NY Republicans push ‘Peanut's Law' after beloved pet squirrel was seized, killed by state agents
The bill, called "Peanut's Law: The Humane Animal Protection Act," would require a 72-hour waiting period before the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) can euthanize any seized animal. It would also give animal owners the chance for a hearing before the state takes or puts down their animals.
P'Nut and another pet squirrel named Fred were taken from Mark and Daniela Longo's upstate farm last October after someone filed an anonymous complaint. Both animals were killed and tested for rabies, and both tests came back negative. The squirrel had a huge following on social media, with P'Nut accruing nearly one million followers to watch content of the critter and his family.OWNERS OF BELOVED PEANUT THE SQUIRREL PLAN TO SUE NEW YORK STATE OVER SEIZURE AND KILLING BY AUTHORITIES
Once news spread on P'Nut's Instagram page, backlash over DEC's actions spread like wildfire online. At the time, everyone from Elon Musk to President Trump weighed in on the killing of the dear family pets.Musk referred to the killing back in November as "the whole squirrel thing" while on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz (R-Nassau), who is sponsoring the bill, said it's about fairness. "This is about due process," he said, adding that animals should not be killed unless they're an immediate danger.
The Longos, who run an animal sanctuary, say they were never told why their pets were taken. They hope the new bill will stop similar cases from happening again. Mark Longo said of the new bill: "I sit here trying not to cry, but passing this law will be a movement to make sure that animal rights are not overlooked anymore."Peanut or "P'Nut" was only a baby when the Longos rescued him. The squirrel adapted to his adoptive human family after his real mother was run over by a car when he was just five weeks old.
"They were not dangerous. They were not sick. They were not wild threats roaming the streets," said Assemblyman Blumencranz. "They were rescues — loved, nurtured, and safe."
Supporters of the legislation say it's a common-sense move to protect both animals and their owners.
"Here is the cold, hard truth. It is too little, too late. Words don't save P'Nut and Fred, and words won't save the next animal, or the next family, unless we change the law."An attorney who represents the Longo family did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What polls show about a very confusing political landscape
The political landscape right now is more confusing than a corn maze. For every data point that suggests Republicans face headwinds, there seems to be another that suggests Democrats should hold their britches. It all leaves this political analyst wondering just what the heck is going on out there, to paraphrase the great Vince Lombardi. Trump's popularity Let's start with President Donald Trump's approval rating. Gallup released a poll last week putting Trump's approval rating (37%), way down from the beginning of his second term (47%). The poll made a lot of press. Then you have the Wall Street Journal survey, which got a lot less play and showed something very different. Trump's net approval ratings among registered voters (approval - disapproval), while still negative at -6 percentage points, have barely declined from earlier this year. His approval rating of 46% looks a lot like it did at the start of the year. There are even surveys that have Trump's approval rating basically equal to his disapproval rating. Diving deeper into the data can leave one more befuddled, even when looking at the averages. Trump's approval rating with independents is lower than any president at this point in office. Yet he's lost very little ground with Republicans since the beginning of the year. This is important because there are a lot of them (e.g. see the section below this one). The average overall, regardless of how you compute the average, still does have Trump's net approval negative. That's where I think it is. Yet, I can't guarantee it. We've seen too many times in the last decade that the range of the results gave us a better understanding of the potential outcomes than the average did at pinpointing where things would end up. Party identification Pollsters will almost always ask how people identify themselves: Democrat, Republican or independent. Then they'll follow that up by asking independents whether they lean toward the Democratic or Republican side of the aisle. Party identification is one of the fundamental variables to understand how people will vote. Most Democrats will vote for Democratic candidates, while most Republicans will vote for Republican candidates. No wonder a lot of people took note of the Pew Research Center's annual benchmark poll that was released last week that showed 46% of the country were Republican or leaned Republican to 45% who were Democratic or leaned Democratic. That margin is no different from last year's version of the poll, before Trump won the presidency again. Pew's data, however, isn't the only data. I asked Quinnipiac University for their polls conducted during roughly the same period. Quinnipiac shows a pretty clear swing to the Democrats over the course of the year. During the January-to-February period, Republicans (including leaners) held a 1- to 3-point advantage on party affiliation. Democrats, however, were ahead by 2 to 4 points in the April and June polls. This included two 4-point edges in both June surveys they put into the field. I don't know who is right. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Democrats may be slightly ahead, though that's not great on a metric where they have usually been ahead over the years. The generic congressional ballot This question is one of my favorites. It asks respondents some form of 'would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate from your district?' The polling does seem to have the Democrats up. The Journal has them up narrowly among registered voters by 3 points. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from June finds the parties about evenly matched, with Democrats at 40% to Republicans' 38%. This is well behind the pace of where Democrats were in either 2005 or 2017 — the years before they won wave elections in the midterms. The Democratic lead in those cycles was closer to 7 points. Confused? You haven't seen anything yet. Ipsos' poll actually looks no different from their final poll on the subject in 2024, the year Republicans held on to the House. The Journal poll, which is one of Trump's better ones, shows the Democrats gaining significantly from its final survey in 2024, when Republicans were up by 4 points. But the seat-by-seat landscape in the House isn't the most appealing for Democrats. Both the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections show more potential pickup opportunities for the Republicans than Democrats. This is without any pro-Republican redistricting that might occur in Texas — or potential pro-Democratic redistricting in other states as retaliation for whatever Texas does. Democrats had more pickup chances than Republicans by this point in both 2005 and especially 2017, according to Cook. I should point out, however, that Democrats don't need a wave to take back the House. They need a small gain given the GOP's razor-thin majority. But with a smaller-than-usual lead on the generic ballot for Democrats and potential redistricting, that may not happen. The bottom line All of this leaves me a little befuddled. I believe Trump is more unpopular than not. Given that fact, I believe Republicans are in clear trouble for 2026. I'd probably have said the same thing during the 2022 cycle, when Joe Biden's approval rating was awful heading into those midterms. And while Democrats lost the House that fall, Republicans barely pulled it off. This cycle strikes me as even more confusing. And who can forget the most important variable? It's still 2025. It was only months before the 2022 midterms that Roe v. Wade got overturned and gave Democrats a political shot in the arm. We have a long way to go.
