Hunting to Conserve – PLSC 359: Global Governance

Have you thought about conservation lately? Being a millennial myself, I have been aware of the various advertisements, protests, and organizations that surround the topic of animal conservation. Perhaps you can remember the great conservation tragedy with the death of Cecil the lion last year, the media backlash that Walter Palmer received. Headlines filled with stories about the dentist from Bloomington, Minnesota, who suddenly found himself as the target of aggression.

Palmer’s story is not different from that of Corey Knowlton, the subject of a Radiolab podcast titled The Rhino Hunter. However, Radiolab frames the story and makes a daunting apologist-like leap towards showing the other side of the conservation effort. In 2014, after he won the bid for the tag to hunt a Black Rhino in Namibia, Knowlton received death threats and aggressive emails and comparable media coverage as Palmer had gotten. Despite the aggression shown towards him, Knowlton had continued with the plan: he hunted and killed a Black Rhino. Currently, the Black Rhino population is struggling at around 5,000-5,500 in conservation parks and sanctuaries. They remain to be classified as critically endangered, teetering the brink of extinction. But his reason for going through with it was that he was for the conservation movement.

This struck me as I delved deeper into the story. By buying these expensive tags through agencies, the money that they raise through auctioning actually goes into preserving the sanctuaries in Africa thus he was actually hunting to conserve.

Stories like these are not rare, as agencies make thousands of dollars selling these prized tags. But it is not an issue that only affects the hunters in america, but also the governments of countries like Namibia. They are selling the opportunity to kill an endangered animal to protect more endangered animals. The dialogue that surrounds the conservation effort are all dominated by one sided point of view, it fails to show how there are many other connections, agendas, and motivations involved in trying to protect an animal in the brink of extinction. I think that people are often too hurriedly jumping to the conclusion of conservation as a black and white issue, when stories like Knowlton’s and Palmer’s show the politics and the influential role of money that work to pull the strings behind the scenes.

http://http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/

Nicholas La Branche says:

May 1, 2016 at 12:51 am

As disgusting as it may seem I believe that Corey Knowlton and others alike might actually have valid claims. Although I find it highly doubtful that Corey Knowlton genuinely cares about the preservation and continued existence of black rhinos, after reading up on the circumstances, I believe that the practice might actually be in the best interest of the species. Maybe as millennial myself I have fallen victim to exactly what you have described. (As constant trips to Taco Bell breakfast and my obsession with all apple products may indicate, I am a highly impressionable guy, so perhaps this is to be taken with a grain of salt.) Corey Knowlton paid nearly $350,000 for his rhino hunting permit. This permit was issued by Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism. All of this money, as it is well documented, will go towards anti-poaching efforts across Namibia. This includes increased funds to monitor and enforce possible other abuses to endangered species within the state. This means that other individuals will be far less likely to hunt the highly prized rhino because of such a contribution. Additionally, and possibly most importantly the particular rhino that Knowlton did hunt was no longer able to contribute to the gene pool and as several scientists indicate would likely only “harm or kill young males”. Although his motivation may be hard to pinpoint, the actual effect of the hunt was in the end most likely in the best interest of the continued existence of the species. Although it may be an ill-advised comparison, if it were say determined that quail were over populated in a region and for instance decimating the grubworm population would it not be wise to encourage individuals to hunt the quail? This case is not different. I believe that in Knowlton’s case as well as other cases, if it is determined that a particular member of an animal species may harm the future of that species it should be permissible to hunt. Although maybe Knowlton should not be applauded for his actions (as I personally find it hard to believe that he had good intentions) I also do not believe that he should be condemned.

I may be naive but perhaps there is truth to the notion that hunting is conservation.