Quote of the Day: They Shoot Rhinos Don’t They? Edition

“If I sound emotional, it’s because I have people threatening my kid. It’s because I have people threatening to kill me right now [that] I’m having to talk to the FBI and have private security to keep my children from being skinned alive and shot at.” Hunter Corey Knowlton quoted in Winner of black rhino hunting auction: My $350,000 will help save the species [via cnn.com]

comments

  1. avatar tim ellis says:

    I’m with you man, but what did you think would happen? The left is a violent death cult, always has been. You are breaking one of their sacred tenets.

    1. avatar DrewR55 says:

      I agree completely. Once again it is demonstrate just how vicious and violent the so-called ‘pacifist’ movement really is. They will ‘co-exist’ (complete with religious symbols) so long as it is on their terms. How many times have we all read comments on new sites from individuals calling for violent action against the Right? How long before they start demanding Nazi-style death camps?

      The cult of Liberalism is no different than any other extremist political faction, “Agree with us or we’ll kill you.”

    2. avatar Paranoid Android says:

      Let’s be fair here guys, the right, hell any ideological affiliation has these extremists too. If you take anything to seriously you get violent fundamentalists. People threatening to bomb planned parenthood because of abortion views for example. Most people aren’t so… Insane.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Most people don’t ever think there are/will be any consequences/effect for their words or actions. Add that to the sensationalist nature of our society (ie: needing to make outlandish and over-the-top statements to get noticed on FaceBook, Twitter, Cable News, etc) along with the ease of getting a negative comment seen by the thousands on any blog/news comment section and people of all ages don’t think/care about what is actually coming out of their mouths. This leads to some small amount of discontent erupting into evermore hate-filled vitriol from both sides of every issue. Furthermore, add an ever increasing lack of conflict resolution skills and you get our current culture of keyboard commandos as well as a lack of civil discourse away from the computer screen.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        You have given a perfect example of false equivalence. The mainstream left advocates violence while only “right wing” fringe groups do. And when you look at the nature of “rightwing fringe” groups they are objectively leftwing, i.e., Nazis and Fascists. The political right stands for free markets, republican government and the rule of law.

        1. avatar Paranoid Android says:

          Listen here Godwin, Nazis and fascists in general are pretty freaking obviously not leftwing. What about oppression of social/realigious groups says liberal to you? Do some bloody research.

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics

          That said, it’s all bullsht. People have more complex views than that simple spectrum can represent, as Jesus said, don’t be such an ass and treat people as equals; with some dam respect. I’m paraphrasing.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Wikipedia for political information are you kidding?

          What part of Socialism in National Socialism don’t you get?

          Do you know when Mussolini got his title of Il Duce? When he was head of the Italian Communist Party before WWI. Mussolini was the first Progressive hero.

          Obviously, you don’t know that what we call liberal today is what Europeans called communist in the 19th century. Liberal in the English speaking world was defined the way Hayek defined Libertarian.

          You are obviously an historical illiterate and I am not going to take the time to explain the relationship between Socialism, Communism, Radical Syndicalism and Fascism. I will leave you with a name.: Georges Sorel. Educate yourself.

          I will also leave you with a riddle. How can right wing mean both a belief in small government and individual rights and at the same time refer to a political philosophy that is collectivist and opposed to individual freedom?

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “political right stands for free markets, republican government and the rule of law.”

          How about property rights? Especially self-ownership? And Freedom From Religion?

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          Only faux Libertarian radical syndicalists (leftwing extremists) believe in freedom from religion and property rights. Of course mainstream lefwingers omit the private property thing.

        5. avatar Paranoid Android says:

          It is I waste of my time to argue with you and you annoy me. I am done.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          Rich:

          I gave you a flip answer, unlike the other guy you deserve a real answer.

          It is hard to classify the market oriented radical syndicalism that we now call Libertarianism. Since it is market oriented it doesn’t exactly fit with the collectivism of normal leftwing ideologies. However, with its focus on personal autonomy and its antipathy to civil society it has more in common with classical anarchism which always has been classified with leftwing. The contradiction in this form of Radical Syndicalism cum Libertarianism is that without civil institutions there is no way to enforce contracts which sit at the heart of private property. If I want your property and I have more effective power than you either by myself or in conjunction with others I simply take it because there is no one to prevent me. Since you can’t have private property without civil society your political philosophy has more common with the extreme left.

