Racoons, even city's racoons are terrible beasts. Sure, they are friendly when they aren't upset; Take a treat away from the hands of the sweetest racoon and it will either pounce on you to retrieve it, scream bloody murder, or pounce and slash at you until you retreat.
Racoons, especially in the city, will kill and eat an older housecat or easy to access domestic chickens without hesitation.
Declawing them helps, but nature happens when a declawed racoon feels a call to roam and is outmatched by even a small hawk or possum.
From what I remember spending time on this topic, raccoons need super challenging locks as toys and TONS of engagement from their keepers because they get bored easily and bored raccoons == ultra destructive raccoons. Also, rabies.
They're pretty great pets. We had one for a while when I was a kid. Its mom got run over and we nursed it and raised it for a few months. Instinctively used the same litter box as the cats. Hung out on the couch sitting on my shoulder watching TV. Friendly and playful. Would follow people around and play with toys.
The biggest challenge is that they basically have hands. He would climb up the kitchen cabinets, grab a box of cereal, open it up and sit there eating out of it like a toddler.
We only had him for a few months before reintroducing him to the woods behind the house. I've wanted a pet raccoon again ever since.
A former girlfriend of mine had a picture of her mother holding a Raccoon. I asked her mother about it and she said that they lived out in the woods in Minnesota and they found it on the porch when it was a baby. The mother had died or something so they kinda raised it. It was free roaming in/out of the house but they could hold it and it would also get into their food. She mentioned one time it ate a bunch of mixed nuts...but didn't like one type so it left all those in the bowl. Another time it ate an entire pie...but left her one piece ("so she wouldn't get angry").
She did say it was never really a "pet"...more like a wild animal that sometimes acted like one.
This would have been in the late 70s early 80s by my guess on her age in the pictures.
I remember reading somewhere once that baby raccoons are actually quite cuddly and tame; but that when they go adolescence, they have a hormone shift that makes them aggressive enough to be unsuitable as a pet. In the story a woman who had raised a baby raccoon was attacked by it after it grew to a certain age.
Judging by the murderous sounds you hear all night here in the summer, I would not want to be cornered in a dark alley by a gang of adolescent raccoons.
>Judging by the murderous sounds you hear all night here in the summer, I would not want to be cornered in a dark alley by a gang of adolescent raccoons.
Well if you ask me adolescent raccoons are a big problem in many of our cities, I'd be worried about such a case myself.
There's a Japanese anime from the '70s called something like "rascal the racoon", based on an American book, which tells the story of a kid with a pet raccoon.
I've wanted a pet raccoon since I saw this on TV in the '80s, and raccoons aren't even a thing in Europe :(
I learned about this 2 years ago when a racoon showed up in Tokyo close to where I lived. [1]
wild to think they spread even all the way to Japan because of anime. and probably south Korea now. They banned raccoons in Japan but it seems to not have caught up in SK and there are a lot of racoon pet videos from SK on YouTube)
A generation of us grew up deeply coveting a pet coon, and have never given up on that dream, really...
The shocker for me was the bit about Rascal learning not to wash his sugarcubes before eating (or actually, to rinse once, because he was OCD about washing his food). Not that itself, although fascinating and charming; the idea that sugar was rationed to the author's family was mindblowing to juvenile me.
Racoons are invading the north east of France:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2ijwZROb6g ; they are exotic invasive species: a female get 10 babies per year, and there is no predator
Assuming you are starting with a wild raccoon, get one from a population that is not in the eastern parts of the US or Canada and rabies is unlikely.
Here in Washington state for example there have been no documented cases of rabies in any wild raccoon in at least 60 years. Same goes for all other wild terrestrial mammals here.
If you were talking about the rabies vaccine, for humans, that’s not really a normal vaccine for people to get. It’s not like getting the flu vaccine or the chickenpox vaccine or others, and they shouldn’t be lumped into that same category.
I'm currently 1 of 3 injections into getting a rabies vaccine and it's basically like every other vaccine I've had. A simple, painless, injection in the arm.
I got it the same time as my first shot of the Hep B vaccine too.
It's expensive but it isn't particularly bad to get.
I had a pretty low risk exposure to a bat this summer and decided to get it because it's so hard to be sure they didn't bite you. Wasn't a big deal, and I got quite a lot of the antibody injections in my finger...
Yes, I read an account by a zookeeper who had been potentially exposed to rabies due to the negligence of a vet. He had to get the rabies vaccine to be safe, which would have been painful enough if all had done well; but then he had a bad reaction to it and had to be hospitalized.
> Raccoons are a rabies reservoir in the eastern United States, extending from Canada to Florida and as far west as the Appalachian Mountain range. Within these areas, 10% of raccoons that expose people or pets have rabies, making them one of the highest rabies-risks in the United States.
It's an odd framing. Out of R_t total raccoons, R_e bite or scratch (potentially "expose") humans. R_e / 10 of those were carrying rabies. So it could be that raccoons almost never bite/scratch humans, such that the behavioral effects of rabies are a significant motivator. It also could be that raccoons bite/scratch humans all of the time, and a ton of those raccoons have rabies. The latter is scary, but the former is likely the truth.
I wonder if increased interactions between humans and raccoons will lead to a reduction in that 10% figure (more reasons to bite humans).
It's that it's not 10% of racoons have rabies, but 10% of the ones that expose people to a bite scratch etc. The reason the numbers aren't the same, significantly less than 10% of them have rabies, is mainly that rabies itself can make them more hostile etc., on top of if bitten by a racoon that is more symptomatic seeming you are much more likely to get it checked out.
Raccoons actually do get vaccinated against rabies. There are large scale programs operated by the US government and state governments that regularly distribute vaccine laden baits from Maine to Alabama, to keep rabies from spreading to raccoon populations west of the Appalachians.
If a breach occurs they also will trap raccoons and vaccinate them by injection in the area of the breach.
Glancing at Wikipedia, there seem to be a wide variety of different rabies vaccines, but, yeah, ones used on animals largely seem to be multi species.
And there are programs to distribute bait laced with oral vaccines to target, among other animals, racoons. So I guess they are vaccinated, at least in some areas. TIL.
Just in time to spread a really awful parasite. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/09/human-cases-of-racco... "severe, frequently fatal, infections of the eyes, organs, and central nervous system. Those who survive are often left with severe neurological outcomes, including blindness, paralysis, loss of coordination, seizures, cognitive impairments, and brain atrophy"
We treat deer for ticks, etc. A decade ago, I think we would have been smart enough to treat wild raccoons for this parasite, but the time of human domestication is over. In another decade, I expect humans will be marking their territories with feces again.
> Oddly, tameness has also long been associated with traits such as a shorter face, a smaller head, floppy ears and white patches on fur—a pattern that Charles Darwin noted in the 1800s.
