I think the money paid was to go to animal preservation causes. Talk about a conflicting message.
Freud talked about the ego in service of the id but in this case it might be the ego in service of the id and the superego.
My only comment is, you had to shoot a black rhino, really?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/africa/namibia-rhino-hunt/index.html
Seems like a win-win. His money to spend the way he wants. The animals profit too.
must have been a cop
Conundrum wrote:
I think the money paid was to go to animal preservation causes. Talk about a conflicting message.
Freud talked about the ego in service of the id but in this case it might be the ego in service of the id and the superego.
My only comment is, you had to shoot a black rhino, really?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/africa/namibia-rhino-hunt/index.html
No, you also made the dumb reference to Freud.
what you said wrote:
No, you also made the dumb reference to Freud.
Yes "What you" I did say my "only comment" but I had previously quoted Freud. So yes you are correct!
But this is your only contribution to this thread? No response .pro or con to the idea of a man paying $350,000 to shoot a rare black rhino.
My only comment to that is, really?
Conundrum wrote:
I think the money paid was to go to animal preservation causes. Talk about a conflicting message.
There is a difference between "conservation" and "preservation" in that conservation allows for sustainable exploitation of a resource. If the article has fairly represented the situation, this hunt is a net benefit to the resource being managed.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Conundrum wrote:I think the money paid was to go to animal preservation causes. Talk about a conflicting message.
There is a difference between "conservation" and "preservation" in that conservation allows for sustainable exploitation of a resource. If the article has fairly represented the situation, this hunt is a net benefit to the resource being managed.
Too bad a different less rare animal couldn't have been hunted and killed for that fee. The rich hunter should have left the rare black rhino alone.
It kind of like telling an indigent third world person, I'll give you free medical care for life, if you let me cut off your finger. I guess the person is better off.
Did you actually read the article?
Conundrum wrote:
Citizen Runner wrote:There is a difference between "conservation" and "preservation" in that conservation allows for sustainable exploitation of a resource. If the article has fairly represented the situation, this hunt is a net benefit to the resource being managed.
Too bad a different less rare animal couldn't have been hunted and killed for that fee. The rich hunter should have left the rare black rhino alone.
It kind of like telling an indigent third world person, I'll give you free medical care for life, if you let me cut off your finger. I guess the person is better off.
OK, I am generally in favor of your sentiment here but...
In the video they spoke of having a few "troublesome" rhinos which were too aggressive and were actually killing other rhinos. The one which was shot was supposedly one of these killer rhinos.
Now, I don't know much about rhinos, rhino demographics, killer rhinos and there is always a great deal of uncertainty in the 'truthiness' of the official message. But if you take these folks at face value then it seems as if this shooting was actually an immediate net benefit to the local black rhino population even without taking into account the $350,000 which was supposedly used for conservation efforts.
I know, lots of "ifs" but perhaps this was a notably positive event for black rhinos.
Side note - I really don't like the idea of shooting animals for anything other than food and self defense. Definitely not something that appeals to me in any way.
Conundrum wrote:
It kind of like telling an indigent third world person, I'll give you free medical care for life, if you let me cut off your finger. I guess the person is better off.
No it's not, Strawman.
Allowing a rhino to be culled not only gave needed cash for wildlife preservation, it probably saved a few African buffaloes from being gored to death.
I'm surprised the hunting permit only went for 350k instead of some Chinese billionaire paying millions for it.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Did you actually read the article?
Ouch! I really hate to admit this but you nailed me. No I didn't.
"Conservation" in this case is irrelevant. The corrupt leaders of these countries will look the other way for money, be it in public like this, or from poachers on the sly. None of them actually care about saving these animals -- it's all about money. I expect Rhinos and Elephants to be extinct in the wild in less than 50 years. Probably less than 10 for Rhinos.
I don't have time to google it right now, but I just wanted to recommend that short story by Hemmingway where the guy tries to hunt the Rhino... Great story and apropos to this thread.
If anyone remembers the title, please post it (with link). Instead of trolling these forums, LRC folks ought to go read it this morning.
TAA wrote:
I'm surprised the hunting permit only went for 350k instead of some Chinese billionaire paying millions for it.
Hunter did not get to walk away with the horns so it would have no value to a Chinese billionaire.
Sorry, it's a lion. The story is titled "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber." I remembered as I pushed "Post Message." Still a great read.
Tinfoil Hat wrote:
"Conservation" in this case is irrelevant. The corrupt leaders of these countries will look the other way for money, be it in public like this, or from poachers on the sly. None of them actually care about saving these animals -- it's all about money. I expect Rhinos and Elephants to be extinct in the wild in less than 50 years. Probably less than 10 for Rhinos.
If they were corrupt, they'd certainly sell more than 3 permits per year, and offer more old (non breeding) bulls for the hunt than the 18 that were currently offered.
Yes it's about the money. it's the money that will fund their fight against poachers. In the last ten years the black rhino population has almost doubled, no doubt to conservation efforts like this.
Facile, emotional arguments from "animal rights" activists does absolutely nothing to fight poaching and assist in the recovery of the black rhino.
If you actually think any significant portion of that $350k will go to conservation, I have several bridges in Manhattan to sell you.
OK Butt wrote:
In the video they spoke of having a few "troublesome" rhinos which were too aggressive and were actually killing other rhinos. The one which was shot was supposedly one of these killer rhinos.
One issue is that this is Namibia we're talking about. $350k to them isn't nothing, and I frankly don't trust Namibia to honestly identify an issue and use the funds in the manner described. This country does little to combat atrocities such as violence against women, and in my mind cares little for the black rhino beyond what revenue it brings. I simply don't trust their word.
Believe what you want to believe. If the Clinton Foundation was collecting money for rhino conservation, you'd have a point. But they're not, so you don't. 350k is barely enough to get Diamond Bill to talk for 30 minutes, but that barely pays his electric bills.
If Namibian officials were pocketing the cash, then their rhino recovery efforts wouldn't be as successful as it's been. If they were as cynical as you want to believe, then they would sell many more permits than three per year, and limit the hunt to aggressive non-breeding bulls, and still preserve the long-term recovery of the black rhino.
Tinfoil Hat is and appropriate nom de guerre for you.