Posted on 05/24/2015 7:17:35 AM PDT by boycott
Windhoek (AFP) - A US hunter who paid $350,000 to kill a black rhinoceros in Namibia successfully shot the animal on Monday, saying that 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 in Dallas in early 2014 -- attracting fierce criticism from many conservationists and even some death threats.
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 the TV channel in footage released Wednesday.
"I think 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You have a great plan to help them divide and conquer. Get rid of those rich trophy hunters first. Then they can have you or others help them get rid of semiautomatic rifle hunters. Then long range hunters, then buckshot sprayers, then handgun hunters, on down the line.
Some dead white guy once said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Well, I’ve harvested deer, black bear, wild hogs, rabbit, squirrel, dove and quail.
Never turkey hunted because the season coincided with great trout fishing.
I never said anything whatsoever about stopping any hunting...
Basically, you should consume what you hunt...That’s why I taught my son that the first legal deer you see, you put in the freezer...
I have never seen the purpose of passing by a legal animal to wait on maybe a larger one or one with a bigger rack etc.
Regarding game animal management I had an epiphany many years ago.
In the Sacramento valley and on up north there are many very large duck hunting wetland preserves. Many, many duck hunters pay to hunt on these wetland preserves. These preserves are in the main flyway for the ducks and geese. I always wondered about the proper use of these preserves for hunting on a major flyway. Then I read somewhere that is because the hunters pay for the preserves that they even exist. If it wasn’t for the hunters, then the lands would have been given over to farming and the waterfowl wouldn’t have the use during their migration, and there would be many less waterfowl.
So the hunters pay to keep the waterfowl population high, this way the hunters can have game to shoot. If there were no hunters, there would be few to no game to shoot.
It is in the best interest of hunters to have lots of game, and lots of trophy game. And therefore, it is recognized by hunters that proper game management has to exist.
I agree 100%...As for trophies, if one comes your way, I’m not saying don’t take it...take it for sure...I just don’t believe in passing by game for that chance...
Nonsense- by removing this bugger younger virile animals will get a chance to mate with the females this low-or-no-fertily male with the size advantage would otherwise be guarding, and more rhinos will be conceived and born as a result.
Note, the game officials went along to ensure the right animal was the one killed. That means the animal had been selected because of age or other factors and was likely no longer a breeding member of the population. Net loss to reproduction of the species? Zero.
This is just good game management. I cannot understand how someone gets excitement out of killing such an animal.
Different things excite different people.
I can't understand why anyone watches the Kardashians, either, but at least a rhino can kill you.
When folks who don’t pay hunting license fees of any kind that actually support conservancy decide to pony up $$, then maybe I’ll give their opinions on the subject some consideration.
Otherwise, it’s all ignorant talk, all the time...with no skin in the game.
Porcupine is good survival meat, and the flavor (like turpentine, in my experience) is reason enough to leave them alone for just such contingencies.
I believe the local village(s) get the meat from African game hunts. I seriously doubt it is wasted.
allowing these animals to legally have monetary value to the people in the region who are counted on to protect them can make sense as a strategy for protecting the species
So you would prefer that the government game managers shoot it instead and the death of the animal not draw in funds to manage the breeding stock, but draw in nothing? Game management involves culling, like it or not, and this animal would have to nbe culled, like it or not, by a responsible game manager who has a limited budget, for the benefit of the whole herd. This is the best way to accomplish the necessary task and it benefits the game program as a whole.
The other alternative would be to sell and ship it to a zoo, but western zoos are also invested in the preservation of the species, in stock management, and would not be very interested in an infertile male that would have nothing to add to their breeding program- it would consume resources and take the space that could otherwise be occupied by a productive stud.
I suppose it could be sold to a nonwestern zoo that’s only interested in show-and-tell but those places’ conditions tend to be horrid and an animal that spent 17 years in the wild would go insane in such close confinement.
Maybe a drive thru theme park... but then they tend to prefer gentler animals for liability reasons, and I doubt one could drum up $350,000 bucks to help the othrt rhinos in the native range.
Years ago the wood duck was driven nearly to extinction- not by hunters but by farmers and landowners who cut the dead wood on their lands for fuel, safety issues, and often just for neatness, and in the process destroyed the dead trees with woodpecker cavities in them that the wood duck depends on for nesting. But then some hunters joined forces as “Ducks Unlimited” and began to buy up habitate for these birds where they could and on lands where the dead trees were missing they installed nesting boxes on poles all over the north woodlands. The hunters brought the duck back from near extinction in short order, and the lands the hunters bought and preserved privately for the benefit of ducks also provided prime habitat for beaver, mink, flying squirrels, reptiles and a whole host of other species down to aquatic dragonflies and songbirds. It would not have happened but for some guys wanting to preserve the most beautiful duck in North America... so they could hunt it.
Back in 1980, I spent an afternoon visiting an American on his ranch in central Kenya, He had a very large spread and had installed “Elephence”, a particularly effective fence designed to keep game park animals from marauding neighboring villages. He also had his own private squad of game rangers to prevent poaching.
His wildlife management practices were so effective that he eventually had more elephants & rhino than the land could support. He offered these excess animals to the government of Kenya for transplant to various game parks. Kenya replied, “Thank you very much, but we will not be able to protect them from being killed by poachers”.
What is your solution to problems of this type?
1)Let the overcrowding continue, resulting in malnourished large animals and destroyed forest & brush land.
2)Let wealthy hunters cull the herd to maintain both a healthy herd AND a healthy rangeland.
3)Fire his game rangers and let the poachers kill indiscriminately for ivory and rhino horn.
4)Remove the “Elephence” and allow the herds to “expand their range” into neighboring villages and farmer’s fields. The wildlife may no longer be malnourished, but the local people sure will be.
5)Cull the herds of people by promoting abortion and contraception. Stop using DDT to prevent malaria, dengue and other mosquito borne diseases.
5)Fill in the blank____________________
I don't care who shoots it. Kindly see my post #43. I would just have preferred more honesty from the hunter. Or even better, I would have preferred that he refrain from commenting at all.
Either way, no big deal in the greater scheme of things.
How did the animals ever survive without man monitoring, controlling, tagging, regulating and putting electronic tracking devices on them?
The only justifiable trophy hunting should be human against human. You get your license and go in the field to hunt other humans equipped with a similar license. Hunting for food is OK.
What do you plan on doing about the scores of rhinos constantly being killed by young bull elephants?
That is nature taking place....
But man killing one isn’t? I guess we are part of nature only when it fits an agenda, otherwise, man is “un natural “ and therefore interfering. My, my, how nicely relative....
Note- I have to slaughter a few chickens for the Memorial day BBQ tomorrow- gotta go “interfere” in nature’s process- oh, wait, already did- hand raised these meaty chicks 9 weeks ago....So I guess I’ll smoke that hen turkey I have left in the freezer from last fall along with some venison burgers and steaks....
Perhaps I interfere too much?
No problem with what you are doing...You are gonna eat what you kill...I guess what I’m saying is that hunting just for the sake of hanging something on the wall or just to kill it
isn’t what nature intended. Do you disagree with that???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.