Hmm, so evolutionary pressure of existing around humans makes animals cuter.
I believe the main biological lever is retaining juvenile features as adults, physically as well as mentally (like with dogs). What we see as cute is an honest signal that they are more child-like: less aggressive, more trusting and pro-social.
I also think that this is the central cause of a wide variety of domestic/cute adaptations. There are too many separate features to believe that raccoons and dogs and cats and a dozen other species all select for these same elements independently.
I no longer have the book on hand, but read a few months ago that this correlation between juvenile traits and domestication was one of the main theses of Barrett's "Supernormal Stimuli" in Chapter 4. She cited a few studies of fox domestication [1], [2] and other works to support these theories.
My guess: possibly co-evolution. The article subsequently describes the genetics behind things becoming cute - which would have been completely benign to our ancestors (the core of your question). However, those of our ancestors who completed domestication of these animals (by random chance) would have enjoyed more protection from predators, rodents, etc. Those of our ancestors who attempted to domesticate things without the mutations might have had bad companions at best, and would have been predated at worst. This would have provided evolutionary pressure to adopt animals that were showing early signs of domestication. What we call "cute" is merely "likely to cooperate with us."
Since humans associate cuteness with large eyes and small body size, nocturnal / twilight animals, like raccoons, sugar gliders, cats, squirrels, etc have a larger chance to be domesticated as pets.
Daytime, larger animals (e.g. sheep, goats, or even rabbits) have a larger chance to be domesticated as food.
Experiment in taming foxes that relied on a single principle of selecting animals that react to humans with least fear and aggression resulted also in those morphological changes. I think it's more about selecting animals that retain youthful curiosity and other traits into their adult life. Youthful morphological features just tag along.
Perhaps a combination of adaptableness, small size, prodigious reproduction, and cuteness saved some species from being wiped out whereas other species didn't fare so well once humans arrived and transformed their territory. Adapt to urban encroachment or face extinction.
That's a recessive trait that is fatal if they get two copies of it. When left to their devices they'll return to being normal cats in a few generations.
Cats aren't really domesticated. Out of many, many cat species we just found one that's well aligned with humans and it spread with humans to the whole world. No other cat species plays well with humans and none shows any signs of domestication.
Raccoons have been living literally inside of houses for centuries.
One was kept as a pet in Jamestown Virginia in the 1600s. Another lived in the White House in the 1900s. Surely, not a decade has passed between have there been NO domesticated raccoons in the US? If living near humans changes animals, that started at least 25,000 years ago here in North America. Not recently.
My neighbors had a pet raccoon growing up. It lived inside but would come and go.
The people who wrote this article seem out of touch with the topic they chose to pretend to be experts about?
That doesn't mean the process is happening naturally as asserted. For instance, wild black wolves in the US got this trait from hybridization with domesticated dogs.
> The people who wrote this article seem out of touch with the topic they chose to pretend to be experts about?
This is quickly becoming the norm for experts, unfortunately. I keep seeing more an more people with educational expertise in something that they have zero hands-on or practical experience with.
I remember being at a social event once and chatting with someone who was a business professor at any Ivy League university. Making small talk, I asked him which companies he'd worked at, and he told me that he had gone the academic track and started teaching during and after getting his PhD (in exactly what I don't remember). I remember being stunned that students would pay over $60k a year to learn about business from someone who'd never worked for or started a business.
> I remember being stunned that students would pay over $60k a year to learn about business from someone who'd never worked for or started a business.
Were you stunned that your parents paid lots of money to put you in front of educators from kindergarten to college?
Why would you restrict yourself to learning from one businessman when you can get learn from an educator who has distilled the experiences of hundreds if not thousands of business people?
I think you’re mistaking slight natural adaption for domestication, and taking domestication for granted. Go into nature and try and train a wild wolf. Good luck! You can’t.
Domestication, in the way that we see having happened with dogs (and cattle, and chickens) takes a really long time.
We consider cats “domesticated” and yet demonstrably they are not. If they were much bigger, they’d eat us, and if set into wild, nearly all household cats immediately revert to feral.
I owned five ferrets once. Loved them so much, but came to the realization that there are animals that should be pets and animals that maybe shouldn’t (yet). I think we have many, many more generations before raccoons are at the same level as dogs.
> Surely, not a decade has passed between have there been NO domesticated raccoons in the US?
An animal of wild parentage that was raised by humans is tame but not domesticated. So no, there's aren't really domesticated racoons, only tame ones.
Domestication is a process that takes many generations. It is a selective breeding process more than anything else. Animals that are 1 generation away from wild ancestors aren't domesticated, by definition.
And the last category is feral animals, "that live in the wild but are descended from domesticated individuals.".
So Kassel, Germany, may have hope to be less harassed in the future?
FYI, Kassel kinda is the so-called capitol of raccoons. 30k+ raccoons life there, according to estimates.
I certainly would not want to live there. It is crazy how these animals flock together and invade properties. And they aren't shy anymore due to the reverse positive reinforcement they receive by not killing them.
Yes, it is of course in Germany forbidden to kill an invading predatory species - even on your property. This is Germany 2025.
Toronto, Canada is hands down the raccoon capital of the world. Something like 100k raccoons live in the city.
I can’t get my head around how such big animals manage to live all around us in such densely populated place. I suppose it helps that they are cartoonishly adorable.
But they are increasingly getting really, really big. It’s just a matter of time before the chonker living in my neighbour’s shed bullies me out of my house.
All you need to know about Toronto is that the generational effort to build a raccoon-resistant trash can has failed every time. They're unstoppable beasts!
Kassel is under 200k people, with ~100 raccoons/km² though!
Curiously, that raccoon population was established legally and intentionally in the 30s to bolster local fur production; later efforts to eradiacte the animals (for being pests from an agriculture perspective) have been given up.
Damage to local ecosystems seems fortunately pretty limited, even though the raccoons are highly successful and spreading.
The second link parent posted literally explains it, which makes their "oh no, German in 2025 so broken" quite puzzling:
> Es gibt viel zu viele Waschbären, um mit den erlaubten jagdlichen Mitteln im städtischen Umfeld eine nachhaltige Bestandsreduzierung bewirken zu können, denn Waschbären können hohe Verlustraten durch vermehrte Fortpflanzung ausgleichen. Je mehr Waschbären getötet werden, umso mehr Jungtiere kommen nach. Die vielen Jungtiere machen aber unter Umständen mehr Probleme als die Alten, und die Gefahr einer Ausbreitung von Krankheiten und Parasiten wird durch die abwandernden Jungtiere erhöht statt vermindert.
