New York lawmakers push ‘Peanut's Law' to reform wildlife enforcement
(NewsNation) — New York state Republicans have introduced a bill that would give animals seized by the government a stay of execution. The legislation comes after P'Nut, an Instagram-famous squirrel, was decapitated by the government last year.
'Peanut's Law: The Humane Animal Protection Act' would require the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to wait 72 hours before any instance of euthanizing any seized animals.
The only exception, according to the bill, would be instances in which there is an immediate risk to public safety, as determined by a licensed veterinarian.
The 72-hour waiting period would allow families and sanctuaries to file an emergency appeal with the department, allowing the case to be reviewed by an emergency board including a licensed veterinarian, a public health official and a sanctuary representative to determine the best course of action.
5 takeaways from the Trump tariff drama
'It's veterinarians and families and individuals making these decisions as to the fate of these animals, and not bureaucrats and red tape that decide arbitrarily that these animals have to be killed,' New York Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz, R-Nassau, told 'Morning in America' on Thursday.
While some have raised concerns the bill could put state environmental officers in danger if there is a rabies concern, Blumencranz said he's not worried.
'I don't think they would be in a situation where they'd ever be in danger, because if human life, or the life of the officer, or any instance in which humans may be in danger are at play, then they would not have to go through this similar due process system,' he said.
New York authorities carried out a raid last year at Mark Longo's home after 'numerous complaints' about the squirrel, according to the Associated Press. Longo had rescued the squirrel seven years previously.
On Oct. 30, 2024, the state euthanized P'Nut and Longo's pet raccoon, Fred, to test them for rabies after reports they had bitten someone. Longo disagreed with the decision and said that P'Nut had not bitten anyone.
Maryland and Delaware fight over 'Orange Crush' cocktail
Longo said he still has not received sufficient answers for exactly how the incident came to pass.
'Since Oct. 30, we have heard nothing. We've gotten zero answers, but we've been told we can do better by the state officials of the DEC, so we're really trying to understand what that actually means,' he said.
Longo said passing Peanut's Law would be a step forward to ensure P'Nut and Fred 'didn't die in vain.' He added it would be an opportunity to advance animal rights and turn a tragedy into a positive moment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Secret Service Followed Protocol in Padilla Incident
California Sen. Alex Padilla is getting plenty of mileage out of his scuffle with the Secret Service and federal authorities in Los Angeles Thursday. Padillas Senate and campaign accounts posted a total of seven outraged videos in the first 24 hours after the altercation. Viral videos of the incident show a Secret Service agent dragging a fuming Padilla out of a press conference with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and he identifies himself as a senator only as hes being pushed out the door. The agent then forces Padilla to the ground, while two agents handcuff him. Padilla, however, wasnt arrested. Within the hour, agents released him with no charges. Dozens of Democratic members of Congress then jumped to Padillas defense, denouncing the action while casting the Secret Service and FBI agents involved as an extension of what they labeled as President Trumps totalitarian police state. Sen. Schumer called the Secret Services use of force "cruel and unacceptable." "This was a deliberate attempt to intimidate an elected official whose only offense is standing up for the voiceless," Schumer said. "But its not just about Sen. Padilla, its about every person who dares to speak truth to power." Republicans and conservative commentators countered that it was all a big publicity stunt and noted that a Padilla staffer filmed the tussle and then quickly distributed it to the media in the room. "Sen. Padilla didnt want answers - he wanted airtime," Rep. Byron Donalds said on Fox News Thursday night. "Shoving past security for a viral moment is a stunt, not leadership. If he cared about solutions, hed have asked for a meeting. But like most Democrats, he just wants the spotlight." "Alex Padilla is an embarrassment to California," said Steve Hilton, who is running for governor in California as a Republican. "Hes a complete nonentity. Thats why they didnt recognize him … [he has] zero accomplishments and now this pathetic stunt as his only claim to fame." Yet, one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, an ardent Trump critic, condemned Padillas treatment as "shocking at every level" and "not the America I know." Secret Service experts argue nothing could be further from the truth - that the agent was simply following normal protocol. Padilla, they said, actually received preferential treatment by not being arrested and jailed for his menacing display. The Secret Service agent warned Padilla, whom agents did not recognize as a senator and who wasnt wearing his Senate pin, to back away from Noem and then forcibly removed him when he ignored their entreaties. "They can represent this however they want, but those agents made the right decision to get him out of the room," Charles Marino, a former Secret Service agent told RealClearPolitics. "He did not have a congressional pin on, he was yelling and closing distance very quickly to make it to the front of the room to confront Noem." "Look, hes not above the law. Anyone taking those actions would been treated far worse - they would have been arrested and been forced to spend some time in jail," Marino said. "Who was escalating the