The Corey Knowlton Situation

Jack-Hammer

YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
I'd forgotten all about this as it was a story that was originally reported several months back, maybe even in late summer to early fall. The reason I suddenly remembered it is because there's a new twist on this story.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/us/black-rhino-hunting-permit/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Corey Knowlton is a 35 year old man from Dallas, Texas and is a hunting consultant for an international outdoors & wilderness guiding service called The Hunting Consortium. He also hosts a show on The Outdoor Channel and claims to have hunted over 120 species of animals on nearly every continent.

The controversy started when Knowlton was outed via social media as the winner of an auctioned hunt sponsored by The Dallas Safari Club. Knowlton's bid of $350,000 won him the opportunity to travel to Zambia to hunt the endangered Black Rhino. Since he was outed, Knowlton has been the target of various animal rights groups and has received death threats from various people who've sent him messages via Twitter and Facebook. People have also threatened his children and the threats have him rattled to such a degree that he's hired a private security detail for himself & his family at all times.

Knowlton argues that his money will be used to help protect the Black Rhino as a species. Some groups support Knowlton's belief that such money will be used for the betterment of the species, such as helping measures to increase population. Others say that it's just an example of good old fashioned eco-terrorism and an excuse for an avid, wealthy hunter to have an opportunity to participate in an extremely rare hunt.

The threats of death & physical violence to Knowlton and his family are definitely going too far. Nothing remotely positive can come out of a situation in which overly zealous people, some of whom only say what they say due to the relative anonymity provided by the internet. It only serves to further divide people who're already on opposite sides of the fence in an issue like this.

I do, however, understand and share the skepticism that some people have about this. I'm no expert on conservation, far from it in fact. According to the report on CNN, there are only about 5,000 Black Rhinos in the world with a population of about 1,700 in Zambia, the country that's ultimately being paid for the hunt. Like I said, I'm no expert by any means whatsoever, but I'm just highly suspicious of someone who claims that spending a six figure sum to hunt an animal that's been labeled "Critically Endangered" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature is being done for the benefit of the species. There are currently 9 categories pertaining to the conservation status of animals and "Critically Endangered" indicates a very high risk of the species becoming extinct. The only two levels considered worse are "Extinct in the Wild" and, of course "Extinct" altogether.
 
There is no such thing as good intentions in Africa. The $350K that this man paid to hunt a black rhino will inevitably wind up funding the home renovations of several bureaucratic assholes in Zambia.

When it comes to poaching/hunting endangered species in Africa, violence is the only viable counteractive measure left. It's unfortunate that the majority of so-called "activists" for these animals are nothing more than keyboard warriors. It pains me to hear of such atrocities against such beautiful animals, but I'm man enough to admit that I don't care enough about them to drop everything in my extremely comfortable life to do something about it. That being said, I would definitely throw some coin at an organization that showed itself willing to take measure into its own hands.
 
There is no such thing as good intentions in Africa. The $350K that this man paid to hunt a black rhino will inevitably wind up funding the home renovations of several bureaucratic assholes in Zambia.

When it comes to poaching/hunting endangered species in Africa, violence is the only viable counteractive measure left. It's unfortunate that the majority of so-called "activists" for these animals are nothing more than keyboard warriors. It pains me to hear of such atrocities against such beautiful animals, but I'm man enough to admit that I don't care enough about them to drop everything in my extremely comfortable life to do something about it. That being said, I would definitely throw some coin at an organization that showed itself willing to take measure into its own hands.

The problem with this thought process is that you, or anyone animal rights group/activist, are enormous hypocrites. You're telling me it's ok to kill a human being because you don't like that he's killing animals?

I am not saying what Knowlton or the sponsors did was right, but killing someone because you don't like that they're killing animals, endangered or not, is plain dumb and wrong. Maybe I'm a bug loving entomologist. That doesn't mean I have the responsibility to go around killing any person who steps on an ant.

Also, let's take aside the fact that he's paying to hunt an endangered species. That's clearly a large reason he's getting so much flack, but the people that these activists should really be upset with are the ones that made this the prize, The Dallas Safari Club. Why would they choose a "Critically Endangered" species in the first place? Sure, it's a rare hunt, but can't they find something that's still rare but not so low in numbers that it will lead to further endangering it's population? I think people are focusing too much on the winner here, and not the people who caused this problem in the first place. There's enough crazy people in the world that if you could get away with sponsoring a hunt on a human being, someone would win the prize. Who's worse? The crazy person who won, or the club of people who sponsored the outrageous event in the first place?
 