> There are too many raccoons for permitted hunting methods within an urban context to have a sufficient effect on population numbers as raccoons react to high death rates with increased breeding. The more raccoons are killed, the more young are born. The large amount of young raccoons can create more problems than older animals, and the danger of spreading disease and parasites is increased as young animals roam from established territories.
tl;dr: you're not allowed to just randomly shoot shit in urban areas because duh, the population is too large for trapping, and the raccoons are just gonna fuck more and then go a-wandering, making everything worse.
Foxes too, generally. The average temperament tends to include curiosity, playfulness, and wariness but not moral fear of humans. People keep them as household pets so I'd call that domesticable. An experiment to speed up the process of fox domestication was undertaken. [0] Foxes tend to not be like almost all wolves (and many wolfdogs) which are reserved, not prone to social openness, and hard to read like American Akitas which makes them dangerous by dominance challenging, miscommunication, and untrustworthiness.
Imagine trying to keep an animal like that out of food it's not supposed to have (to include fish tanks). The dang things would probably learn to pick locks with their cute little hands.
Raccoons are also social animals so they like to maintain good relations. My mom is friends with wild raccoons and they never try and break in even though they know there is food inside. The raccoons try and open the sliding glass door but they don't become home invasion robbers if they don't find food outside and can't get in through the door. What's funny is that her cats like to watch the raccoons for entertainment and will touch paws on glass but if only a screen door separates them the cats get very upset and frighten the raccoons who just want to be friends. Their intelligence seems to help them get along, like there's one raccoon that my mom has named and it comes when called and can understand my mom through the Ring doorbell. It understands that it is her voice but not her presence so will wait like a dog that has taken obedience. The raccoon is disabled having only one eye, so it survives through intelligence like befriending my mom and is the friendliest of all the raccoons.
Domestication often involves lower intelligence. Particularly for farm animals.
Consider the statement above that tame raccoons need "TONS of engagement from their keepers because they get bored easily". Breeding that out means essentially a less curious, more complacent animal. Cows and sheep that easily figure out how to escape their paddocks are a liability.
Which category do you think is more clever: Wolf and coyote; or pug and chihuahua?
dog breeds considered "clever" often more closely resemble their wild ancestors. And they are often not "easy" breeds to own.
Dogs and cats have different modalities for intelligence.
Dogs are social animals that have evolved to be human companions a long time ago. This is why they are "trainable" and, therefore, seem more intelligent.
Cats are not; they are extremely good hunters that by and large tolerate humans in exchange for easy access to food and water. You can't really train them, but they will find hiding spots you didn't even know existed and you will NEVER have problems with mice with one around.
Dogs are certainly better at looking intelligent. I think dogs, being a more social animal, are more eager to please, and so are willing to be trained.
Cats can vary wildly. One of my cats seems dumb as a box of rocks and haven't even grasped the idea of object permanence. If she's tracking a laser, and I move it around a corner, she can't figure out where it went. She goes from intense staring and tracking to standing up and looking around, confused. When I bring the laser back around the corner, she's instantly back to squatting and tracking it.
I had a cat once who didn’t grasp the idea of a box having an inside. I used a cardboard box as a laundry basket and when folding laundry, I would ball pairs of socks and toss them inside the box. He always ran behind the box and couldn’t figure out where the socks went.
Our dog remembers the location of toys at the park over long periods of time, though being able to sniff them out probably helps. He also expresses genuine surprise and suspicion when he sees novel objects (e.g. the large Christmas tree that was put up in the park, a horse and rider), because he knows they're not usually there. He doesn't like fat people, which is embarrassing, but I also knew a dog as a teenager that freaked out anytime it saw someone who wasn't Asian. Just given the amount of back and forth communication that happens between most owners and their dogs, they're very clever. Cats are some of the best hunters in the animal kingdom, but I've never felt that they're there in the way that dogs are.
> Cats can vary wildly. One of my cats seems dumb as a box of rocks and haven't even grasped the idea of object permanence
Similarly I've seen cats have one of two reactions to a mirror: ignoring it entirely or actually using it by e.g. looking me in the eyes and meowing at me through it. While I've not witnessed it personally on the internet there's also tons of videos of cats freaking out and trying to fight the other cat in the mirror.
This supports the idea that the gamut of intelligence in cats is quite wide.
I had a cat for a while that seemed surprisingly capable when he was motivated. The most interesting thing I saw him pull off was pushing a heavy bag of cat food off the top of a refrigerator to split it open.
Occasionally, he'd demonstrate the ability to plan too. When he started to get territorial and start fights with neighborhood cats, we started keeping him inside. Naturally, this didn't sit right with him. After watching someone enter the house every day in the evening, eventually, he would perch next to the door in the evening waiting to bolt out the moment the door opened.
I don't really understand this. Isn't it about as surgically invasive as getting a pet spayed?
Does the scent gland do anything more than just stinking? For a cat, removing the claws literally removes bones from them. It limits their mobility and hurts like hell.
(Not that I want a pet skunk. Just curious as to why it's unethical)
>Does the scent gland do anything more than just stinking?
It's part of their communication system. There's no direct corollary in human qualia, but you might say it's akin to permanently destroying your ability to flirt or tell other people that something belongs to you. You would still experience the impulse, but not have the cognitive equipment to do so any longer. Removing scent glands destroys the physiological equipment, of course.
I mean, you're removing part of a living animal for human convenience. If the ethical issue isn't obvious I don't know what to tell you.
The practice has been banned in the UK for almost 20 years, under the exact same laws as ban declawing cats. It's unnecessary mutilation with no medical justification.
We do a lot of bad things to animals for human convenience. Including forced breeding and raising them to be slaughtered.
The ethics is murky to me because I assume the procedure doesn't cause lasting pain and allows the animals to be pampered pets. The alternative is they are kept wild.
There are plenty of quite happy non-descented skunks out there.
They don’t just go around spraying. It’s a defense mechanism - pretty much their only one as a matter of fact. Tame pets are very unlikely to spray anyone not trying to hurt them.
We neuter male cats so they don’t spray piss everywhere and spay female cats so they don’t go into heat and scream incessantly to be let outside.
Both procedures seem slightly more invasive than removing a scent gland in a skunk, given that it removes the sex organs that secrete hormones and changes their behavior for the rest of their life.
It’s possible that a skunk gets anxious when it tries to spray and nothing comes out, I can’t say I’m an expert in skunk behavior, it just seems less invasive than spaying or neutering to me.
> “I’d love to take those next steps and see if our trash pandas in our backyard are really friendlier than those out in the countryside,” she says.
Would they have to measure "biological" friendliness, comparing lab raised countryside-descended and city-descended raccoons? Domesticated animals can be very unfriendly. Feral cats for example.
