The wolf was long an important factor in Navajo life. With the destruction of the wild wolf in the American Southwest, a vital link to the past-and perhaps the future-has been lost to the Navajo people. In recent years, however, an effort has been made to restore wolves to their native habitat. If the wolf recovery program is successful,what effect will it have on the Navajo people? Will the return of the wolf help restore the balance and harmony that once existed? THE WOLF IN THE SOUTHWEST AND NAVAJO COUNTRY Sometime shortly after his arrival into the Southwest in 1917, US Forest Service biologist Aldo Leopold participated in the killing of a wolf somewhere in the White Mountains, which stretch across the borderlands of south-central Arizona and New Mexico. Leopold and a number of companions were eating lunch on a high rimrock position overlooking a river when they spotted a female wolf and her six grown pups playing in an open area below. Immediately, the men pulled out their rifles and “with more excitement than accuracy,” began blasting away at the family. When the rifles were empty and the shooting stopped, only the female wolf was down and one pup was seen dragging its leg into a rockslide. Leopold, who would go on to become perhaps the most famous conservationist in American history, described the death of this wolf-and his own personal transformation-in one of the most quoted passages in the literature of wildlife conservation: We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes-something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

DEMONS AND FLICKERING CANDLES While browsing through the stacks of my favorite bookstore I came across a title which caught my attention, not to mention my imagination. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995), is the latest work by Carl Sagan, probably the most widely read and respected popular scientist of our time. Sagan, a professor of astronomy and space sciences at Cornell University, is perhaps best known for his book Cosmos (1980), and for the immensely popular and educational television series of the same name. He also wrote The Cosmic Connection (1973), The Dragons of Eden (1977), and Broca’s Brain (1979), to name just a few of his better known works. Intrigued by the title, and admittedly a long-time Carl Sagan fan myself, I eagerly took up The Demon-Haunted World, and with only the slightest wince of pain at the price, handed over the $29.95 (plus tax) to the cashier.

As I read through Eric M. Riggs' comments on my essay "American Indian Spirituality, Traditional Knowledge, and the 'Demon-Haunted' World of Western Science," I was more taken by the things we agreed on than the areas on which we disagree. Riggs acknowledges the "all too common transgressions made in the name of science or improved technology." He also admits that "science tends commonly to carry with it a sense of invulnerability, a sense of possible omniscience, and paradoxically a kind of narrow-mindedness. These shared observations pretty much form the foundation of my entire essay. We do, (however, disagree on the extent and depth of the conflict between science and spirituality, as well as the position that Carl Sa an assumed on such matters. It is to these disagreement that I will direct my response to Professor Riggs. Riggs states that "the only conflict between science and spirituality comes from those at the extremes of each." He may be right. I believe, however, that defining extremism is a rather nebulous proposition which depends largely on the person making that judgment. In other words, if someone disagrees with us on an issue we feel strongly about, we tend to view and label that person an extremist. Moreover, extremism in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I would argue that the forces which resulted in much, if not most, of mankind's progress were initiated by people others considered to be extremists. The key is to have someone else who ultimately finds the common ground.