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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
No we don't. That's why we have judges
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.
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.
I hate the Finnish judicial system.
(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.)