And you replied: ”I think you need to take a second look at what the word "dominion" means.”
I am defining “dominion”:-). I am making a distinction in my beliefs between “domination and control:” and “dominion” (being responsible for). It doesn’t really matter whether you agree with me. I am explaining my beliefs.
Maybe you missed this paragraph, “Here’s what I believe: There is the mineral kingdom, the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom. Humans have dominion over the other kingdoms. Dominion, not domination. I see you claiming the right to dominate. And I do not agree with you on that. Humans are to be good stewards of the earth and the lessor kingdoms and that does not mean exterminating species because they are difficult or dangerous or cost you money.”
Generally, I would agree with you. While I do not think exterminating a species is a wise move for man/woman exercising his/her dominion, dominion means dominion. It would be their choice, and the consequences theirs to live with. But can one group of Man legitimately exercise dominion over another group of Man, barring him/her from exercising that dominion? Is there a moral code that you're appealing to, which says Man shouldn't exterminate a species if that's what his/her wisdom decides is best?
Though I think your question is both interesting and thought provoking, my personal opinion is that no one has shown “dominion” in this situation. Everyone is attempting to dominate and control. I see the anti-wolf people attempting to dominate and control and I believe that the pro-wolf people also used domination to “get their way”.
Dominion, for me, means a kind of sovereignty that comes from the power gained through responsibility. Domination, on the other hand, is a kind of sovereignty that comes from having the most “might” and “force”. Saddam Hussein used domination and control, not dominion, even though he was sovereign.
We were talking here about our philosophies and our beliefs.
I think the question to answer here is "harmful" to what? Other wild animals? Privately-held property? Privately-owned wildstock?
Here again, I think context is important. dmzTahoe had said that wolves should not be re-introduced because they are harmful. I disagreed. And we can go back to my earlier paragraph to see where I’m coming from: “. And I do not agree with you on that. Humans are to be good stewards of the earth and the lessor kingdoms and that does not mean exterminating species because they are difficult or dangerous or cost you money.” Wolves have a place in Nature, imo, and therefore it is wrong to exterminate them or attempt to exterminate them, for solely financial reasons. Same with grizzly bears, cougars, coyotes, whales, dolphins, tigers, lions, etc
Btw, I also agree with President Bush that in a tough job/financial market sometimes the thing to do is get training and change careers. In other words any particular "way of making a living" is not an entitlement, imo.
” Do the rights of the property owner supercede the rights of the (individual) wolf?”
I have said that I have no problem with people shooting wolves that come onto their property. I don't necessarily think it is the best solution, but I do think that people have the right to defend their property.
That's a whole different discussion here. You've switched from "wolves belong in X region" to "wolves belong in Nature" (odd that you capitolized it - typo?). Maybe the best way to cut through the issues is to ask bigger overarching question, like "does Man's dominion extend to and over Nature, or is Man "under" Nature and therefore holds no greater "rights" than the wolf?"
I refer you again to my earlier paragraph: “Humans have dominion over the other kingdoms.” I believe that a human life is more valuable than an animal life and an animal life is more valuable than a plant life – but that a plant life has immense value…an old oak tree, for example, is a treasure. That doesn’t mean that oak trees should never be cut down, but it does mean that they are wonderful and valuable. Just as some individual wolves will be killed by humans – it is not the place of the far right to exterminate the species. That is my view.
If mankind reaches a point of taking responsibility for Nature, then mankind would be demonstrating dominion over Nature.
Why do you consider it odd to capitalize Nature? I capitalize it out of respect. Just as I capitalize the word, Soul. Here is the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
I'm going to read over it and get back with you later.
I know that it goes against your personal beliefs. A life is a life, after all. But this article is accurate, managing wolves is much more difficult than managing cats or coyotes. And does take a heavy hand, just to keep them under control. Which as this article explains is critical to keeping balance. It described the "bouncing ball" effect. This is the natural cycle, which is very much more cruel than modern game management. The natural cycle also includes starvation and disease, which is not mentioned here. This causes great fluctuation in animal populations- explosions followed by die-offs. The natural cycle is cruel and just plain gross. And has been effectively ended in the last century where managed hunting has been practiced.
Just something to consider.