It's interesting that there was no mention of the "cuteness" collection of traits that we find in common among infants of various species: short noses, big foreheads, and so forth.
On Facebook, there's been this running gag/joke/meme/whatever going for at least the last year, where anytime the official North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission page posts anything, a large portion of the comments quickly turn into a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of pet raccoons[1].
I don't know exactly how it started. Somebody innocently asked "How do I get a permit for a pet raccoon?" and the page replied "You can't, they are illegal in NC" or something prosaic like that I imagine. But it became a big "thing" and now raccoon talk is everywhere. The page controllers play along with it, which is part of why it's kept going so long I guess. But sometimes they'll get semi-serious and post something like
"Look, all joking aside, the reason pet raccoons are not allowed is because no matter how friendly raccoons look, they are wild animals, not domesticated, and they can be a hazard to you, and your family and <blah, etc, etc>".
Soooo... I'm just waiting to see somebody post this very article in a comment on that page with a note saying "Suck it, NCWRC!" (all in a spirit of good fun, of course).
[1]: or one or more of another of a small set of topics, including flounder, pet alligators, armadillos, UFO's, and the possibility that the person running the page is the product of secret government genetic engineering experiments involving "all of the above". It's... complicated.
EDIT:
Welp ,that took about as long as I expected. ROFL.
Somehow, it remind me of the Studio Ghibli anime Pom Poko, centering around the theme of the expansion of the Tokyo forcing Japanese Racoon to adopt human life.
Could domestication happened simple because we human expand too much?
but are they edible though? I mean if they were domesticated fully, what would we do with them? I like my dogs thank you, ain't no way I'm having a coon for a pet.
Despite no one actually mentioning the white tr*sh cookbook ... I do not see the point behind raising racoons for food. They do NOT taste like chicken. How do you think your dogs would taste?
I like your dogs too, and ain't no way I would disrespect them... Pets are not food sources. But a coon.. . They seem nice enough until they fight over food ... Then they become _ <- insert unfavoroable political party.
Racoons, even city's racoons are terrible beasts. Sure, they are friendly when they aren't upset; Take a treat away from the hands of the sweetest racoon and it will either pounce on you to retrieve it, scream bloody murder, or pounce and slash at you until you retreat.
Racoons, especially in the city, will kill and eat an older housecat or easy to access domestic chickens without hesitation.
Declawing them helps, but nature happens when a declawed racoon feels a call to roam and is outmatched by even a small hawk or possum.
To be fair, if you take something away from me that's mine, there's not much difference between the raccoon and myself.
You should work on that.
Why promote such a loser and defeatist attitude?
People have been trying to make the house raccoon a thing: https://old.reddit.com/r/raccoons
From what I remember spending time on this topic, raccoons need super challenging locks as toys and TONS of engagement from their keepers because they get bored easily and bored raccoons == ultra destructive raccoons. Also, rabies.
They're pretty great pets. We had one for a while when I was a kid. Its mom got run over and we nursed it and raised it for a few months. Instinctively used the same litter box as the cats. Hung out on the couch sitting on my shoulder watching TV. Friendly and playful. Would follow people around and play with toys.
The biggest challenge is that they basically have hands. He would climb up the kitchen cabinets, grab a box of cereal, open it up and sit there eating out of it like a toddler.
We only had him for a few months before reintroducing him to the woods behind the house. I've wanted a pet raccoon again ever since.
A former girlfriend of mine had a picture of her mother holding a Raccoon. I asked her mother about it and she said that they lived out in the woods in Minnesota and they found it on the porch when it was a baby. The mother had died or something so they kinda raised it. It was free roaming in/out of the house but they could hold it and it would also get into their food. She mentioned one time it ate a bunch of mixed nuts...but didn't like one type so it left all those in the bowl. Another time it ate an entire pie...but left her one piece ("so she wouldn't get angry"). She did say it was never really a "pet"...more like a wild animal that sometimes acted like one. This would have been in the late 70s early 80s by my guess on her age in the pictures.
I remember reading somewhere once that baby raccoons are actually quite cuddly and tame; but that when they go adolescence, they have a hormone shift that makes them aggressive enough to be unsuitable as a pet. In the story a woman who had raised a baby raccoon was attacked by it after it grew to a certain age.
Judging by the murderous sounds you hear all night here in the summer, I would not want to be cornered in a dark alley by a gang of adolescent raccoons.
>Judging by the murderous sounds you hear all night here in the summer, I would not want to be cornered in a dark alley by a gang of adolescent raccoons.
Well if you ask me adolescent raccoons are a big problem in many of our cities, I'd be worried about such a case myself.
There's a Japanese anime from the '70s called something like "rascal the racoon", based on an American book, which tells the story of a kid with a pet raccoon.
I've wanted a pet raccoon since I saw this on TV in the '80s, and raccoons aren't even a thing in Europe :(
And the anime was so popular it led to raccoons being imported en masse to Japan and becoming an invasive species when their owners released them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rascal_the_Raccoon#Impact
I learned about this 2 years ago when a racoon showed up in Tokyo close to where I lived. [1]
wild to think they spread even all the way to Japan because of anime. and probably south Korea now. They banned raccoons in Japan but it seems to not have caught up in SK and there are a lot of racoon pet videos from SK on YouTube)
[1] https://youtu.be/P2yDY5HlUBw?si=YP_Bkd_oQZ86YOHt
There use to be "Raccoon cafes" in Seoul. You go buy a drink and pet the raccoons. IIRC animal cafes were banned around 2019 or so.
Rascal: A Memoir of a Better Era. I had that book as a kid. There was a live action Disney film of it; didn't know about the anime version. Neat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rascal_(book)
A generation of us grew up deeply coveting a pet coon, and have never given up on that dream, really...
The shocker for me was the bit about Rascal learning not to wash his sugarcubes before eating (or actually, to rinse once, because he was OCD about washing his food). Not that itself, although fascinating and charming; the idea that sugar was rationed to the author's family was mindblowing to juvenile me.
Racoons are invading the north east of France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2ijwZROb6g ; they are exotic invasive species: a female get 10 babies per year, and there is no predator
Well at least in Germany they are a thing - a quick google search says there's a population of >1 million raccoons in Germany.
Can confirm. I was running through a forest in Berlin and saw a raccoon in a tree.
Was a little confused, but apparently quite a few around here.
Indeed, Germany has a Raccoon problem
https://youtu.be/eq3brUMm3gA
My wife and I wish our country didn't have such restrictive biosecurity laws, because AWWW THEIR CUTE LITTLE HANDS....