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
DOJ files misconduct complaint against federal judge
The Department of Justice filed a misconduct complaint against federal Judge James Boasberg"for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration," Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Monday. The big picture: The D.C.-based U.S. District Court chief judge has previously angered the Trump administration with his rulings on deportations. Boasberg has been the target of an impeachment effort by Trump and House Republicans after the George W. Bush-appointed judge questioned the administration's decision to disregard an order against the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans. Driving the news: Bondi said on X that she had directed the DOJ to take the action because the judge's comments "have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that." Representatives for the DOJ did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment on what the complaint specifically refers to and Boasberg's chambers did not immediately respond to Axios' Monday night phone message seeking comment on the matter. Catch up quick: Boasberg raised the ire of the administration in March when he ordered that flights deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members should turn around. The White House said it ignored the judge's order because it was issued after the flights had already departed and left U.S. jurisdiction. The Trump administration defended its decision to follow through with the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century war time law. The president said Boasberg "should be IMPEACHED" over the matter — prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement saying that impeaching a federal judge is "not an appropriate response" to disagreeing with a ruling. Meanwhile, Boasberg said in April that he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt for defying his order.
Fox News
5 hours ago
- Fox News
Trump's reported snub of Taiwan president spurs concerns over deference to China
The Trump administration is reportedly blocking Taiwan's president from stopping over in New York City, en route to a diplomatic meeting in Central America, following pressure from China. The Financial Times reported Monday that the administration has denied Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te the opportunity to stop over in New York City during a planned trip to Paraguay, Guatemala and Belize — all countries that recognize Taiwan as its own independent country. However, on Monday, the office of the president in Taiwan released a statement indicating that Lai "currently has no plans to go on an overseas visit," according to Taiwan-state media. A source familiar with the matter at the State Department confirmed that no formal travel plans for President Lai have been announced. "In consideration of the ongoing rehabilitation efforts in southern Taiwan following a recent typhoon and regional developments including the United States' tariffs, the president currently has no plans to go on an overseas visit," the statement from President Lai said. According to the Financial Times, which spoke with unnamed sources said to be intimately familiar with the alleged trip, Lai's decision not to travel came after he was informed that he would not be able to stop in New York City on his way to Central America. Lai's trip was also reportedly supposed to include a stop in Dallas, but it is unclear if the Trump administration was also planning to bar Lai from stopping there as well, according to the Financial Times. The White House did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. However, a State Department source familiar with the matter indicated that the Trump administration continues to be committed to the government's long-standing one China policy, rooted in the Taiwan Relations Act, joint diplomatic agreements with China and longstanding pledges crafted by the government in regard to Taiwan and China. Despite being in line with longstanding government policy, the move still garnered criticism from some Asia policy experts and critics of Trump. Lyle Morris, a senior fellow on foreign policy and national security at the Asia Society's Center for China Analysis, said the "first concrete move" under Trump's second term regarding Taiwan is "a cause for concern." "The assumption is this decision was made in the context of ongoing US-China trade negotiations and a possible Trump-Xi meeting," Morris said on X. "Still, not a good sign for enduring US-Taiwan relations." "Denying President Lai a transit is a deeply concerning break with bipartisan precedent and sends a reckless signal to Beijing that our partnership with Taiwan is on the negotiating table," added Democrat Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., in a post on X following the news about President Lai's alleged travel. "American leadership is now seen as deeply unreliable, with Trump's fits and starts with Ukraine, NATO allies, and other key partners. I urge President Trump to reverse course and do what presidents of both parties have done and allow a transit, and ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in that call." News of the Trump administration's decision to prohibit the Taiwanese president from stopping in New York City comes as the president is reportedly feeling out a potential trip to Beijing himself, alongside major U.S. CEOs. Nothing so far has been set in stone regarding Trump's trip, however.
