I Wear Pants;1568565 wrote:Should do the licenses but also try to get populations of deer predators back to a level where deer aren't like cockroaches.

Deer predators don't just feed on wildlife. It be nice if they did. Livestock can make an easy meal. Most hunters give a shit about the law and limits wolves don't. The wrath of a rancher with thousands of dollars invested and devoured by a pack of wild beasts must be compensated.

I Wear Pants;1568565 wrote:Mountain Lions, Wolves, and Coyotes are pretty much the biggest predators for deer. We've killed a bunch of those animals.

Not that I'm against deer hunting, fuckers are everywhere. But it's not as if issuing licenses is the only way to go about it or the best way in terms of long run preservation. Should do the licenses but also try to get populations of deer predators back to a level where deer aren't like cockroaches.

Coyotes aren't necessarily predators as much as they may be scavengers. I don't think there's an issue with them either, if there were, there wouldn't be an open season on coyotes all year long (and it's like this in a lot of states that I know of).

The problem with deer is everyone wants the trophy buck. The doe population needs kept down as well. Many hunters and/or hunting groups don't shoot enough does to make things worthwhile.

<embed style="display:block" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:429950" width="288" height="247" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000">

I Wear Pants;1568317 wrote:I feel like instead of auctioning it off to be killed they could have sold it to a zoo or private collector or something. No need to get all rabble rabble about the auction like some have been but I don't think it's necessarily the best message to send.

This is my sentiment. The existence of the beast is not a negative asset to the species' population. The interaction of the beast WITH the rest of the species is the negative asset.

So just isolate him. Let him go live in some zoo. You can label him the "Rhinocerasshole."

O-Trap;1568930 wrote:So just isolate him. Let him go live in some zoo.

How has this benefited animal conservation immediately? I am sure there are black rhinos in captivity. They are probably isolated places.

But, $350,000 is going immediately to help conservation and awareness. I'm not sure the Namibian government's financial status, but I imagine that's critical money to help in conservation. If a zoo or some other conservation group thought it was so important to save this one black rhino (Namibian officials have identified 5 rhinos that could be hunted), then why didn't they go bid for the black rhino? Why didn't they bid for it THEN go save it? Donate it to a zoo...where are all these "save the animal" conservationists stepping up to the plate before the hunter is?

The winning bidder is going to save its hide then donate the meat to the needy areas in Namibia. That helps A LOT.

A lot of areas around the globe using hunting as a means of tourism and driving up their economies. No other group is as dedicated to animal conservation as what law-abiding hunters are. I'll stand by that claim. People hunt for a reason, and hunters love animals. Just because they are hunting, killing, eating, and keeping them as trophies does not mean hunters don't care for animals.

OSH;1568940 wrote:How has this benefited animal conservation immediately? I am sure there are black rhinos in captivity. They are probably isolated places.

I'm not suggesting there are not others. This one, if detrimental to the species in the wild, can be caught, can he not? Given the time between the rhino's life being purchased and the time it would be hunted, it seems as though the different in time between hunting and capturing is problematic.

I don't think either is helping "immediately."

OSH;1568940 wrote:But, $350,000 is going immediately to help conservation and awareness. I'm not sure the Namibian government's financial status, but I imagine that's critical money to help in conservation. If a zoo or some other conservation group thought it was so important to save this one black rhino (Namibian officials have identified 5 rhinos that could be hunted), then why didn't they go bid for the black rhino? Why didn't they bid for it THEN go save it? Donate it to a zoo...where are all these "save the animal" conservationists stepping up to the plate before the hunter is?

I'm not suggesting it's necessarily vital to save this particular rhino. He'll die eventually anyway. He's not adding to the population, and he's hurting it apparently. So I'm not saying it's of dire importance to keep this rhino from being killed.

I'm merely saying I don't see why killing it would be so much better than capturing and displaying it. Paying $350K to hunt it, I assume the hunter will want it taxidermied or transported in some fashion. It would seem then that shooting it isn't going to be substantially less economical if you take into account the fact that you could charge people to see it (off-set by feeding it, I suppose).

Where are the conservation groups? Likely protesting. I'm not suggesting they're bright or viewing it in the proper context.

OSH;1568940 wrote:The winning bidder is going to save its hide then donate the meat to the needy areas in Namibia. That helps A LOT.

That's certainly a good thing. Again, I'm not saying there's anything bad about killing it, and it sounds as though good will come of it. This is not a particularly hard-line issue for me, either way.