(I mean, there's good reasons my country does have those laws, and I don't _really_ want to have a wild animal as a pet, but I kinda do.)
on the other side - if not for these laws, somebody would have produced a pet racoon breed in several generations, smth like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox#/media... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox)
best HN story ive read in a while. i want a raccoon that eating tinyfist-fuls of cereal steaight from the box it opened, watching TV
sounds very similar to a stoner-roommate to be honest. a bit chaotic, but peaceful. hungry, and bored.
"What do you think we have these wonderfully articulate fingers for? To scratch our asses?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqTt_jDDCio
Assuming you are starting with a wild raccoon, get one from a population that is not in the eastern parts of the US or Canada and rabies is unlikely.
Here in Washington state for example there have been no documented cases of rabies in any wild raccoon in at least 60 years. Same goes for all other wild terrestrial mammals here.
Or, use extreme caution in handling the animal in the first few days.
Rabies is neither subtle, nor slow.
Bats, on the other hand...
Plus, there are vaccines to prevent it.
If you were talking about the rabies vaccine, for humans, that’s not really a normal vaccine for people to get. It’s not like getting the flu vaccine or the chickenpox vaccine or others, and they shouldn’t be lumped into that same category.
How is it not?
I'm currently 1 of 3 injections into getting a rabies vaccine and it's basically like every other vaccine I've had. A simple, painless, injection in the arm.
I got it the same time as my first shot of the Hep B vaccine too.
This style of rabies vaccine is for pre-exposure. Post-exposure vaccination is more involved if you aren’t primed.
In addition, it used to be the case that people received abdominal shots and the course was pretty intense. That has ended, but people remember it.
Yes, but the rabies vaccine is not really for "prevention" (with some exceptions, before someone comes "ackschually" here), more like post-exposure
Because it sucks less than dying of Rabies and boy you don't want to know how low the bar is here
It's expensive but it isn't particularly bad to get.
I had a pretty low risk exposure to a bat this summer and decided to get it because it's so hard to be sure they didn't bite you. Wasn't a big deal, and I got quite a lot of the antibody injections in my finger...
Yes, I read an account by a zookeeper who had been potentially exposed to rabies due to the negligence of a vet. He had to get the rabies vaccine to be safe, which would have been painful enough if all had done well; but then he had a bad reaction to it and had to be hospitalized.
Jep, just have a look here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45964090
It astounds me, that government still doesn't want to kill say 20k of these invaders.
People can also get rabies, that doesn’t mean we ban babies or perform mass cullings.
If they were domesticated, you’d just get them vaccinated at the vet.
Just remember to remain wary of the cute ones.
> Raccoons are a rabies reservoir in the eastern United States, extending from Canada to Florida and as far west as the Appalachian Mountain range. Within these areas, 10% of raccoons that expose people or pets have rabies, making them one of the highest rabies-risks in the United States.
https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/php/protecting-public-health/inde...
> 10% of raccoons that expose people or pets have rabies
I don't understand the language of this quote. What does it mean for an animal to expose people?
It's an odd framing. Out of R_t total raccoons, R_e bite or scratch (potentially "expose") humans. R_e / 10 of those were carrying rabies. So it could be that raccoons almost never bite/scratch humans, such that the behavioral effects of rabies are a significant motivator. It also could be that raccoons bite/scratch humans all of the time, and a ton of those raccoons have rabies. The latter is scary, but the former is likely the truth.
I wonder if increased interactions between humans and raccoons will lead to a reduction in that 10% figure (more reasons to bite humans).
you would think that 100% of racoons that expose people to rabies have rabies.
It's that it's not 10% of racoons have rabies, but 10% of the ones that expose people to a bite scratch etc. The reason the numbers aren't the same, significantly less than 10% of them have rabies, is mainly that rabies itself can make them more hostile etc., on top of if bitten by a racoon that is more symptomatic seeming you are much more likely to get it checked out.
An “exposure” in this instance to rabies would be physical contact - a bite, scratch, or from its saliva on an open wound for instance.
Is there something that makes raccoons different than say cats in terms of rabies?
Cats get vaccinated against rabies. I doubt there's one for racoons.
Raccoons actually do get vaccinated against rabies. There are large scale programs operated by the US government and state governments that regularly distribute vaccine laden baits from Maine to Alabama, to keep rabies from spreading to raccoon populations west of the Appalachians.
If a breach occurs they also will trap raccoons and vaccinate them by injection in the area of the breach.
At first I read that as vaccine laden bats and for a moment, the world was just a little more delightful.
Or terrifying.
Uh, the rabies vaccine is the same regardless of species.
Glancing at Wikipedia, there seem to be a wide variety of different rabies vaccines, but, yeah, ones used on animals largely seem to be multi species.
And there are programs to distribute bait laced with oral vaccines to target, among other animals, racoons. So I guess they are vaccinated, at least in some areas. TIL.
Huh, I'd never thought about it like that but yeah, the vaccine should depend on the targeted illness, not the recipient.
Just in time to spread a really awful parasite. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/09/human-cases-of-racco... "severe, frequently fatal, infections of the eyes, organs, and central nervous system. Those who survive are often left with severe neurological outcomes, including blindness, paralysis, loss of coordination, seizures, cognitive impairments, and brain atrophy"
We treat deer for ticks, etc. A decade ago, I think we would have been smart enough to treat wild raccoons for this parasite, but the time of human domestication is over. In another decade, I expect humans will be marking their territories with feces again.
I, for one, am looking forward to that
RFK Jr is right there with you.
[flagged]
You know this didn’t actually happen, right?
People testified under oath about how folks were pooping in offices during it, and it was widely reported at the time.
I think you misunderstand the comment.
President Calvin Coolidge had a pet raccoon in the White House: https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2021/01/when-rebecca-the-raccoon-r...
> Oddly, tameness has also long been associated with traits such as a shorter face, a smaller head, floppy ears and white patches on fur—a pattern that Charles Darwin noted in the 1800s.
Hmm, so evolutionary pressure of existing around humans makes animals cuter.
I wonder why we find these features endearing?
I believe the main biological lever is retaining juvenile features as adults, physically as well as mentally (like with dogs). What we see as cute is an honest signal that they are more child-like: less aggressive, more trusting and pro-social.
I also think that this is the central cause of a wide variety of domestic/cute adaptations. There are too many separate features to believe that raccoons and dogs and cats and a dozen other species all select for these same elements independently.
I no longer have the book on hand, but read a few months ago that this correlation between juvenile traits and domestication was one of the main theses of Barrett's "Supernormal Stimuli" in Chapter 4. She cited a few studies of fox domestication [1], [2] and other works to support these theories.
[1]: https://courses.washington.edu/anmind/Trut%20on%20the%20Russ...
[2] https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(05)...