          Note to Paranoid Android:

          You clearly aren’t up to a discussion which I knew that from the beginning. The useless wikipedia definition of left and right says the right wing believes in inequality. That of course, like most of wikipedia, is written by the left. In fact it is the left that wants build a society based on extreme inequality. The Philosopher John Rawls, [ever hear of him?] wrote the bible for leftwing redistributional ethics. It is called “A Theory of Justice.” Rawls postulates that the social contract should follow and “maximin” strategy for individual welfare. Rawls specifically states that a society will have to tolerate high levels of inequality to fund the just society. I can see why the left likes it. The left believes that an elite must run the society and of course the elite are the ones who will “fund” the welfare of others. The most unequal places in America are those run by what the left likes call Progressives. They are also the most racist and narrow minded component of society,.

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          First, what the hell does “syndicalism” mean?

        8. avatar William Burke says:

          LOOK IT UP, Rich. For chrissakes.

        9. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “LOOK IT UP, Rich. For chrissakes.”

          GFY. I’m not going to do your research for you.

        10. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Jesus, you two. Are you both teenage girls?

          Rich, he wasn’t asking you to “do research” for him, and you know that. Telling him “Go Fuck Yourself” was completely out of line.

          Not real sure how a post about rhino hunting devolved into an in-depth discussion about socialism, fascism and at least three other -isms, but I don’t care. Keep it civil or do it elsewhere.

          Christ.

        11. avatar Rich Grise says:

          tldvina was trying to make a point, and using nonsense words. I asked tldfina to define what their nonsense word meant, so i could grasp what they were trying to say. Then Burke butts his big fat nose in and tells me to look up tldvina’s nonsense word. I say, if you’re going to make up words to make a point, it’s kinda the responsibility of the one making them up to define them.

          But I should have known better than to get trolled by what appears to be a tag-team.

        12. avatar William Burke says:

          You’re quite the charmer, aren’t you?

        13. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Rich Grise – It’s Freedom OF Religion, not “from” it — up to and including practicing no religion, if the individual so chooses. Get it right.

          So long as people are free to practice their spiritual beliefs (so long as they’re not hurting anybody else obviously), society will never be free “from” religion. That’s a completely non-sequitur argument. It’s the Freedom OF Religion that forms the very foundation for a free society.

        14. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Excedrine says:
          “@Rich Grise – It’s Freedom OF Religion, not “from” it — up to and including practicing no religion, if the individual so chooses. Get it right.”

          Oh, well, aren’t you little mister language authority. No, I got it right. You’re free to practice any superstition you want, but I have a right not to have laws passed that inflict your personal superstitions on me.

        15. avatar Duke says:

          Pay no attention to tdiinva and his “No True Scotsman” fallacies. There’s no arguing with a true believer.

        16. avatar tdiinva says:

          And what I am I a fanatic about?

          I guess you go with the Ignorance Is Strength motif.

      3. avatar Cliff H says:

        I am not a bomber nor an extremist, but can we stay a little bit factual here?

        The people who threaten to bomb abortion clinics and/or kill abortionists do it from their deeply held belief that these people are murdering unborn children and those places are death factories. They truly believe (right or wrong) that by their actions they are saving innocents, executing murderers and getting some degree of justice that our current political system is incapable of providing.

        My personal philosophy is quite a bit more complicated than that, but I do understand their position. Attempting to rationalize the concept that 30+ million aborted fetus’ (Just since Roe v. Wade) is okay, but executing a single murderer, even after conviction in a court of law, is somehow not to be tolerated, seems a little odd, to say the least.

        Oh, and by the way, Nazism and fascism are both rooted, DEEPLY rooted, in socialism and big, powerful, all-knowing top-down government, so any attempt to make the argument that they are right-wing phenomena is simply ludicrous. (See “Liberal Fascism” – Jonah Goldberg) That said, extremists of any stripe, right or left, tend to take on the stink of fascism when they cannot otherwise convince enough people to agree with their opinions, but a few right wing fascists compared to the majority of left wing Progressives and Liberals espousing political systems indistinguishable from classical Fascism is hardly an indictment of the entire conservative political spectrum.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          “The people who threaten to bomb abortion clinics and/or kill abortionists do it from their deeply held belief that these people are murdering unborn children and those places are death factories. They truly believe (right or wrong) that by their actions they are saving innocents, executing murderers and getting some degree of justice that our current political system is incapable of providing.”

          They need to learn not to interfere with the process of karma. In so doing, they are sullying their own karma. And a price will be paid for it.