OSH;1568940 wrote:A lot of areas around the globe using hunting as a means of tourism and driving up their economies. No other group is as dedicated to animal conservation as what law-abiding hunters are. I'll stand by that claim. People hunt for a reason, and hunters love animals. Just because they are hunting, killing, eating, and keeping them as trophies does not mean hunters don't care for animals.

I certainly never suggested otherwise. I've hunted, myself, and I care a great deal for the diversity of life on our planet. It's fascinating. And I know many, many hunters, the majority of whom I'm betting would agree with me. I am not sure why you thought I was leveling a judgment against hunting. It was anything but the case.

O-Trap;1568944 wrote:I'm not suggesting there are not others. This one, if detrimental to the species in the wild, can be caught, can he not? Given the time between the rhino's life being purchased and the time it would be hunted, it seems as though the different in time between hunting and capturing is problematic.

I don't think either is helping "immediately."

It could be caught. But is $350,000 going to be brought in by the government because of it? Well...it wasn't. So, why not try to get the money ASAP? We don't really know the timetable of decision to auction, hunting carried out, animal harvested, etc. And if 1 black rhino brings $350,000...what about the other 4 (supposedly) and what they could bring?

Money now is better than potential long-term income from a zoo (if the money were to be divvied out that way). Time-value of money even shows that, if I am not mistaken.

O-Trap;1568944 wrote:I'm not suggesting it's necessarily vital to save this particular rhino. He'll die eventually anyway. He's not adding to the population, and he's hurting it apparently. So I'm not saying it's of dire importance to keep this rhino from being killed.

Your "sentiment" was: The existence of the beast is not a negative asset to the species' population. The interaction of the beast WITH the rest of the species is the negative asset.

Apparently the Namibian government has concluded that the beast is best suited in being hunted and harvested rather than existing. So, to them, it is a negative asset...especially when the government gets $350,000 for animal conservation and bringing awareness of the plight of the black rhino.

O-Trap;1568944 wrote:I'm merely saying I don't see why killing it would be so much better than capturing and displaying it. Paying $350K to hunt it, I assume the hunter will want it taxidermied or transported in some fashion. It would seem then that shooting it isn't going to be substantially less economical if you take into account the fact that you could charge people to see it (off-set by feeding it, I suppose).

The US Game (or whatever they are called) said they would block the importing of the "trophy." So, the hunter isn't necessarily in it for much. I can understand why hunting it will bring MUCH more than the Namibian government trying to keep it penned up, feeding it, monitoring it, and trying to rely on any tourism to Namibia for income. Other countries, sure...it may work out. But apparently not there.

O-Trap;1568944 wrote:Where are the conservation groups? Likely protesting. I'm not suggesting they're bright or viewing it in the proper context.

My reasoning for bringing the other conservation groups was: if they care so much about "saving" this black rhino, why didn't they buy the rights to its "hunt?" No one heard anything about it until there was a hunter who bought the hunt for $350,000. Now it is "controversial." I don't care what conservation groups are doing...except that they haven't done much until they see there's something to be outraged about. There's 5,000 black rhinos in the world -- 1,700 in Namibia. Why not do something to be more proactive? That's all.

O-Trap;1568944 wrote:That's certainly a good thing. Again, I'm not saying there's anything bad about killing it, and it sounds as though good will come of it. This is not a particularly hard-line issue for me, either way.

It's an easy decision for me. Hunt it, harvest it, donate the meat, help feed the needy, and help with conservation/awareness of the black rhino. If I had the money, I'd love to do this. I've stood face-to-face with a white rhino...couldn't imagine having the opportunity to harvest a gigantic beast like that! Beautiful creatures.

Funny thing is, rhinos will try to reproduce with any other rhino. Male rhinos will hump their sisters, moms, daughters, cousins, etc. They want to spread their seed anywhere that will take it.

O-Trap;1568944 wrote:I certainly never suggested otherwise. I've hunted, myself, and I care a great deal for the diversity of life on our planet. It's fascinating. And I know many, many hunters, the majority of whom I'm betting would agree with me. I am not sure why you thought I was leveling a judgment against hunting. It was anything but the case.

Never said you suggested otherwise. It was a statement regarding the situation. I am not sure why you thought it was a statement directly related to you just because I initially replied to your one statement.

OSH;1568953 wrote:It could be caught. But is $350,000 going to be brought in by the government because of it?

Was that tried? I honestly don't know. Seems like you could sell a live and endangered rhino for that number. I don't know.

OSH;1568953 wrote:Well...it wasn't.

Which is why this discussion is silly, I suppose.

OSH;1568953 wrote:So, why not try to get the money ASAP?

