very friendly squirrel

bongorob

bongorob

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
I was walking through the park yesterday when I felt something touch my leg. I looked down and a grey squirrel was looking back at me while it hung on to the upper part of my leg. After a second or two it jumped off and walked away. I have often had them come quite close but this is the first time I have had one attach itself to me.
 
What a wonderful experience! (In my eyes ofcourse, being a Rodent lover! :D) I have seen many photos of members of the public being able to hold, and feed wild Grey Squirrels in cities such as London and Manchester.

Just out of interest though, were you carrying any food with you at the time, and where were you when this happened?
 
Paix I had no food with me. A short distance in front of me was a woman with a pushchair who may have just fed the squirrels, but I did not see her do so.

Chlidonias we do not have rabies in the UK.
 
bongorob said:
Paix I had no food with me. A short distance in front of me was a woman with a pushchair who may have just fed the squirrels, but I did not see her do so.

Chlidonias we do not have rabies in the UK.
Click to expand...

My first thought too!

:p

Hix
 
Young squirrels are often very tame, especcially when they just left their nest. 2 years ago when I was in a forest with 2 friends of mine, we had a very nice experience with this squirrel: Eekhoorn | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
he played with us for 15 minutes.
 
From my time in wildlife rehab: squirrels are very tame and "friendly" until they get their adult hormones - then they become wild vicious demons!!
 
Naimsindi said:
From my time in wildlife rehab: squirrels are very tame and "friendly" until they get their adult hormones - then they become wild vicious demons!!
Click to expand...

Sounds like some girls I used to know.

:p

Hix
 
bongorob said:
Chlidonias we do not have rabies in the UK.
Click to expand...

The last recorded endemic fatality of rabies in the UK was in 2002, after a Scottish bat conservation worker was bitten by a bat with the disease. But as a general rule, rabies is not a threat to the average person in the UK.
 
Another puckish imputation, @Pygathrix. Additionally, your comparison falls short: the Rabies virus IS a member of the genus Lyssavirus, i.e. a lyssavirus. Both the "classical" rabies virus and the two European Bat Lyssa virus subtypes will lead to fatal rabies in all its symptoms, if not treated correctly & in time. It doesn't matter whether you're bitten by a tiger, wolf, cat or fox that is infected with any of the mentioned lyssaviruses; the infectious outcome is the same. The only difference is the magnitude of the bite...;)
 
My source read that Lyssavirus is rabies like, which I take to mean not rabies per se.

If I was wrong I have learnt something, if it is not 'classical' rabies then I agree with Pygathrix, it is arguing for the sake of it.

I have no knowledge of rabies or Lyssavirus, so I have to accept what I have read on the Health Protection Agency Report.
 
Sun Wukong said:
Another puckish imputation, @Pygathrix. Additionally, your comparison falls short: the Rabies virus IS a member of the genus Lyssavirus, i.e. a lyssavirus. Both the "classical" rabies virus and the two European Bat Lyssa virus subtypes will lead to fatal rabies in all its symptoms, if not treated correctly & in time. It doesn't matter whether you're bitten by a tiger, wolf, cat or fox that is infected with any of the mentioned lyssaviruses; the infectious outcome is the same. The only difference is the magnitude of the bite...;)
Click to expand...

Is it a puckish imputation merely to disagree with you? I bow to your authority on Lyssaviruses/rabies; however you argue poorly when your only citation does not in fact agree with you:

"European Bat Lyssavirus (EBLV) is a rabies-like virus, which infects insectivorous bats in Europe. It comes from the same family of viruses as rabies, but is a different strain. There are two subtypes of EBLV designated 1 and 2."

Lions and tigers come from the same family, and I would guess that to be mauled by either would be a similar and probably indistinguishable experience, but that does not make them the same species.
 
Pygathrix said:
Is it a puckish imputation merely to disagree with you?
Click to expand...

"You're just arguing for the sake of it" is more than just disagreement, but provocation. So is the incorrect wolf/fox comparison.

The link I provided you with provides the basic information, yet in a form understandable for laymen.

"European Bat Lyssavirus (...) comes from the same family of viruses as rabies, but is a different strain."

EBLV is one of several genotypes ("species") of the genus Lyssaviridae, which belongs to the family Rhabdoviridae. So is the "classic" rabies virus (RABV). All these genotypes are known to cause lethal encephalitis and are suspected or even known to harbour zoonotic potential. Some lead to the known rabies (or rabies-like) symptoms (like Australian Bat Lyssa Virus and EBLV), some don't (like Mokola Virus).

The main difference between the classic rabies virus and the other genotypes is that the classic rabies virus has the largest diversity of (potential and known) carrier species, i.e. pretty much every mammalian species, and that worldwide. EBLV 1 & 2 have mainly been diagnosed in European insectivorous microchiroptera, i.e. bats, and that in Europe. However, EBLV has also been diagnosed in other mammals (hence the squirrel caveat) and has also caused human fatalities in the UK.
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/documents/368/bat-rabies-scot.pdf

So to say that there is generally no rabies in the UK is, in regard to EBLV, not correct. The bottom line is:
European bats in the UK can spread a viral disease whose symptoms and outcome ( if left untreated) are equivalent to classic rabies virus infection, i.e. "rabies". Whether you divide between "classic" and "bat" rabies doesn't change the approach.

Viruses are no lions, tigers or any other animals. The comparison is thus, right from the start, invalid.
 
You have missed my point but never mind, this was going nowhere. As usual, you believe yourself to be right, I can live with that.
 
Then what was your point? To mock me and contradict me just for the sake of it?

I'm not interested to "believe [my]self to be right". Instead, I hope that I could teach you and others something important that might benefit to know any of you one day.
 
I wasn't trying to mock you. I don't like the way you kindly bestow knowledge. These discussions always go on in the same way and I am sure are boring for others to read, so I will not post further. Kind regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top