          And Cliff, you are wrong about Fascism, demonstrably so. The Nazi movement was called “National Socialism”, but it shares no belief with Socialism, other than the word. Fascism and Naziism have always been considered the furthest extreme of the Right.

          Of course, most people by now know that it’s not really a line, but more like a circle. So “so right, he’s left”, or the other way around, is pretty true.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “They need to learn not to interfere with the process of karma. In so doing, they are sullying their own karma. And a price will be paid for it.”

          Before you can understand karma, you need to grasp fragmentation. Victim and perpetrator are always two fragments of the same spirit.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Hitler was asked how he could be a socialist and not nationalize industry. His response is that he didn’t need to nationalize industry because he had nationalized the people instead.

          The origin of the term rightwing for Fascism was a corruption of “rightwing deviationist.” The Bolsheviks considered themselves to be the “mainstream.” They divided those who deviated from the party line as right or left deviationists. The so called Social Revolutionaries, i.e., radical syndicalists, were called left deviationists because they believed you could go directly from capitalism to pure communism without the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Rightwing deviationists were those who were anti-capitalist and collectivist but did not accept Marxist economics. Mussolini and his Fascist ideology fit into this category. Lenin reserved right wing for supporters of the previous capitalist order based individualism and psuedo-democracy. Reactionaries where monarchists. The use of rightwing to describe Fascism was a creation of Stalin after Hitler rose to power.

          You ought to read more on how Mussolini evolved from Communism to Fascism. His basic observation was that Marx wrong. There was no common interest between the working class. The interests of the Proletariat were strictly national. He drew much of his inspiration from the French Radical Syndicalist Georges Sorel. He actual knew and corresponded with Lenin. They debated these issues. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 settled the collectivist debate in Mussolini’s favor.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          WB:

          A couple of after thoughts.

          “Fascism and Naziism have always been considered the furthest extreme of the Right.” So Saith the left wing but not so fast with it’s actual practitioners. Fascism and Nazism are both revolutionary doctrines. Revolutionaries have been considered left wing since the French Revolution where the left-right dichotomy originated. The left – right spectrum is inadequate to describe the range of political theories. A three dimensional scale would be far better.

          I always find in amusing that Progressives run away from their affinity with Fascism and Nazism. Both these systems came closer to meeting the egalitarian objectives of “true socialism” and were far better at satisfying material needs. Measured by access to housing, proper nutrition, healthcare and basic necessities the average Soviet citizen never reached the standard of living obtained in 1939 Germany.

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          That right wing/ left wing dichotomy is only one component of the divide-and-conquer tactics being used by the Statists. The real fight is between absolute control vs. Freedom, and this time Freedom has to win because the Statists have the power to kill every living thing on the planet. This very well could be Earth’s last chance to survive.

          Free Will is God’s Will. Who wants your obeisance is Satan.

        6. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Just wow. You really need to go for a walk or something.

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Just wow. You really need to go for a walk or something.”
          Why do you feel you need to tell me to do this?

    3. avatar Wassim Absood says:

      I am as serious about my ‘liberal’ beliefs as I am about gun rights.

      But go ahead, stereotype thoughtlessly….after all, this is the internet.

      1. avatar jerry says:

        Not easy being you is it?

      2. avatar benny says:

        Attack first, correct/understand later.
        For a bunch of “simple right minded gun owners” a lot of these bloggers act like the gun grabbers…

      3. avatar James Navy Vet says:

        I am with you Wassim Absood, people are too quick to generalize and alienate potential allies. Very few people can claim their views fall 100% in line with one political ideology or another. It makes me shake my head when people say things like “libtards” or “Repukes”. It makes the speaker/poster seem that much less intelligent and throws peoples into broad groups based upon just a few beliefs. If you descend into name calling and generalization you lose people who may otherwise have been an asset to you.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          If one of your “liberal beliefs” is that each person is sovereign and there is no legitimate authority to dictate what you may or may not put into or take out of your own body, then I’m with you on that one.

        2. avatar Duke says:

          +1000 James. We need more people like you to balance out the lunatic fringe on this site. If you have to resort to calling your political opponents childish names, your credibility is pretty much destroyed.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          I agree we ought to refrain from such terms, not that I will influence anyone. Beware of mindsets and philosophies that crown one set of people, and demonize another. This is the kind of thinking atrocities are made of.

          They think terms like “libtard” is cute and funny, when actually it’s harmful and divisive, and makes the person who uses it look bad.

          What’s the advantage in that?