My guess: possibly co-evolution. The article subsequently describes the genetics behind things becoming cute - which would have been completely benign to our ancestors (the core of your question). However, those of our ancestors who completed domestication of these animals (by random chance) would have enjoyed more protection from predators, rodents, etc. Those of our ancestors who attempted to domesticate things without the mutations might have had bad companions at best, and would have been predated at worst. This would have provided evolutionary pressure to adopt animals that were showing early signs of domestication. What we call "cute" is merely "likely to cooperate with us."
Since humans associate cuteness with large eyes and small body size, nocturnal / twilight animals, like raccoons, sugar gliders, cats, squirrels, etc have a larger chance to be domesticated as pets.
Daytime, larger animals (e.g. sheep, goats, or even rabbits) have a larger chance to be domesticated as food.
We're programmed to take care of (human) babies. That's pretty fundamental to our species survival.
Those features activates the same areas of our brain that babies' faces activate.
Feeling that something is "cute" is the evolutionary way that our brain is using to make us care of our kids.
Put slightly differently, they look cute because we are all mammals and they are cute.
> I wonder why we find these features endearing
It's a side effect, evolution made sure we take care of our offspring.
I would bet on Paedomorphism, because we find babies and puppies cute.
Experiment in taming foxes that relied on a single principle of selecting animals that react to humans with least fear and aggression resulted also in those morphological changes. I think it's more about selecting animals that retain youthful curiosity and other traits into their adult life. Youthful morphological features just tag along.
Animal Auditions: Cute vs. Food - Denis Leary
https://youtu.be/IZBAtd9rty8
Perhaps a combination of adaptableness, small size, prodigious reproduction, and cuteness saved some species from being wiped out whereas other species didn't fare so well once humans arrived and transformed their territory. Adapt to urban encroachment or face extinction.
Reminds me of signs like "Rabbits for sale: pets or food"
I thought it's because adrenalin and melatonin are produced in the same brain region, or something like that.
I've heard that the same process of domestication towards "cuteness" has been outlined in human evolution too.
Larger head-size relative to the body, larger eyes, smaller jaws and noses, longer limbs, etc.
Interesting parallels across species towards less aggression, greater pro-social behavior, more physical traits that shout "trust me, I'm harmless."
Almost like pro-social, intelligent team co-operation is a huge advantage compared to solo predatory behavior.
If dogs started out as wolves and ended up as English bulldogs, imagine how stupid raccoons will eventually look.
One of my favorite memes: https://share.google/sQw5gZ6O4wQspS61P
Thank you for this, I needed that.
Most cat breeds still look more or less like their wild relatives.
Most dogs, arguably, too. But there are French bulldogs, dachshunds, and pugs.
Among domestic cats, there are Persian cats and Sphinx cats.
And then you have the fossa.
That's only a pretend cat, it's a lemur-thing really. Wait no, a civet-thing.
Have you seen short legged cats?
That's a recessive trait that is fatal if they get two copies of it. When left to their devices they'll return to being normal cats in a few generations.
Yes and I'd like it to stop
Cats aren't really domesticated. Out of many, many cat species we just found one that's well aligned with humans and it spread with humans to the whole world. No other cat species plays well with humans and none shows any signs of domestication.
Citation required for claim that runs counter to most scientific evidence.
Luckily there are still the extra snouty breeds like Belgian shepherds and various sighthounds.
Probably something like a koala bear
Well this gave me some fun ideas for AI image generation. There goes the rest of my afternoon, thanks!
And pugs? What would a pug raccoon look like?
Raccoons have been living literally inside of houses for centuries.
One was kept as a pet in Jamestown Virginia in the 1600s. Another lived in the White House in the 1900s. Surely, not a decade has passed between have there been NO domesticated raccoons in the US? If living near humans changes animals, that started at least 25,000 years ago here in North America. Not recently.
My neighbors had a pet raccoon growing up. It lived inside but would come and go.
The people who wrote this article seem out of touch with the topic they chose to pretend to be experts about?
Individual animals can be tame. Only entire populations can be domesticated. Two different things.
That doesn't mean the process is happening naturally as asserted. For instance, wild black wolves in the US got this trait from hybridization with domesticated dogs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2903542/
Did it say otherwise?
It primarily says they can now observe physical changes associated with domestication.
Also, keeping a wild animal as a pet does not domesticate it.
> The people who wrote this article seem out of touch with the topic they chose to pretend to be experts about?
This is quickly becoming the norm for experts, unfortunately. I keep seeing more an more people with educational expertise in something that they have zero hands-on or practical experience with.
I remember being at a social event once and chatting with someone who was a business professor at any Ivy League university. Making small talk, I asked him which companies he'd worked at, and he told me that he had gone the academic track and started teaching during and after getting his PhD (in exactly what I don't remember). I remember being stunned that students would pay over $60k a year to learn about business from someone who'd never worked for or started a business.
> I remember being stunned that students would pay over $60k a year to learn about business from someone who'd never worked for or started a business.
Were you stunned that your parents paid lots of money to put you in front of educators from kindergarten to college?
Why would you restrict yourself to learning from one businessman when you can get learn from an educator who has distilled the experiences of hundreds if not thousands of business people?
Because they are terrible at distilling experience and teach bad lessons?
(MBA, anyone?)
Wait till you find out lots of computer science PhDs can't program.
I think you’re mistaking slight natural adaption for domestication, and taking domestication for granted. Go into nature and try and train a wild wolf. Good luck! You can’t.
Domestication, in the way that we see having happened with dogs (and cattle, and chickens) takes a really long time.
We consider cats “domesticated” and yet demonstrably they are not. If they were much bigger, they’d eat us, and if set into wild, nearly all household cats immediately revert to feral.
I owned five ferrets once. Loved them so much, but came to the realization that there are animals that should be pets and animals that maybe shouldn’t (yet). I think we have many, many more generations before raccoons are at the same level as dogs.
> Surely, not a decade has passed between have there been NO domesticated raccoons in the US?
An animal of wild parentage that was raised by humans is tame but not domesticated. So no, there's aren't really domesticated racoons, only tame ones.
Domestication is a process that takes many generations. It is a selective breeding process more than anything else. Animals that are 1 generation away from wild ancestors aren't domesticated, by definition.
And the last category is feral animals, "that live in the wild but are descended from domesticated individuals.".
So Kassel, Germany, may have hope to be less harassed in the future?
FYI, Kassel kinda is the so-called capitol of raccoons. 30k+ raccoons life there, according to estimates.
I certainly would not want to live there. It is crazy how these animals flock together and invade properties. And they aren't shy anymore due to the reverse positive reinforcement they receive by not killing them.
Yes, it is of course in Germany forbidden to kill an invading predatory species - even on your property. This is Germany 2025.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DJXsI_A5DU
https://www.kassel.de/buerger/sicherheit_und_ordnung/tiersch...
