couldn't find his cookie! I learned my lesson.

i gradually tamed the ducks that graced our pond with bits of wonder bread when i was a kid. they let me pet them and hug them and squeeze them in exchange. =)

i didn’t quite consider them my pets but they certainly weren’t wild any more.

> Same where I am. I've wondered, though. What constitutes a pet?

I think placing medium/long term restrictions on their movement is probably the most useful demarcation line. Your squirrels are free to leave any time but a dog is typically kept in by a fence, a caged bird is a pet but one free to fly away is a wild animal. Naturally cats a somewhere in between.

I was walking down the sidewalk at a University once, and a squirrel stopped in front of me. I stopped and stared down at it. It moved a foot closer and stared back up at me. Before I knew what was happening it started scampering up my leg! I jumped and it went back down, but I still don't know why it did that.

He was probably looking for the food that other students feed him. Squirrels at my university were quite used to people feeding them by hand.

Seems there's a Quora question with some answers on this: https://www.quora.com/In-the-US-is-there-a-legal-definition-...

For some reason I read the "she" as your coworker and the "he" as the raccoon

Just regulate against purposefully feeding wild animals. Problem solved.

Legal or no, your coworker should probably be careful. Raccoons are one of the main rabies carriers in the US. Of course, if it was actually a pet, presumably your coworker could have gotten the raccoon vaccinated.

From there I could probably train them to essentially be pets

There is a comic book character with this power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_Girl