      4. avatar Cliff H says:

        There is considerable confusion these days, almost certainly intentional on the part of the left, between “liberal”, which classically referred to a political philosophy of personal and economic liberty, and “Liberal”, which term was co-opted by the left wing early in the 20th century when it became extremely unpopular to be considered “Progressive”, since that was the party of eugenics (look it up), racism and fascism.

        Considering that Liberals are in fact Progressives who are in fact Fascists and Socialists, I have to consider that Liberals support the Second Amendment for their own purposes, not for the purpose of individual liberty and the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government as was intended by our Founders.

        For that reason a Liberal with a gun, despite the fact that he/she has the same natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms as every other person, will ALWAYS make me nervous and their protestations that they “support” the Second Amendment will be suspect in my mind so long as they, as a political movement, actively try to subvert that amendment and the entire Constitution. You cannot honestly say you support the Second Amendment while also supporting a political party that works every single day to not only repeal that amendment by any means they can, but also believes the Constitution itself is a “living, breathing document” that can be re-interpreted to their vision of the 21st century.

        If you are truly a Liberal/Progressive (I prefer Progressialist, since the combination of Progressive and Socialist is more accurate), and you really think you support the Second Amendment as an absolute individual right that CANNOT be infringed by any government action, regardless the provocation, then you need to take a long, hard look at your core beliefs because you have an incompatible contradiction built into your philosophy.

        At some point Liberals, Progressives, Socialists and Communists WILL turn to political oppression to maintain their Utopian wet dreams, it is the only way they know to deal with political dissidents (history has shown over and over). Conservatives and Libertarians, and to some degree Republicans, although I’m beginning to have my doubts about them, to one degree or another, are willing to agree to only the barest minimum of government necessary to maintain their identity as a sovereign country and in the face of any effort to dictate further are more likely to just tell you to fuck off than throw your ass in a camp.

        That’s the fundamental difference.

        You’re a Liberal? I DON”T trust you, especially of you like guns.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Two of the things that bother me about the “Conservatives” are that they want to enforce Puritanism and that they want to maintain or even reinforce the “Women are Property” paradigm, both of which are inimical to Liberty.

  2. avatar the ruester says:

    This story is so infuriating. There are not enough liberal good intentions to save the black rhino, so they turn to something that can actually help (rich guy canned hunt). Libs are so butthurt by this, it makes them feel so impotent, that they would rather just let the damn rhinos die. Until their unicorn farts can be converted into currency, they need to just shut the hell up.

    Yeeeaaarrrrgh!!!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      This is actually a very good analysis, and I like the ol’ screen name, ruester.

  3. avatar Matt in FL says:

    From the comments section at cnn.com:

    Ignorance is bliss. All the black rhino in Namibia are owned by Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). MET holds auctions like this in Windhoek, Namibia, every year and have been since 2004. Most of the bidders in these auctions will be hunting safari operators, who buy permits to shoot particular numbers of specific species, and then offer these to their mailing list of clients, making a profit for themselves. Other countries in Africa do the same thing hoping bidders come to them. Instead, MET has looked at where the wealthiest hunters are – and these tend to be American or German – and have gone straight to the potential customers . Funds from this auction will go to the Game Products Trust Fund in Namibia and will be ring-fenced specifically for rhino conservation efforts. Last year Namibia auctioned off three rhino hunts and brought in just under $600,000 this tag Knowlton bought alone is already more than half of that and it would have been more if bidders would have been more if not for the loons that make death threats.

    I learned stuff.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Matt,

      Much of that information was public as soon as the controversy began. If you are big into hunting much of this information is well known. This simply another example that the left chooses to ignore facts unless it supports their agenda. This auction has been going on for years. The only reason it is news is because of the amount paid for the tag. If it was not for that, I assume 95% of the appalled liberal eco-terrorist only just got a clue. Because they live only to satisfy their emotions, they are only now reacting.

      I see this no different than when they overreact over guns.

      As long as these people use illogical emotions to issues, there will always be events like this – and the media feeds over these emotions for ratings which simply perpetuates the issue. They are being played and don’t even know it.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Outrage is the single biggest industry of the digital age.

        1. avatar Kunda Task says:

          Brilliant!

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Yeah, me too. I knew none of this. Thanks, Matt.

  4. avatar Anmut says:

    WHY IS PIERCE MORGAN STILL RELEVANT?

    1. avatar Hobbez says:

      And why would you help foster the idea that he is still relevant by subjecting yourself to the punishment of going on his show?