Toronto, Canada is hands down the raccoon capital of the world. Something like 100k raccoons live in the city.
I can’t get my head around how such big animals manage to live all around us in such densely populated place. I suppose it helps that they are cartoonishly adorable.
But they are increasingly getting really, really big. It’s just a matter of time before the chonker living in my neighbour’s shed bullies me out of my house.
All you need to know about Toronto is that the generational effort to build a raccoon-resistant trash can has failed every time. They're unstoppable beasts!
Example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/raccoon-resistant-bin...
Kassel is under 200k people, with ~100 raccoons/km² though!
Curiously, that raccoon population was established legally and intentionally in the 30s to bolster local fur production; later efforts to eradiacte the animals (for being pests from an agriculture perspective) have been given up.
Damage to local ecosystems seems fortunately pretty limited, even though the raccoons are highly successful and spreading.
> Yes, it is of course in Germany forbidden to kill an invading predatory species - even on your property. This is Germany 2025.
This is blatantly false.
The nandus that are living in the north can and are being killed for exactly this reason: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandu#Wilde_Population_in_Nord... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_rhea#Distribution_and_... for a shorter paragraph in English)
I guess there is a more nuanced reason for not killing the raccoons in Kassel.
The second link parent posted literally explains it, which makes their "oh no, German in 2025 so broken" quite puzzling:
> Es gibt viel zu viele Waschbären, um mit den erlaubten jagdlichen Mitteln im städtischen Umfeld eine nachhaltige Bestandsreduzierung bewirken zu können, denn Waschbären können hohe Verlustraten durch vermehrte Fortpflanzung ausgleichen. Je mehr Waschbären getötet werden, umso mehr Jungtiere kommen nach. Die vielen Jungtiere machen aber unter Umständen mehr Probleme als die Alten, und die Gefahr einer Ausbreitung von Krankheiten und Parasiten wird durch die abwandernden Jungtiere erhöht statt vermindert.
> There are too many raccoons for permitted hunting methods within an urban context to have a sufficient effect on population numbers as raccoons react to high death rates with increased breeding. The more raccoons are killed, the more young are born. The large amount of young raccoons can create more problems than older animals, and the danger of spreading disease and parasites is increased as young animals roam from established territories.
tl;dr: you're not allowed to just randomly shoot shit in urban areas because duh, the population is too large for trapping, and the raccoons are just gonna fuck more and then go a-wandering, making everything worse.
Foxes too, generally. The average temperament tends to include curiosity, playfulness, and wariness but not moral fear of humans. People keep them as household pets so I'd call that domesticable. An experiment to speed up the process of fox domestication was undertaken. [0] Foxes tend to not be like almost all wolves (and many wolfdogs) which are reserved, not prone to social openness, and hard to read like American Akitas which makes them dangerous by dominance challenging, miscommunication, and untrustworthiness.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Fox urine reeks. You don't want to live anywhere near that.
And I remember reading that they have awful BO naturally
I want to see an intelligence-optimized domesticated raccoon breed, like the raccoon equivalent of a border collie
Get a pet rat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV9z0c1hjnA
(I'll convince you all to get pet rats eventually!!! :))
Breed a rat with a furry tail, and you will overcome all resistance. That hairless tail is creepy - and I say that as an admirer of pet rats.
That's a pretty clever rat!
Imagine trying to keep an animal like that out of food it's not supposed to have (to include fish tanks). The dang things would probably learn to pick locks with their cute little hands.
This is precisely why I think exceptionally smart animals should never be pets: octopus, corvids, raccoons…
Raccoons are also social animals so they like to maintain good relations. My mom is friends with wild raccoons and they never try and break in even though they know there is food inside. The raccoons try and open the sliding glass door but they don't become home invasion robbers if they don't find food outside and can't get in through the door. What's funny is that her cats like to watch the raccoons for entertainment and will touch paws on glass but if only a screen door separates them the cats get very upset and frighten the raccoons who just want to be friends. Their intelligence seems to help them get along, like there's one raccoon that my mom has named and it comes when called and can understand my mom through the Ring doorbell. It understands that it is her voice but not her presence so will wait like a dog that has taken obedience. The raccoon is disabled having only one eye, so it survives through intelligence like befriending my mom and is the friendliest of all the raccoons.
Domestication often involves lower intelligence. Particularly for farm animals.
Consider the statement above that tame raccoons need "TONS of engagement from their keepers because they get bored easily". Breeding that out means essentially a less curious, more complacent animal. Cows and sheep that easily figure out how to escape their paddocks are a liability.
Which category do you think is more clever: Wolf and coyote; or pug and chihuahua?
dog breeds considered "clever" often more closely resemble their wild ancestors. And they are often not "easy" breeds to own.
Skunks apparently make great pets (but need to have their stink glands surgically extracted), the pitch is smart like a cat but faithful like dogs
I think dogs in general are smarter than cats.
Dogs and cats have different modalities for intelligence.
Dogs are social animals that have evolved to be human companions a long time ago. This is why they are "trainable" and, therefore, seem more intelligent.
Cats are not; they are extremely good hunters that by and large tolerate humans in exchange for easy access to food and water. You can't really train them, but they will find hiding spots you didn't even know existed and you will NEVER have problems with mice with one around.
Dogs are certainly better at looking intelligent. I think dogs, being a more social animal, are more eager to please, and so are willing to be trained.
Cats can vary wildly. One of my cats seems dumb as a box of rocks and haven't even grasped the idea of object permanence. If she's tracking a laser, and I move it around a corner, she can't figure out where it went. She goes from intense staring and tracking to standing up and looking around, confused. When I bring the laser back around the corner, she's instantly back to squatting and tracking it.
I had a cat once who didn’t grasp the idea of a box having an inside. I used a cardboard box as a laundry basket and when folding laundry, I would ball pairs of socks and toss them inside the box. He always ran behind the box and couldn’t figure out where the socks went.
Our dog remembers the location of toys at the park over long periods of time, though being able to sniff them out probably helps. He also expresses genuine surprise and suspicion when he sees novel objects (e.g. the large Christmas tree that was put up in the park, a horse and rider), because he knows they're not usually there. He doesn't like fat people, which is embarrassing, but I also knew a dog as a teenager that freaked out anytime it saw someone who wasn't Asian. Just given the amount of back and forth communication that happens between most owners and their dogs, they're very clever. Cats are some of the best hunters in the animal kingdom, but I've never felt that they're there in the way that dogs are.
