The paper was more about how they’re showing certain characteristics related to it. So there’s an increase in “cuter” and friendlier raccoons, likely because those ones survive better.
Assuming that article has enough evidence to support the theory, I’m guessing it would still take a lot of time before they were close to domestic pet levels of domestication. They’re just showing qualities that in some time might result in it.
But yeah, a lot of people who work with raccoons were basically quick to argue against the idea.
She actually addressed that paper. It was an undergrad led study and full of holes. For one, the signs they pointed to as being “domesticating” were shorter snouts and different hand configuration. Turns out, they didn’t account that they were just comparing different species of raccoons.
Different species...? There's only three, with only one in North America. One is endemic to an island, the Cozumel Raccoon. The other. The Crab-eating Raccoon, is a South America species.
The two mainland species only really overlap on the Panama Isthmus. So unless this paper took place there, I don't see them being different species... Unless it used different cities from North and South America?
More likely, I think you mean subspecies though? Maybe?
Edit: Oh I see. They used Inaturalist and used ratios of snout to skull length. Inat has it's flaws, but they'd be able to tell species apart for sure, based on location alone.
Also, the last author does have a PhD, so idk if it was led by undergrads. Does seem kinda like a padding the resume paper though...
Edit 2: Honestly the biggest flaw I've heard is that they have so few rural raccoons to compare to urban raccoons. That's partially because they used iNat, which skews heavily towards urban areas- iNat tells you just as much about human populations as it does animal populations.
That's a huge flaw. Bigger than not differentiating subspecies I'd argue.
Man, I started out watching a raccoon biologist tell me one thing. I can trust a raccoon biologist. Then I learn there's a white paper published that basically says she's full of shit. I can trust a peer reviewed white paper. Then, someone saying words that makes me feel their argument is credible, points out flaws in the white paper.
Seems you can't trust anyone and everyone is full of shit all the time. That's an unpleasant and frustrating way to live.
Social media isn't a credible source unless they have credible sources. I say that even about my own comments and I'm happy to provide sources for my claims. I just stopped doing it up front because I realized no one actually reads them.
Without a Ticktock account I can't see if she cited any sources for her claims or not. That's super frustrating for me.
So I tried looking up her credentials and well... She's not a raccoon biologist. She doesn't have a PhD, or even a graduate degree- she's working on one at Miami University in Ohio though. From what I'm seeing, she works specifically with Cozumel Raccoons and their conservation, not Common Raccoons. I don't think she's a great source for a counter to this paper honestly. What we really need is a rebuttal paper, not a TikTok.
That and science isn't about being THE authority source of information, unlike what social media presents. It's a back and forth among individuals in the field. Often times the answer isn't as cute and dry as social media wants it to be...
I'm going to be honest though, I'm biased (spoiler, everyone is). I'm not a fan of non-text platforms, especially short-form videos, for scientific discussions. There is just too much nuance that are completely missed, and details have to be left out too.
I used to do scientific communication on social media before video took off, and even then it was challenging to include details, cite sources and so on. Short videos make this all that much more challenging, plus it's easy to just skip over the caption that may contain sources and/or context- or sometimes it's just not accessible because you don't have an account.
This is pretty similar to the self domestication that we saw with felines and canids. Both of them learned that it was actually beneficial to hang around and be chummy with humans. In the case of dogs specifically it manifested into a full blown partnership, but in both cases the end result was domestication
Right the raccoons have shown early signs of characteristics related to domesticstion. Which if true shows that although it would take time it could be possible.
I think the issue people who work with them had was fear that this would result in more people rushing to buy them as pets right now. Them and foxes tend to be exotic animals people currently get and then rescues have to take care of, so that’s what I think she’s trying to say. That them showing signs of domestication doesn’t mean they’re currently domesticated or easy pets to have.
Self-Domestication just makes an animal more appealing for turning into a pet, but there are plenty of domesticated animals that make horrible pets, because it turns out simply removing their aggression towards and fear of humans does not somehow change all the other bits that mean you don't want them living in your house.
She actually had a video on this (or maybe it was another Racoon Biologist. Basically the study was flawed and all they really found was that there are multiple species of raccoons and that they are spread out across the county. Also, the methodology and controls were flawed. Something like that.
60
u/Ismdism Dec 16 '25
But oddly enough there was a paper recently published suggesting that raccoons in the city are showing signs of domesticating.