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.

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.

> 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?

Is there something that makes raccoons different than say cats in terms of rabies?

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

Most cat breeds still look more or less like their wild relatives.

Probably something like a koala bear

And pugs? What would a pug raccoon look like?

Well this gave me some fun ideas for AI image generation. There goes the rest of my afternoon, thanks!

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.

Fox urine reeks. You don't want to live anywhere near that.

I think dogs in general are smarter than cats.

Are they as randy in real life as Pepe lePew?

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...

Get a pet rat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV9z0c1hjnA

(I'll convince you all to get pet rats eventually!!! :))

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.

Oh right. But how do they taste? Asking for a friend.

It'll be interesting to see what their methodology is. Trapping tends to piss off any raccoon regardless of urban vs rural.

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.

They might even become intelligent!

No, it won't. Rabies might.