The seven years since The Covenant of the Wild was published have seen a number of changes in human attitudes toward animals and the natural world. The central premise of this book—that the relationship between man and domestic animals can be rightly seen as a natural product of evolution, no different from mutualistic relationships that exist throughout nature—is an idea that has now secured an established place in the debate over man's treatment of animals. A number of organized groups dedicated to the responsible use of animals by people have embraced this view, and it seems to have struck a particular chord with conscientious veterinarians, farmers, and hunters who are concerned about their responsibility to the animals that are bound to man by thousands of years of mutual gain. Part of this change came about, I think, because the mutualistic viewpoint adds a scientific dimension to an emotional truth; people who work with animals knew this in their bones all along. Part of it, too, occurred because mutualism stakes out a welcome middle ground in a debate all too often characterized by the extremes.

The extreme abolitionist agenda of the animal-rights groups has made little headway in the past decade, and if anything there has been something of a societal backlash against their more outrageous and criminal acts. The generally favorable press coverage of animal-rights groups that