It doesn't strike me as any more time-consuming to sell a live rhino as it does sell the ability to hunt one. Auction works either way, I would think.

OSH;1568953 wrote:We don't really know the timetable of decision to auction, hunting carried out, animal harvested, etc. And if 1 black rhino brings $350,000...what about the other 4 (supposedly) and what they could bring?

Sure. If they're not contributing to the flourishing of the species, then why not look into at least getting rid of them.

OSH;1568953 wrote:Money now is better than potential long-term income from a zoo (if the money were to be divvied out that way). Time-value of money even shows that, if I am not mistaken.

I appear to have been unclear. I was not suggesting that the country put him in a zoo. I was suggesting they essentially auction him off as a live creature, which I would imagine a zoo would like, and possibly pay for, as it would be an investment to have such a rare animal on display.

OSH;1568953 wrote:Your "sentiment" was: The existence of the beast is not a negative asset to the species' population. The interaction of the beast WITH the rest of the species is the negative asset.

"To the species population" was placed in that statement intentionally. I wasn't speaking to anything else in that moment. As such, I stand by that sentiment.

OSH;1568953 wrote:Apparently the Namibian government has concluded that the beast is best suited in being hunted and harvested rather than existing. So, to them, it is a negative asset...especially when the government gets $350,000 for animal conservation and bringing awareness of the plight of the black rhino.

For them to decide to sell the hunting of it doesn't necessarily make it a negative asset. Its existence is not detrimental to the Namibian government, sans its coexistence with younger bulls.

Whether you sell the rhino alive or sell it dead, I'm willing to bet you could probably get comparable money for it, either way. So my question, then, is this: Why sell it dead?

Now, if they tried to sell it alive, and they didn't get such a bid, then I see why they did it.

OSH;1568953 wrote:The US Game (or whatever they are called) said they would block the importing of the "trophy." So, the hunter isn't necessarily in it for much. I can understand why hunting it will bring MUCH more than the Namibian government trying to keep it penned up, feeding it, monitoring it, and trying to rely on any tourism to Namibia for income. Other countries, sure...it may work out. But apparently not there.

I wasn't implying that it ought to be there. My apologies if that was unclear.

I'm not suggesting the Namibian government ought to capture it and put it on display in hopes that it brings in more than $350K over the length of its life. I was suggesting they try to sell it off to a foreign zoo or animal sanctuary or something before just selling it to be shot. That's all.

OSH;1568953 wrote:My reasoning for bringing the other conservation groups was: if they care so much about "saving" this black rhino, why didn't they buy the rights to its "hunt?" No one heard anything about it until there was a hunter who bought the hunt for $350,000. Now it is "controversial." I don't care what conservation groups are doing...except that they haven't done much until they see there's something to be outraged about. There's 5,000 black rhinos in the world -- 1,700 in Namibia. Why not do something to be more proactive? That's all.

My notion had nothing to do with conservation groups. To me, they seem like pests who work themselves into a frothing frenzy, but who rarely do anything beyond gripe or wear apparel and slap on bumper stickers.

OSH;1568953 wrote:It's an easy decision for me. Hunt it, harvest it, donate the meat, help feed the needy, and help with conservation/awareness of the black rhino. If I had the money, I'd love to do this. I've stood face-to-face with a white rhino...couldn't imagine having the opportunity to harvest a gigantic beast like that! Beautiful creatures.

And imagine the ability to see one, alive and up close. Wouldn't that be something? Wouldn't it be something if, say, the Columbus Zoo, or even the San Diego Zoo, was to commandeer it for display? I think that would be quite fascinating an experience.

OSH;1568953 wrote:Funny thing is, rhinos will try to reproduce with any other rhino. Male rhinos will hump their sisters, moms, daughters, cousins, etc. They want to spread their seed anywhere that will take it.

Yeah, per another thread, I have an acquaintance who does this.

OSH;1568953 wrote:Never said you suggested otherwise. It was a statement regarding the situation. I am not sure why you thought it was a statement directly related to you just because I initially replied to your one statement.

It was for that reason. I tend to think things are mostly directed toward me if they are in response to something I've said. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize.

O-Trap;1569398 wrote:And imagine the ability to see one, alive and up close. Wouldn't that be something? Wouldn't it be something if, say, the Columbus Zoo, or even the San Diego Zoo, was to commandeer it for display? I think that would be quite fascinating an experience.

This is the thing I do not get...taking an animal that has been 100% wild for X-amount of years, then trying to keep it secure in some facility. Not a safe thing to do, nor is it that easy. Animals that have been in zoos or conservation areas (i.e., The Wilds) are held captive their entire lives (basically).

