Hunter shoots rare wild black Rhino for $350,000

malmo wrote:

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...

And somehow the Clinton Foundation is relevant to this conversation? Wow, you appear to have lost it.

NJ Possible wrote:

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.

You should not be concerned with why they care about the black rhino. If their actions result in the preservation of the species in the wild then does it really matter if the only reason that they care is because of money?

Wowzers wrote:

malmo wrote:

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...

And somehow the Clinton Foundation is relevant to this conversation? Wow, you appear to have lost it.

Yes it is. He's saying the Namibians are corrupt. I said that is they were as corrupt as the Clinton Foundation, he'd have a point. I take it you don't believe the Clinton Foundation is a corrupt cash cow for the Clintons and their political friends?

So apparently the black rhino is now a problem because it is so aggressive and gores other animals/humans

Why has the black rhino survived for so long, and what detriment was it to other wild life? Did it kill off other species, or was there some sort of balance in nature that let it coexist with wildlife around it.

Maybe now that humans have condensed it's world, the black rhino is behaving as a trapped animal. Like almost any animal including humans.

malmo wrote:

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.

The Clinton Foundation is in fact involved in wildlife conservation efforts in Africa, specifically working on international cooperation in anti-poaching law enforcement. That said, it's not really germane to the current thread. Corruption, real or imagined, is not mutually exclusive with sound wildlife management practice.

Beware! There is an animal even more dangerous and detrimental than the Black Rhino! We must stop it's destruction of it's own kind and other animals! This animal is... is... the Homo Sapien!

green hills of Africa by Ernest Hemingway

If he was really as concerned about the rhino being abundant, he could have shot it with a paintball gun, still proving his prowess as a hunter. His comments smack of bullshit.

I'm a hunter, but this dude sucks.

autoxfil wrote:

If he was really as concerned about the rhino being abundant, he could have shot it with a paintball gun, still proving his prowess as a hunter. His comments smack of bullshit.

I'm a hunter, but this dude sucks.

OK, but it looked like that Rhino was charging. A paintball gun may not have been a good idea.

The notion that rhinos are somehow a menace to other wildlife just doesn't pass the sniff test.

1) Rhino attacks on other herbivores certainly cannot be common. How would it make sense to go around picking such fights? Most will simply take flight and the rhino will waste energy and time. The ones that would stand and fight may lose but may injure the rhino in addition to wasting the rhino's energy and time. And nothing would be gained by the rhino either way. How could this possibly be evolutionarily desirable?

2) Even if rhinos occasionally get in a fight with a buffalo, lions and hyenas kill 1000 buffaloes (maybe 10,000) for every one killed by a rhino. So how would the occasional rhino-induced fatality be relevant at all?

Are you really THAT dense? I said that it probably saved a few buffaloes from being gored to death, nothing more.

http://youtu.be/HjE6X4lbto0

Sniffers wrote:

The notion that rhinos are somehow a menace to other wildlife just doesn't pass the sniff test.

1) Rhino attacks on other herbivores certainly cannot be common. How would it make sense to go around picking such fights? Most will simply take flight and the rhino will waste energy and time. The ones that would stand and fight may lose but may injure the rhino in addition to wasting the rhino's energy and time. And nothing would be gained by the rhino either way. How could this possibly be evolutionarily desirable?

2) Even if rhinos occasionally get in a fight with a buffalo, lions and hyenas kill 1000 buffaloes (maybe 10,000) for every one killed by a rhino. So how would the occasional rhino-induced fatality be relevant at all?

It's a threat to breeding age male rhinos. With such a small population genetic diversity is key. Removing this one is important to maintain diversity.

You can listen to wildlife managers or make up emotional drivel. Either way this rhinos useful life was up and both Namibia and the whole of the rhino species benefitted from the hunt. Only loser was this old rhino. Well worth the cost.

1) The same folks were saying that (old = non-breeding) about the largest, oldest bull elephants until just a few years ago. It is now known that the largest, oldest bull elephants are the primary breeders in a naturally functioning ecosystem. Wanna bet that this old = non-breeding notion is also a lie (or just plain vanilla ignorance) regarding rhinos?

2) So, the old rhino was not past his useful life. Think for just a minute - an old bull who is physically stronger than the other bulls around - how likely is it that he is past breeding age?

3) Therefore removing the old, dominant bull was indeed a bad idea if one is concerned with genetic diversity.

4) Finally, you really should try to stop writing such drivel. Also, try to avoid using the word 'drivel' - especially when posting drivel.

1. There are far, far more elephants than rhinos and widely dispersed. Apples and oranges

2. That the bull could keep others from breeding IS the problem - contributes to lack of diversity.

3. See point 2. One animal breeding at the expense of all others is the exact opposite of increasing diversity. Magnified in a small population.

4. You are not smart. Like, at all. Really not smart.

Sounds like they had a good PR agent. Great Spin.

So the death penalty for "problem Rhino's" but we let the Boston bomber live?

Sniffers wrote:

1) The same folks were saying that (old = non-breeding) about the largest, oldest bull elephants until just a few years ago. .

Source? Who exactly are "the same folks" and what were they saying....exactly?

Secondly, natural selection has never been about diversity of the gene pool, in fact, the opposite. Natural selection has always been about passing on the most desirable genetic traits through intramural challenge (between males) and courting (male/female) rituals.

Ah, so another post deleter, I see. Nice!

Let's just start with:

"1. There are far, far more elephants than rhinos and widely dispersed. Apples and oranges" -- And this is relevant how exactly to the question of whether the largest, most dominant bulls are still breeding?

I await your brilliance - or more likely your cowardice.