<doc.id=0130.a2>
<title> The Preservation of Wolves - a critical issue </title>
Long before man set foot in Scandinavia, packs of wolves roamed the peninsula which today form the countries of Sweden and Norway. Then, following the retreating mass of ice, the first humans entered the wild country from the south and conflict arose between the two species. Both being predatory and hunting the same game, wolf and man long lived as bitter enemies and there were casualties on both sides. Soon, however, man gained the upper hand due to her dexterity and ingenuity. She crafted weapons with which the wolves could not compete and before long the packs found it safest to stay out of her way, as she, as is the nature of her species, continued to colonise the land. 
	The situation has changed greatly since that first encounter between humans and wolves in Scandinavia. Humans have, indeed, colonised the peninsula - and, in fact, the world - and pushed the diminished packs back to the verge of extinction. This atrocity was justified by the "danger" that the large packs presented to humans and their livestock, as is depicted in many a fairy tale (for instance the story of Little Red Ridinghood). Still in these "enlightened" times, wolves are considered dangerous and some voices cry out for their extermination. This essay is a cry for their preservation.

The main argument one hears against the wolves, comes from the Saami community up in the north. They complain about wolves eating their reindeer - which is still their main source of income - and other livestock. Of course I have sympathy with them for their economic losses, but one must bear in mind that wolves fed on reindeer long before humans and that they, in their diminished packs, often are too few to go after big game such as elks. I do not think that we because of this should consider wolves as vermin, to be killed off for the sake of our convenience. The wolves in the Sweden-Norway peninsula are the last remnants of a once large population. We are not the ones to decide whether they should live on as a species or go extinct merely because of our so-called superiority. Our own interests as inhabitants of Earth and representatives of life actually demands the opposite: that we should help our furry companions to live on and prosper. Because, as has been stated by such renowned biologists as Richard Dawkins and Steven J. Gould, a multitude of species increases the chances of some of them surviving a possible (and rather likely) future catastrophe and those species would then carry with them the seeds of future life on this planet. Where would we have been if the dinosaurs would have exterminated the little furry rodent that was lurking in the bushes? That little mammal survived the natural disaster that killed off the mighty dinosaurs and went forth to multiply and evolve until, finally, we came along; the descendants of "vermin", if you will.
	 A person vaguely familiar with evolutionary biology could here remark that it is only natural that some species go extinct, that it is part of the natural selection process so bravely proclaimed by Darwin. This is true and I will not argue with that statement. It is, however, not natural that this selection takes place at a rate of fifty to one hundred going extinct every day. Most of them are insects and had yet to be discovered, but that does not lessen the tragedy of their death.

Another argument with which I have been faced, was that since man is clearly superior to the wolf in intelligence (I have arguments against that statement alone, but I will leave them out in this essay), why should we not kill them? What is the use of having them around?
	Apart from the reasons I have already stated above, I have yet another to ad. Compassion. We should let them live out of compassion for them as a fellow species. Since one keeps hearing the preposterous nonsense about humans "being set apart from the animals", it seems we pride ourselves on our intelligence and complex emotions, since, basically, that is all that really sets us apart from other animals. With this in mind the first argument I stated, that the animal life on Earth should be preserved in the interest of the continuance of life, should appeal to our intelligence and the second, to feel compassion rather than hatred, should certainly appeal both to our emotions and sense of moral. The Saami community should receive financial compensation to help them cope with the loss of the reindeer, a loss that really is not too great, although I am sure it is keenly felt. This compensation could be provided either by the government or a fund especially designated for this purpose. It is in our power to let them live, therefor I think we should.
</doc>