• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hunter pays $350,000 to shoot black rhino: 'I believe in survival of species'

While some are berating the Namibians for their wildlife management practices, let's remember that both in the United States and Canada we do the exact same thing. Each of our governments in their various jurisdictions issue licenses to hunt all kinds of wildlife at various times of the year, in various locations, and mostly it is to manage the size and health of each species. These licenses, in large part, fund the work of conservationists and environmentalists and the government departments that manage them. Without licenses to fish and hunt, wildlife in North America would be in danger and our society would also be in danger in many places. It's a delicate balance and I think we do a pretty good job of it. I don't begrudge the Africans for doing likewise and I wish them well in their endeavours.
 
While some are berating the Namibians for their wildlife management practices, let's remember that both in the United States and Canada we do the exact same thing. Each of our governments in their various jurisdictions issue licenses to hunt all kinds of wildlife at various times of the year, in various locations, and mostly it is to manage the size and health of each species. These licenses, in large part, fund the work of conservationists and environmentalists and the government departments that manage them. Without licenses to fish and hunt, wildlife in North America would be in danger and our society would also be in danger in many places. It's a delicate balance and I think we do a pretty good job of it. I don't begrudge the Africans for doing likewise and I wish them well in their endeavours.

Yes we do that. Nature has a natural way of balancing out, but we've completely ****ed up the balance in many cases. With deer, we've taken up a lot of their habitat all the while eliminating many of their predators. So, of course, in order to eliminate the surplus of deer, we have culls. And so on.
 
Very first line in the thread but I'm not surprised you didn't read it. So I will paste it here for you.

Well not the shooting part that was about culling a sterile male. Please tell me again how you failed to read the op.

LOL... so we quote members now to make our points? LOL So basically, if a member here says that homosexuality is made-up, then I can quote him/her to make a point? Stop it, my sides are hurting!!!

I read the article that was linked, so it's not my failure. No where did it say anything about the rhino, besides the fat that it was a rhino.
 
Yes we do that. Nature has a natural way of balancing out, but we've completely ****ed up the balance in many cases. With deer, we've taken up a lot of their habitat all the while eliminating many of their predators. So, of course, in order to eliminate the surplus of deer, we have culls. And so on.

Good morning Middle - hope all it well,

Not to be disrespectful, but what you state is the problem with most environmentalists and animal rights proponents. You blame man for encroaching on natural habitats without acknowledging that man is, in effect, a natural predator of every other species on the planet. But even as predators, man is the only one with the capacity to mitigate our footprint in ways such as licensing hunts and culling of wildlife that has benefited from our encroachment. I'd say, generally speaking, that those closest to nature are also those most respectful of nature. They live with and support nature every day, not just marching in some protest in a concrete jungle miles from nature. Listening to some environmentalists and conservationists, I'd swear they'd gladly support a human cull rather than license the shooting of any deer.

Canada is a responsible partner with nature - that's all we can hope, realistically, to be.
 
This was all about the thrill for the hunter. I wish people wouldn't pretend that he did this to advance the survival of the species or for some positive reasons. It's dishonest. This was a trophy hunt, nothing more and nothing less.
 
This was all about the thrill for the hunter. I wish people wouldn't pretend that he did this to advance the survival of the species or for some positive reasons. It's dishonest. This was a trophy hunt, nothing more and nothing less.

Good morning TB,

You're only looking at one side of the equation. Of course the hunter did it for his own personal reasons. Why else pay $350,000 if not for the experience and the thrill? But the other side of the coin is the Namibian conservationists and species management specialists. They saw a need to eradicate one animal from a herd in order for the herd to expand and prosper and they saw a way to acquire much needed dollars for their programs in order to do it. It's nothing different from what we do here in North America. When deer or black bears or coyotes or whatever get to a point where they need to be culled to better manage, we issue licenses to hunters to do the work for us rather than spend $millions to have government employees do it. In effect, we hire people who pay us to do the work for us. In a sense, it's brilliant and self perpetuating. One of the few things I'd say government here does well. I can't criticize the Namibians for doing likewise.
 
Good morning TB,

You're only looking at one side of the equation. Of course the hunter did it for his own personal reasons. Why else pay $350,000 if not for the experience and the thrill? But the other side of the coin is the Namibian conservationists and species management specialists. They saw a need to eradicate one animal from a herd in order for the herd to expand and prosper and they saw a way to acquire much needed dollars for their programs in order to do it. It's nothing different from what we do here in North America. When deer or black bears or coyotes or whatever get to a point where they need to be culled to better manage, we issue licenses to hunters to do the work for us rather than spend $millions to have government employees do it. In effect, we hire people who pay us to do the work for us. In a sense, it's brilliant and self perpetuating. One of the few things I'd say government here does well. I can't criticize the Namibians for doing likewise.

Good morning, no I'm not looking at one side of the equation. I'm very familiar with all sides of the equation here. I've posted in the past about what I do for animals in other parts of the world. My post is correct, thanks.
 