situation? When you look at Padillas action, taken in totality, the agents had no other choice." Instead of dragging him to a cell, federal agents released the senator after the incident. Then Noem met with Padilla for 15 minutes and gave him her cell phone number to discuss matters further. "We probably disagree on 90% of the topics, but we agreed to exchange phone numbers and continue to talk - that is the way it should be in this country," Noem told Fox News Thursday afternoon. The Homeland Security Department issued a statement Thursday defending the federal agents actions, arguing that Padilla chose "disrespectful political theater" over constructive congressional oversight. Padilla, the agency said, "interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged toward Secretary Noem." "Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers repeated commands," the department added. "@Secret Service thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately." Several other Secret Service sources backed up Marinos account. "Any sudden movement towards a protectee that feels threatening, especially when that person has not been identified, the policy is 100% to prevent further escalation or movement toward Noem," said a source in the Secret Service community. "We would have done the same thing for anyone threatening [former DHS Secretary] Mayorkas." Even though the situation escalated very quickly, the agent still followed the basic rules of engagement for law enforcement, the source asserted. Agents and officers first ask a person to move away from the protectee, then they tell them firmly to move away, and if those warnings arent abided, then they can use physical force to move the threatening person away. "Its a pretty common law enforcement way of relaying information and taking action, because emotions can get the best of people, and agents are forced to err on the side of protection," the source added. After the two assassination attempts against Trump, agents are highly attuned to aggressive behavior and working to ensure theyre not involved in any security lapses. "In this day and age, you can see what a split-second hesitate could result in," one former agent remarked. "Could you imagine if the agent didnt respond, and Padilla got on the stage and hit [Noem]?" The agency has been knocked around for months for the egregious security failures in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13 and then nearly two months later during another close call against Trump at his West Palm Beach golf course. And just because its Padilla who was attending a press conference doesnt mean assaults against a Cabinet secretary or president are unlikely to occur. During a December 2008 press conference in Iraq, an Iraqi journalist threw both of his shoes at former President George W. Bush in a pique of outrage. Secret Service agents with their zero-fail mission have to be poised to respond to all types of unexpected threats, which sometimes come with no warning at all. Back in 2005, during Bushs visit to the country of Georgia, a man attempted to assassinate Bush and then-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili by throwing a hand grenade at both of them. "Listen, we dont always know who you are if youre not wearing your [congressional] pin," the source said. "Youre coming at [Noem] in an aggressive manner, and you didnt heed our warnings to stop. If you get into the buffer zone, we have to take you down. All public officials should know, and I would hope understand, that." Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘No Kings' protests to serve as Trump parade counterprogramming
(NewsNation) — As President Trump marks the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army on Saturday with a lavish military parade in Washington, D.C., thousands of anti-Trump protests have been planned across the country. Billed as the 'No Kings' movement — a rejection of what some consider to be Trump's unilateral method of governing — these demonstrations will occur in more than 1,500 U.S. communities, organizers say. 'No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we're taking action to reject authoritarianism — and show the world what democracy really looks like,' the event's website says. Posse Comitatus Act: Does law allow Trump to send troops to LA? Organizers say Trump's multimillion-dollar Army parade is a vanity project that coincides with the president's 79th birthday (it's also occurring on Flag Day). More than 6,000 troops are expected to march near the National Mall, with tanks, armored personnel carriers and aircraft augmenting the festivities. Trump will review the procession, and 200,000 people are expected to attend, weather permitting (NewsNation will stream the event and provide coverage of simultaneous 'No Kings' protests). It begins at 6:30 p.m. Eastern. Saturday's 'No Kings' day of defiance is credited to the 50501 Movement, a grassroots organization. The name 'stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one movement,' according to the group's website. 'Since January, the Trump Administration has continued to attack our civil liberties, take illegal and unconstitutional actions, and gut the public services we pay for with our taxes,' organizers say. 'No Kings' organizers say they are committed to 'nonviolent protest and community safety,' with organizers trained to de-escalate conflicts. Still, some police departments are being cautious about the possibility that things may get out of hand or that some participants will purposely try to instigate violence or damage property. In New York City, an estimated 75,000 protesters are expected to converge in Bryant Park from across the five boroughs. 'When you have 5,000 people on the street, all you need is 20 to be an outside agitator. You don't need 4,999. You have a small number of people that are professionals,' Mayor Eric Adams said Friday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