But Knowlton argues that, in this instance, killing one black rhino will protect the species throughout Namibia.....

And while it might be a short term view, NOT killing one black rhino will also serve to protect them, right?


The Dallas Safari Club says the $350,000 paid by Knowlton will be donated to the Namibian government's black rhino conservation efforts.

A nice thought.....or should we say "afterthought" since I doubt there was any mention or intention of this before the protests started rolling in. Besides, are there actually any "Namibian government's black rhino conservation efforts?" Or is that something they added in there as spin, to make us think the money isn't just going to line the pockets of some Namibian official?

As for the threats against Knowlton and his family, they remind me of threats made by people who oppose abortion; the ones who regard the of sanctity life so highly that they're willing to kill doctors who perform those operations. Got to appreciate the irony, no?
 
And while it might be a short term view, NOT killing one black rhino will also serve to protect them, right?

From what I can gleam, the hunt was for a male which could no longer fathom hopes of reproducing, but could still be a threat and ward off the younger rhino's, thus reducing their chances. Also the $350,000 is a lot more than if he had decided to just wander up there anyway.

Every time I look up Black Rhino's, I read they went extinct in 2011. But they just keep coming back!
 
The problem with this thought process is that you, or anyone animal rights group/activist, are enormous hypocrites. You're telling me it's ok to kill a human being because you don't like that he's killing animals?

Firstly, how does my thought process lead to me being a hypocrite? I have no idea how you logically came to that conclusion. Secondly, no, I am not saying it's ok to kill a human because I don't like the fact that he's killing animals. Here's how my argument works.

Premise 1: Poaching and hunting endangered animals is very appealing to some people (e.g., Knowlton).

Premise 2: Only death or the probability of death would prevent such people as Knowlton from poaching and hunting endangered animals.

Premise 3: The life of an endangered animal is unequivocally worth more than the life of a human who would kill an endangered animal for nothing more than sport.

Conclusion: In order to preserve the lives of endangered animals, killing poachers and hunters of endangered animals is the only viable deterrent to such activities and should be condoned.

I am not saying what Knowlton or the sponsors did was right, but killing someone because you don't like that they're killing animals, endangered or not, is plain dumb and wrong.

I can partially agree with this even though I never said it.

Maybe I'm a bug loving entomologist. That doesn't mean I have the responsibility to go around killing any person who steps on an ant.

This is a horrible analogy for a reason that should be obvious to you.

Also, let's take aside the fact that he's paying to hunt an endangered species. That's clearly a large reason he's getting so much flack, but the people that these activists should really be upset with are the ones that made this the prize, The Dallas Safari Club. Why would they choose a "Critically Endangered" species in the first place? Sure, it's a rare hunt, but can't they find something that's still rare but not so low in numbers that it will lead to further endangering it's population? I think people are focusing too much on the winner here, and not the people who caused this problem in the first place. There's enough crazy people in the world that if you could get away with sponsoring a hunt on a human being, someone would win the prize. Who's worse? The crazy person who won, or the club of people who sponsored the outrageous event in the first place?

The Dallas Safari Club does not exist without a market for poaching and hunting endangered animals. If death is assured for people like Knowlton, then the Dallas Safari Club and other organizations like it will fade into oblivion.
 
I would have loved being a member of the Dallas Safari Club during the Cowboys two Super Bowl wins over the Bills. I could have changed the outcome of those games.

The threats are wrong. Hunting an endangered animal is wrong. Promoting the idea of hunting an endangered animal is wrong. I wonder how many of the losers of the auction are going to save $300,000 and find their own way to kill one of these beasts now? If the animal rights folks wanted bad enough to stop this, they should have gotten their own money together and won the contest then chose not to kill the animal once the hunt was over. It would be nice if Knowlton took the same action. Maybe he could hunt it and shoot it with a love dart.

That being said, I hope my wife is making black rhino for dinner tonight.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,851
Messages
3,300,884
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top