LOL... so we quote members now to make our points? LOL So basically, if a member here says that homosexuality is made-up, then I can quote him/her to make a point? Stop it, my sides are hurting!!!
Well I found that fact in three articles in one Google search. So no, I'm going by what was actually reported.

Washington post said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/05/21/the-texas-hunter-who-paid-350000-to-kill-an-endangered-black-rhino-has-bagged-his-prey/

The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage.

Fox8 said:
http://fox8.com/2015/05/20/hunter-pays-350000-to-kill-endangered-black-rhino/

Rhinos are intensely territorial and will often kill each other in gruesome fights.

Knowlton is targeting one of four black rhinos at the top of the government list, the ones considered “high priority threats to the herd.”

Pix11 said:
http://pix11.com/2015/05/20/hunter-pays-350000-to-kill-endangered-black-rhino-in-namibia/

Knowlton’s hunt targeted a specific rhino — one of four — that was considered a high-priority threat to the herd. Last year, the rhino killed another bull in a gruesome fight.


I read the article that was linked, so it's not my failure. No where did it say anything about the rhino, besides the fat that it was a rhino.
Well read the op next time and Google the story to verify. You failed to do that so you don't have all the facts.
 
The rhino was apparently an old rhino that no longer bred but was chasing off other potential male mates. I understand the reasoning, but I feel like they should have just moved it instead of killing it. The hunting of these animals should not be encouraged under any circumstances. Efforts to save endangered species should be getting enough funding without relying on hunters willing to pay top dollar to kill these animals.

Hunter pays £225,000 to shoot black rhino: 'I believe in survival of species' | Environment | The Guardian

A US hunter who paid $350,000 (£225,000) to kill a black rhino in Namibia has successfully shot the animal, saying his actions would help protect the critically endangered species. Corey Knowlton, from Texas, downed the rhino with a high-powered rifle after a three-day hunt through the bush with government officials on hand to ensure he killed the correct animal. Knowlton, 36, won the right to shoot the rhino at an auction – attracting criticism, and even death threats, from conservationists. He took a CNN camera crew on the hunt to try to show why he believed the killing was justified. “The whole world knows about this hunt and I think it’s extremely important that people know it’s going down the right way, in the most scientific way that it can possibly happen,” Knowlton told CNN. “People have a problem just with the fact that I like to hunt … I want to see the black rhino as abundant as it can be. I believe in the survival of the species.” Since 2012, Namibia has sold five licences a year to kill individual rhinos, saying the money is essential to fund conservation projects and anti-poaching protection.

Yeah, the problem is that culling old rhinos that no longer reproduce but chase away healthy males capable of reproducing brings in big bucks. You can say that it's better to relocate, and maybe it is. But how much money have you contributed to the conservation of the species? Probably not over a quarter million.
 
This was all about the thrill for the hunter. I wish people wouldn't pretend that he did this to advance the survival of the species or for some positive reasons. It's dishonest. This was a trophy hunt, nothing more and nothing less.

OK. So it was a trophy hunt that eliminated a non-reproducing rhino that was posing a threat to the heard and brought in 350,000 dollars.
 
We are introducing shortcuts into their social evolution for profit... Its all just a convenient excuse. Im sorry. That old Rhino is MEANT to chase the young ones away until its time for him to be dethroned by one that can. Dont blame the old rhino. Blame the people destabilizing their living zones and poachers. Shame on you guys for trying to blame the rhino for being a rhino.
 
Wrong.
If you don't like what someone is saying don't listen to them. :roll:




" The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers

Exactly. And if you don't like hearing someone tell you to shut up then don't listen to them. See? Free speech for all.
 
Well I found that fact in three articles in one Google search. So no, I'm going by what was actually reported.








Well read the op next time and Google the story to verify. You failed to do that so you don't have all the facts.


:doh :lamo :screwy: :failpail:
 
How immature. You could simply admit that you were wrong

I have been here much longer than yourself, so my expectations are much higher. When an OP makes a claim, then it's up to the OP to back it up. It's not up to me to google as *I* am NOT the one making the claim. On a message board, you have to back up your ****.
 
sucks to be them but given how most animals die-probably a lot less pain

Never in my life will I understand the boner one gets when one shoots an innocent animal so they can put their heads on a plaque and hang them in a room with other like trophies. I don't see how anyone can think it's something to be proud of... unless the other animal had a gun too.
 
Good morning Middle - hope all it well,

Not to be disrespectful, but what you state is the problem with most environmentalists and animal rights proponents. You blame man for encroaching on natural habitats without acknowledging that man is, in effect, a natural predator of every other species on the planet. But even as predators, man is the only one with the capacity to mitigate our footprint in ways such as licensing hunts and culling of wildlife that has benefited from our encroachment. I'd say, generally speaking, that those closest to nature are also those most respectful of nature. They live with and support nature every day, not just marching in some protest in a concrete jungle miles from nature. Listening to some environmentalists and conservationists, I'd swear they'd gladly support a human cull rather than license the shooting of any deer.

Canada is a responsible partner with nature - that's all we can hope, realistically, to be.

