Trophy Hunting / Black Rhino Hunt Auction

I recently listened to a Joe Rogan podcast with hunter Corey Knowlton (podcast link (also free in iTunes)), who won an auction to hunt an endangered black rhino. The hunt took place in May. (CNN link.) My gut reaction to that headline was “what a stupid thing to do”, but I will admit, after hearing his explanation and arguments regarding conservation, I have mostly come around to accept that it was a beneficial thing to do in this case. In a nutshell, his argument was that this particular animal was an older bull which had killed other younger bulls, and the herd was better off without it. Also, that the money he paid for the privilege is a substantial contribution to the conservation efforts, and more generally, tying a financial incentive to conservation in the form of such hunts is a key part of successful wildlife conservation. He claims his argument is supported by the local wildlife conservation folks, and other international conservation organizations, not to mention lots of general data on how wildlife conservation works.

The part that doesn’t entirely click for me is that (IMO) he uses this as an argument to justify all types of hunting. The question of trophy hunting comes up, and he talks as if all hunters are out there looking for the oldest and most unfit of the species to generously cull them for the good of the population. That seems like BS to me.

This guy Knowlton is apparently a world class big shot at it, and I expect he is sincere in that a lot of his exotic trophies are as he describes (old, weak, better off removed to make room for the young and strong), but I don’t expect the vast millions of heads on walls have the same story of some generous champion behind them. Many trophies seem to be excellent specimens that I could believe would do well for their kind if left alone. (Although I concede that deer in particular are commonly a pest animal needing control.) He describes how he grew up leading duck hunts in Texas. Is there some amount of selection going on amongst the birdshot blasted at a group of them? Do ducks need to be carefully culled to prevent… uh… whatever horror extra ducks brings upon the natural order?

I am mostly ignorant about hunting and the culture around it, and look to the SDMB to make me less so. My impression of hunters I have known and observed is that they hunt for the fun of it. For the comradery of the trip, the rush of the kill, the joy of learning and exercising a set of skills, exposure to wilderness, the meat, etc. I don’t recall hearing much about conservation being a motive. As such, while I can understand killing the rhino in question, my feeling about hunting in general remains: :rolleyes:

To debate:
Was the rhino hunt good or bad?
Do the arguments in support of it apply more generally to “sport” or “trophy” hunting?
Why do you hunt? Does conservation play into it?

I don’t know about ducks, but the existence of Canada geese makes me want to nuke all waterfowl from orbit (it’s the only way to be sure).

The problem in Africa isn’t hunters but poachers. A well-managed wildlife department (as I understand Namibia has) will ensure a sustained population. For black rhinos this means a very limited number of tags.

I don’t think many people hunt for conservation as a primarily goal nor should they. It’s a very indirect route to get what you want and if you don’t hunt then someone else would. If you want to support conservation you would do that by supporting the the DFW or local equivalent.

I find that a certain proportion of the population won’t be dissuaded because Bambi is too fresh in their mind.

The secondary gain from hunting is atavistic.

There is no conservation gain that could not be also attained by donating the money directly without killing an animal.

Therefore an argument for hunting by advancing any conservation advantage is a practical argument, but not an ethical or moral one.

I do not personally understand the thrill of killing an animal as stupid as a rhinoceros, but apparently for this hunter the thrill is worth $350K. It seems to me one could place oneself in just as much danger by challenging a farmers bull with a .22 or something…

Essentially, the hunter here seems to want to argue that, since the rhino in question needs to be culled, Namibia might as well find someone willing to pay $350K to kill it rather than just cull it. I guess that makes financial sense, although it does not create an very profound argument for justifying hunting per se. Rather, it’s an argument that if someone is willing to pay $350,000 for a thrill, and the thrill creates no net harm, you ought to try and get the money out of them.

I agree with that.