Suddenly, Mr. Franks realized that he had another meeting. And here we are in a room full of free-ranging rats. I couldn’t just open the door and leave. The mice will definitely run away. But it takes forever to catch each mouse and bring them back to the shed.
“Maybe we should put them back in the cage,” Franks said.
“Oh, okay,” said the researcher.
She opened the cage door. The rats crawled up the legs of the table and returned to their trapped area, where they continued to frolic and play. Franks arrived at her meeting.
This was an example of how building relationships and channels of communication with rats can help you understand them. “Rats can be very sensitive to human interests that may not align with what they want,” Franks says. (This has also been shown in laboratory experiments, where rats are trained to participate in procedures they would not normally enjoy, such as tube feeding.)
As Franks and I both agree, we are entering uncharted territory here. What’s it like to form a social relationship with a wild mouse? Will you hire a mousetrap that tickles it instead of killing it? Will they, like pigeons and other commensal animals, take in rats on downtown streets and parks, while drawing firm territorial lines where they matter most: homes, offices, restaurants?
Sometimes ideas that seem absurd are truths that we have not yet accepted. Years after de Chasseneuse represented Rat in the Autun courtroom, one of the strangest animal prosecutions on record revealed how the famous lawyer would have represented Rat if the trial had proceeded. gave a hint that he would have fully defended the issue.
The lawsuit in question was initiated against this species of beetle Lynchites auratusIn 1587, a beautiful golden-green weevil was discovered in Saint-Julien, France. As in the case of the Autun rats, the defendants were charged with destroying agricultural crops, this time local vineyards. Again, a lawyer was appointed to defend the pests.
Prosecutors relied on a Bible verse that gives humanity dominion over “every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Since weevils do crawl, we were free to decide their fate. The defense, on the other hand, argued that the weevils were part of God’s creation, and that God made the earth fruitful “not only to feed rational humans.”
The trial lasted more than eight months, and at one point a restless St. Julien resident suggested marking an insect sanctuary where the weevils could be fed without harming the vineyards. Weevil defenders were not appeased. They declared the land unsuitable, rejected the offer, and sought the dismissal of the case in accordance with their attorney’s wishes. combined expensesThis means that the accuser will be responsible for paying Weevil’s legal costs. No one today knows how the issue was ultimately decided, as the last page of the court record is corrupted. It looks like it was bitten by some type of rat or beetle.
Is it ridiculous? absolutely. But by putting Weevil on trial, both the defense and prosecution came to agree on one thing we don’t understand today: This means that even if it is the nature of living things to cause trouble to humanity, living things have the right to exist according to their nature.