G'day, CJ :)

I wouldn't not say that the "man" of today is a natural predator of deer like we were in the past. And face it... most Canadians do not hunt and most do not eat deer for the heck of it, let alone to survive. To most Canadians nowdays, deer are cute unless you whack 'em with your car. Our urban sprawl have encroached their land and they now have to adapt. Let me also add that we've killed off coyotes, wolves and cougars here in Ontario, all who still to this day would find deer a great source of protein.

I do agree that deer hunters -- for the most part -- are excellent conservationists.
 
Never in my life will I understand the boner one gets when one shoots an innocent animal so they can put their heads on a plaque and hang them in a room with other like trophies. I don't see how anyone can think it's something to be proud of... unless the other animal had a gun too.

I agree. Now maybe battling a lion to the death and your only weapon is a dagger. THAT is worth mounting head as a trophy. But thats not what im hear to argue about. Its like they are character assassinating a damn animal to justify profit.

Why not slap volenteer women in a charity to raise money for womens abuse awareness? The volenteer woman can be a real big huge bitch that everyone hates, maybe commited a few crimes. Then society auctions off the right to backhand the **** out of her for donations.

If we are going down this road then can I be hired to punch deathrow inmates to death as an execution to practice martial arts? Think of all the money we could save plus i would get to hone my strikes to the point of proven devastation.
 
Never in my life will I understand the boner one gets when one shoots an innocent animal so they can put their heads on a plaque and hang them in a room with other like trophies. I don't see how anyone can think it's something to be proud of... unless the other animal had a gun too.


whatever floats your boat. I don't hunt stuff for trophies either-when I shot deer it was mainly does since they were better eating. I have a few African heads on the wall-yeah we ate them too

I don't know anyone who gets a boner. It appears this is just another case of cultural differences-one side sees hunting as awful and wants to impose human values to animals (innocent) and others see such positions as being emotional and silly
 
Yep he is full of those (stupid comments).
It will of course seem stupid if you do not share my perception on this matter. I am not a human supremacist. I do not consider our species to be most special or unique organisms on this planet, and, in fact, we are actually inferior in many respects. This is especially true when we consider the senses, adaptability, and sheer power of many animals. That we think of ourselves as the pinnacle of everything is the result of social conditioning rather than facing reality.

you are right-I do put humans ahead of say mosquitos, ticks, highly venomous spiders, sewer rats and other things I kill as fast as I can
Here is another pathetic attempt to understand my perspective. "Turtledude" lays out several species that are constantly stereotyped as pests and undesirable creatures of the animal kingdom. Prejudice is his friend here. He belittles my position, of course, by implying that I care more for these creatures than I do humans. Who cares if these animals possess intelligence and capacities for pain and emotion (especially the rat)?! They're ugly! They need to be eradicated. And certainly the animal rights movement as a whole focuses on more than just these four species, and is dedicated to showing how animals have similar interests to our own, not that they matter more or less than human beings... Clearly he knows very little about this actual movement.

That doesn't make them equal.

No our higher intelligence makes us higher life forms.
They are all equal in having the capacity to suffer and that they strive for happiness, and this is hardly disputable.

How you measure equality is through the intelligence of others obviously. I would ask where the line is for that? How much "intelligence" must an organism have in order for you consider them equal? Do all humans possess the same amount of intelligence? Is it possible that there are some animals that exceed the intelligence of human beings such as infants or the mentally disabled?
 
It will of course seem stupid if you do not share my perception on this matter. I am not a human supremacist. I do not consider our species to be most special or unique organisms on this planet, and, in fact, we are actually inferior in many respects. This is especially true when we consider the senses, adaptability, and sheer power of many animals. That we think of ourselves as the pinnacle of everything is the result of social conditioning rather than facing reality.


Here is another pathetic attempt to understand my perspective. "Turtledude" lays out several species that are constantly stereotyped as pests and undesirable creatures of the animal kingdom. Prejudice is his friend here. He belittles my position, of course, by implying that I care more for these creatures than I do humans. Who cares if these animals possess intelligence and capacities for pain and emotion (especially the rat)?! They're ugly! They need to be eradicated. And certainly the animal rights movement as a whole focuses on more than just these four species, and is dedicated to showing how animals have similar interests to our own, not that they matter more or less than human beings... Clearly he knows very little about this actual movement.


They are all equal in having the capacity to suffer and that they strive for happiness, and this is hardly disputable.

How you measure equality is through the intelligence of others obviously. I would ask where the line is for that? How much "intelligence" must an organism have in order for you consider them equal? Do all humans possess the same amount of intelligence? Is it possible that there are some animals that exceed the intelligence of human beings such as infants or the mentally disabled?

I do not feel equal to the snail. But i do have compassion for the. And when I step on them, on accident, I cringe and it feels a bit like accidental murder.

Im the "new-age" douchebag that helps a spider out of the shower or toilet instead of drowning it on purpose. But if a fly annoys me and keeps trying to land on me, i usually give it a warning swat and after that I kill it.
 
Back
Top Bottom