> Cats can vary wildly. One of my cats seems dumb as a box of rocks and haven't even grasped the idea of object permanence
Similarly I've seen cats have one of two reactions to a mirror: ignoring it entirely or actually using it by e.g. looking me in the eyes and meowing at me through it. While I've not witnessed it personally on the internet there's also tons of videos of cats freaking out and trying to fight the other cat in the mirror.
This supports the idea that the gamut of intelligence in cats is quite wide.
I had a kitty that met her reflection on our first day together.
Step 1: Meow at "other" kitty.
Step 2: Walk around mirror to meet other kitty.
Step 3: Stare other kitty in face near edge of mirror, then suddenly bat paw around the edge to tag that elusive sucker.
Step 4: Sit and ponder.
Step 5: Accept that there is no other kitty. Hmmph.
One. Smart. Cat.
I had a cat for a while that seemed surprisingly capable when he was motivated. The most interesting thing I saw him pull off was pushing a heavy bag of cat food off the top of a refrigerator to split it open.
Occasionally, he'd demonstrate the ability to plan too. When he started to get territorial and start fights with neighborhood cats, we started keeping him inside. Naturally, this didn't sit right with him. After watching someone enter the house every day in the evening, eventually, he would perch next to the door in the evening waiting to bolt out the moment the door opened.
I've known many dogs that fail this test, too.
> I think dogs in general are smarter than cats.
This is exactly what a dog would say.
And that's exactly what a cat would say! (≖_≖ )
Are they as randy in real life as Pepe lePew?
Only towards black cats with a white stripe.
Removing the scent glands of a skunk is considered about as ethical as declawing a cat. It just isn't really done anymore. Maybe 30 years ago...
I don't really understand this. Isn't it about as surgically invasive as getting a pet spayed?
Does the scent gland do anything more than just stinking? For a cat, removing the claws literally removes bones from them. It limits their mobility and hurts like hell.
(Not that I want a pet skunk. Just curious as to why it's unethical)
>Does the scent gland do anything more than just stinking?
It's part of their communication system. There's no direct corollary in human qualia, but you might say it's akin to permanently destroying your ability to flirt or tell other people that something belongs to you. You would still experience the impulse, but not have the cognitive equipment to do so any longer. Removing scent glands destroys the physiological equipment, of course.
I mean, you're removing part of a living animal for human convenience. If the ethical issue isn't obvious I don't know what to tell you.
The practice has been banned in the UK for almost 20 years, under the exact same laws as ban declawing cats. It's unnecessary mutilation with no medical justification.
We do a lot of bad things to animals for human convenience. Including forced breeding and raising them to be slaughtered.
The ethics is murky to me because I assume the procedure doesn't cause lasting pain and allows the animals to be pampered pets. The alternative is they are kept wild.
There are plenty of quite happy non-descented skunks out there.
They don’t just go around spraying. It’s a defense mechanism - pretty much their only one as a matter of fact. Tame pets are very unlikely to spray anyone not trying to hurt them.
We neuter male cats so they don’t spray piss everywhere and spay female cats so they don’t go into heat and scream incessantly to be let outside.
Both procedures seem slightly more invasive than removing a scent gland in a skunk, given that it removes the sex organs that secrete hormones and changes their behavior for the rest of their life.
It’s possible that a skunk gets anxious when it tries to spray and nothing comes out, I can’t say I’m an expert in skunk behavior, it just seems less invasive than spaying or neutering to me.
No, we neuter and spay so we are not overrun with feral cats. Not to control where they piss.
Then why neuter indoor cats?
Because an indoor cat can get out accidentally.
Do I really have to explain what you get when you have unfixed cats around? Hint: MORE CATS
> “I’d love to take those next steps and see if our trash pandas in our backyard are really friendlier than those out in the countryside,” she says.
Would they have to measure "biological" friendliness, comparing lab raised countryside-descended and city-descended raccoons? Domesticated animals can be very unfriendly. Feral cats for example.
It'll be interesting to see what their methodology is. Trapping tends to piss off any raccoon regardless of urban vs rural.
Oh right. But how do they taste? Asking for a friend.
https://archive.ph/GLiI5
I personally know at least one person who has a pet racoon. They've been raising it since it was a baby or pup(?).
It's pretty interesting to see their Instagram stories.
I can't imagine it's easy to domesticate a trash panda. They are also devious little creatures, way smarter than you expect.
It's interesting that there was no mention of the "cuteness" collection of traits that we find in common among infants of various species: short noses, big foreheads, and so forth.
https://www.bbcearth.com/news/the-code-for-cuteness
Amusing, albeit mostly irrelevant, sidebar...
On Facebook, there's been this running gag/joke/meme/whatever going for at least the last year, where anytime the official North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission page posts anything, a large portion of the comments quickly turn into a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of pet raccoons[1].
I don't know exactly how it started. Somebody innocently asked "How do I get a permit for a pet raccoon?" and the page replied "You can't, they are illegal in NC" or something prosaic like that I imagine. But it became a big "thing" and now raccoon talk is everywhere. The page controllers play along with it, which is part of why it's kept going so long I guess. But sometimes they'll get semi-serious and post something like
"Look, all joking aside, the reason pet raccoons are not allowed is because no matter how friendly raccoons look, they are wild animals, not domesticated, and they can be a hazard to you, and your family and <blah, etc, etc>".
Soooo... I'm just waiting to see somebody post this very article in a comment on that page with a note saying "Suck it, NCWRC!" (all in a spirit of good fun, of course).
[1]: or one or more of another of a small set of topics, including flounder, pet alligators, armadillos, UFO's, and the possibility that the person running the page is the product of secret government genetic engineering experiments involving "all of the above". It's... complicated.
EDIT:
Welp ,that took about as long as I expected. ROFL.
https://fogbeam.com/racoons_domesticating.png
Somehow, it remind me of the Studio Ghibli anime Pom Poko, centering around the theme of the expansion of the Tokyo forcing Japanese Racoon to adopt human life.
Could domestication happened simple because we human expand too much?
I think I know one or two family members who have been aiding and abetting this evolutionary process
Would be cool if it eventually leads to a Cambrian explosion of raccoon varieties after generations of breeding desirable traits.
They might even become intelligent!
but are they edible though? I mean if they were domesticated fully, what would we do with them? I like my dogs thank you, ain't no way I'm having a coon for a pet.
Despite no one actually mentioning the white tr*sh cookbook ... I do not see the point behind raising racoons for food. They do NOT taste like chicken. How do you think your dogs would taste?
I like your dogs too, and ain't no way I would disrespect them... Pets are not food sources. But a coon.. . They seem nice enough until they fight over food ... Then they become _ <- insert unfavoroable political party.
Just name coyotes to the AKC, would you?
Saw two of them dead on the side of the road this morning in the stretch of a couple miles, that will drive some evolution.
No, it won't. Rabies might.