I think it would border being inhuman to capture a wild animal and put it on display. Its life may last even shorter in captivity than it would through this auction and hunt. Wild animals are not easy to tame, especially considering it would be relocated, acclimated, etc. -- that could cost as much, if not more, than the winning auction bid.

OSH;1569455 wrote:This is the thing I do not get...taking an animal that has been 100% wild for X-amount of years, then trying to keep it secure in some facility. Not a safe thing to do, nor is it that easy. Animals that have been in zoos or conservation areas (i.e., The Wilds) are held captive their entire lives (basically).

Of course, what you're describing is ideal. And I'm certainly not suggesting that it's safe or easy, particularly for someone inexperienced in doing so. However, if there was interest in the undertaking by someone experienced, why not try?

OSH;1569455 wrote:I think it would border being inhuman to capture a wild animal and put it on display.

Do you have a foundation for this? Why is it less humane than death?

OSH;1569455 wrote:Its life may last even shorter in captivity than it would through this auction and hunt.

It MAY experience a shorter or less enjoyable remainder of life in captivity. It WILL experience no remainder of life if hunted. Seems like comparing a possibility with a certainty.

OSH;1569455 wrote:Wild animals are not easy to tame, especially considering it would be relocated, acclimated, etc. -- that could cost as much, if not more, than the winning auction bid.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that such an animal is easy to tame, or that the circumstances would be simple. Perhaps, upon auctioning the animal as a live capture, nobody would have bid as high as the winning hunt bid. If so, then so be it. Let him be hunted.

Save if you can, all else being equal. If someone was willing to pay the $350K for the live rhino and cover the cost of exporting it to wherever, I see that as still being advantageous.

However, if not all else can remain equal, then fine. Hunt it.

O-Trap;1569468 wrote:Of course, what you're describing is ideal. And I'm certainly not suggesting that it's safe or easy, particularly for someone inexperienced in doing so. However, if there was interest in the undertaking by someone experienced, why not try?

Do you have a foundation for this? Why is it less humane than death?

It MAY experience a shorter or less enjoyable remainder of life in captivity. It WILL experience no remainder of life if hunted. Seems like comparing a possibility with a certainty.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that such an animal is easy to tame, or that the circumstances would be simple. Perhaps, upon auctioning the animal as a live capture, nobody would have bid as high as the winning hunt bid. If so, then so be it. Let him be hunted.

Save if you can, all else being equal. If someone was willing to pay the $350K for the live rhino and cover the cost of exporting it to wherever, I see that as still being advantageous.

However, if not all else can remain equal, then fine. Hunt it.

If/When the Namibian government were going through this auction...there could've been someone out there willing to save this rhino. Why didn't they come forward to "save" it and put it in captivity? Sure does make sense to me. Nope, the animal rights activists are all talk and no action. So, even they must've seen the huge undertaking and cost that it could've been. Just assumptions on my part, but surely this was thought through by different parties.

It definitely isn't the proper thing to do in taking a fully-wild rhino (or other animal) and trying to "tame" it or keep it in captivity. We are talking about something that has ruled its own world for its whole life and now putting it in a controlled environment for show and tell. Why is the hunting of the animal more humane? It goes along with the "survival of the fittest" notion. Animals are sought by predators -- the black rhino itself does that. So, why couldn't a predator (a human) do that to this rhino...and all of a sudden it is wrong because it's a human doing the predatory action. No one would bat an eye if this rhino died because a pack of hyenas killed it savagely -- but, in that case, $350,000 wouldn't be there to help save the species.

Wild animals are meant for captivity. Heck, it's strange to see animals that are supposed to be wild and held up in captivity. But, at least those animals are largely kept in captivity all their lives. When talking about humanity, it's "wrong" to make humans do something they aren't supposed to be doing or what is unnatural. Why not apply the same to animals? Cruel and unusual punishment to an extent. The wild animal will always act like a wild animal, there are many incidents of wild animals trying to be kept captive and incidents happening -- it's going to happen, they cannot make the adjustment because they are born free and are supposed to be wild.

O-Trap and OSH trying to set record for biggest wall of text.

It was an old non breeding rhino going to die soon.

friendfromlowry;1568646 wrote:Depends on the crime. When you have the true lowlifes who rape and/or kill children or murder mass amounts of people, why not? They're just going to sit in jail for life or possibly go to death row anyways.

Then does someone get to hunt the murderer of the murderer? It only seems fair.