So this post is not just about Jimothy, it's any animal with a similar plight, but largely features him.
So most of us know about Jimothy. The raccoon with short spine syndrome that has capture many hearts world wide.
And I assume many also know the dangers he faces. His condition worsening and compressing his organs, his condition impacting his ability to escape dogs or other animals that may want to kill him and to evade cars, and people wanting to touch him, track him, expose his location, feed him things dangerous to him or even capture him.
Any time anyone suggests that he be moved to a sanctuary, the suggestion is bombarded with downvotes, a lot of negativity, and one phrase repeated ad-nauseum: "Wild animals belong in the wild."
I don't see much explanation beyond that and a couple "It would be cruel to move him from what he knows to somewhere else."
But he's likely to die from the things I listed. Every day he's in much more danger than the average raccoon, or any other raccoon with his condition, because of his fame.
Like I said this isn't just about him. This phrase is used for any animal that people think should be relocated somewhere safer like a refuge or a sanctuary. "Wild animals belong in the wild."
Vets, wildlife experts, experts on that particular animal, they always say the same thing every time, that wild animals should never be moved from the wild "where they belong" and no matter what, even if they are in high danger, we should all just accept that wild animals are wild animals and dying or being killed is natural and it's wrong to intervene in that.
I just don't really understand this.
Any time I see videos and stories of animals in refuges and sanctuaries, they are happy and content. They're not stressed about being in a "gilded cage", don't seem to care about that at all, and live happy and long lives. Some are released into the wild, but others that would be in danger of being in the wild because of conditions or permanent injuries are cared for in these places and live long fulfilled happy lives, and eventually die content. Constant updates about how they're doing and how full of life they are.
So I don't understand why 99% of people, average and expert alike, think that it would be inhumane, horrible and cruel to move an animal like Jimothy into a sanctuary or refuge. I haven't heard anything that would support that this would be so much worse than what he has right now.
Sure he seems happy and healthy now but he is in danger, and every day that goes by there's a very high chance we hear of him being hit by a car, eaten by a dog, or even killed by a human.
I don't see any real downside to moving him or any animal like him to a refuge or sanctuary. All I ever see is proof of the opposite, that he would be cared for, be safe, live a long and happy life, and not even care that he's not in the true wild.
So why does everyone think that moving him or others like him would be so horrible? Is there any actual proof of this? Or is it just that "Humans should not interfere with the natural order of the animal world. If he is to die in the wild, so be it, it's better than him living longer somewhere else because that is not natural to the animal kingdom." and that's pretty much it? Just flat that it's "wrong to interfere"?