|
Doesn't matter whether one is religious or atheistic: We are but a part of nature (Biology applies to all life of whatever sort) and the key fact is quite simple: Nature bats last.
As tool users, we dominate all other life on the planet. Simple as that. And, having accomplished that, we create some form of government so that some few can dominate the rest of us. It's what we do, and is merely a different form of predation. Congress and Wall Street come to mind.
Okay, so then we start arguing and squabbling about right and wrong as such moral issues pertain to animals. It's more of what we do.
Which is an around the shrubs and brush way of going back to wolves.
I guess one of my questions has to do with how do we know about comparative behavior of re-introduced wolves versus the original wolves. And, why is it that way?
From my reading, it seems that the 1800s saw more commentary about wolves in forested areas of the west, moreso than in the plains. The coyote was first called the "prairie wolf", as he was far more common there than the wolf. Wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin apparently are more woodland creatures than open-country creatures.
I dunno.
What I do know as a moderator who has read umpteen and a half threads about wolves is that there are many sincere and honest folks in conflict about what wolves are, how they behave, and what we should do to deal with both the wolf problem and the people problem.
Looks like we need a few dozen Farley Mowats who are more objective in their assessments but who are willing to spend the time in study.
So y'all offer a few more comments and then we'll close this go-round on the subject.
|