which — I have come to think — is more of a crime thannhaving taken them home, though not one punishable bynlaw.nBut, puritans object, people would trade in feathers!nThough I doubt it, I might allow that trade in authenticallynendangered species parts be under heavy license. As fornother things, if your bureaucratic mind demands tidiness,nwhy not a roadkill permit? I don’t really think it’s necessary,nbut it should satisfy even rules addicts.nHawks? Other birds? Read Bill Gilbert in the May ’85nAudubon: “The solution is to make it easier and morenrespectable for [a blue-jay scholar] to enjoy blue jays rathernthan making it more difficult for others to enjoy hawks.”nGilbert is one of the best spokesmen for hands-on I know;nhe argues that hands-on experiences “benefit wildlife bynexpanding its genuine constituency.”nOne more example: the Galifornia condor. Is it reallynbiophilic to allow a species we have brought to the edge ofnextinction to go out without a final heroic effort? Whatnpossible harm would it do to either the individuals (whonsurely have no abstract conception of freedom) or the dyingnspecies to allow a zoo or even a private raptor breeder tonattempt captive breeding? Thirty years of governmentabettednhands-off have not prevented the present disaster.nEnough. There is a thread running through all this soundnand fury — that only individuals have passions for animals.nThat biophilic individuals will donate their time and moneynto save living things. That biophilia is best developed bynhands-on intimate contact of child and animal. (No, I don’tnthink petting zoos are enough.)nWe cannot just stand aside and observe without losingnmore than we gain. Today, our species dominates thenplanetary ecosystem; we are stewards, like it or not. “Handson”nbreeds empathy and respect. Despite their squabbles innrecent years, there is no fundamental quarrel between thentraditional naturalist and conservationist and the Burkeannconservative. (The hard-core libertarian may resent anynrestraint or may innovatively say that conflicts would bfnminimized when all resources are owned privately and sonaccountable.) “Politically speaking, not all conservationistsnmay be conservatives,” said James Kilpatrick a few yearsnback, “but if the appellation has any meaning, everynprincipled conservative should count himself a conservationist.”nA world with healthy traditions benefits from and isnenriched by hunter naturalists, keeper naturalists, and backyardnexplorers, all proponents of the old ways of direct study.nWe need Konrad Lorenzes and E.O. Wilsons to give us anperspective on our lives. If we encourage hands-on methods,nwe fertilize the ground in which they grow.nTHE CHRISTIAN AND CREATIONnby Peter J. HillnWhere does man fit into nature? What is his responsento the created universe? Lynn White has argued thatnthe Ghristian position is at the very heart of the environmentalncrisis. He, and others, see the biblical view of thendominion of man over nature as being responsible for ournmisuse of our natural resources. White argues, “Both ournpresent science and our present technology are so tincturednwith orthodox Christian arrogance towards nature that nonsolution for our ecological crisis can be expected from themnalone.”nIt is true that man has a unique role in God’s order.nGenesis 1 states:nThen God said, “Let us make man in our image,nin our likeness, and let them rule over the fish ofnthe sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,nover all the earth, and over all the creatures thatnmove along the ground” (v. 26).nGod blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitfulnand increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.nPeter Hill is professor of economics at Montana StatenUniversity and research associate for Political EconomynResearch Center, Bozeman, Montana. This paper wasnprepared for a Liberty Fund/Political Economy ResearchnCenter conference, “Christian Perspectives on thenEconomy,” in Tucson, Arizona, February 27-March I,n1986.nRule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the airnand over every living creature that moves on thenground” (v. 28).nThe major verbs in these passages, radah (to rule) andnkabash (to subdue), have a very firm, almost harsh ring.nKabash can be translated “to tread under foot” or “tonconquer.” Likewise radah can mean “to tread” or “tonprevail against” — certainly a dominant relationship betweennman and creation is implied.nHowever, the view that man is to have dominion overnnature must be informed by other passages. Psalm 8 impartsna sense of awe and wonder to us at our being made a part ofnGod’s magnificent creation. Genesis 2:15 also charges mannto “care for” the Garden of Eden, softening the commandsnof the previous chapter. In addition, we have been givennspecific instructions for the careful stewardship of the landn(Lev. 25:1-5), domesticated animals (Dent. 25:4), andnwildlife (Deut. 22:6).nIn the Old Testament, dominion was often used tondescribe the rule of a king over his subjects, but this rulenentailed privileges and responsibilities. Numerous passagesncondemn rulers who exercised their privileges but did notnfulfill their responsibilities towards those under them. Ezekieln34:1-10 recounts God’s condemnation of those whonabrogate these standards.nWhat can be done so that we act more responsiblyntowards nature? Reform is possible in two areas: in thennnFEBRUARY 1988 / 19n