    2. avatar Chaotic Good says:

      No joke, I think we’re partially to blame. The more we pay attention to him and the more controversy he adds to keep us agitated the longer his awful show stays on the air.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        I couldn’t agree more. Every time he spouts off about guns, CNN posts clips of it online, and all the gunnies watch and get enraged. As far as CNN cares, they don’t give one molecule of shit if you agree or disagree with him, they just need people to watch so they can show the numbers to advertisers.

        Just like Shannon Watts’ pretend group, Morgan probably gets more attention from us than from people who agree with him. Don’t feed the trolls, people.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        I don’t remember where I heard this, but a radio commentator opined one day that on a talk show, if the phone lines went dark, all you had to do to light them up again and boost your ratings was to bring up either the Second Amendment or abortion.

        Pierce is obviously desperate for ratings, as is all of CNN, and only by trumpeting these so-called controversies can he get anyone to pay attention to him or his show.

    3. avatar Avenger1 says:

      And why is he still in this country?!

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I think the UK police are asking the same question.

      2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Because after pissing off all the Britons, he can’t go back without random people punching him in the face.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Perhaps Americans should adopt a similar policy.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Yeah didn’t he say something about leaving if more gun control wasn’t enacted?

        1. avatar benny says:

          Its like what I tell people who consider getting the superman logo on their chest…
          Don’t get it unless you can back it up. CLEARLY Piers can’t and/or won’t back his up.
          This is my shocked face.

    4. avatar William Burke says:

      Whaddaya mean, “still”?

  5. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Hunting/conservation is a way of life now that humans have all but completely destroyed every natural ecosystem left on the planet. If Rhino hunting brings money to keep the remaining rhinos healthy I’m for it. It’s funny most liberal groups don’t think twice about zoo animals having been removed from the natural habitat but scoff at removing them by shooting them.

    (Sarcasm time) I got a great idea to save the Rhino let’s sterilize them all so they can not breed so then nobody can kill them for the horn anymore.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “humans have all but completely destroyed every natural ecosystem left on the planet. ”

      Can you cite any actual sources for this outrageous claim, or do you just come here to spout liberal propaganda?

      1. avatar Paranoid Android says:

        A Global Map Of Human Impact On Marine Ecosystems. Science volume 319 Feb 2008

        Though I get the feeling you were asking sarcastically just to put down that guy. But if you are interested there is ALOT of research backing it up, I’d be happy to get a few more articles for you. Let’s try to keep respectful towards others views, unless they are pro gun control, then by all means, flame away.

      2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        Let’s see… Industrial revolution, polition, destruction of the great plains buffalo herds, shooting all the apex predators in America, I’m not a liberal I’m just pointing out that we wouldn’t be worried about the Rhino if they were not poached to the current numbers, besides you name an ecosystem and I can point out how humans have had an impact. I hunt, I shoot, but I also care about the environment.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          You left off all the North American Megaflora exterminated by primitive people from Asia who migrated to North America.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        lol… ignorance must be a powerful force to think that humans have had any less effect.

        Though I’d quibble with the word ‘natural’ since we are all animals. Humans are just particularly invasive.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Humans are just particularly invasive.”
          Only the ones who are possessed by Satan.

      4. avatar Cliff H says:

        Rich, I think the facts will show that as homo-sapiens became more advanced they focused a great deal of thought and energy to eliminating the predatory species in nature, since we tended to be on their menu.

        In so doing we frequently upset the natural balance and if we did not replace those predators to maintain the balance of species previously scheduled for lunch entire ecosystems could and did go drastically out of balance. Take for instance that there are now approaching EIGHT BILLION humans on the planet. It will not be much longer before any rational investigation would classify us as a plague.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          There is no problem with the resources on the planet, only that they are allocated in a greedy way. The planet can easily support at least 20 billion people, if resources are allocated fairly (no artificial shortages to drive up prices, for instance); I’m not enthusiastic about that many people, but the fact remains that proper management can support many more people than the planet currently holds.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “proper management”

          There’s that old bugaboo. Since time immemorial, people have been looking for the “proper” way to “manage” people who are inherently Free Beings.

          Ultimately, Order is Death. Life is Chaotic! There are no straight lines in Nature.

          The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is Free Will.

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Rich, I’m pretty sure he was referring to management of resources, not people. You’re misunderstanding people more often and being unusually nasty today. Are you suffering from an overabundance or a lack of something? You’re talking like a crazy person.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “You’re talking like a crazy person.”
          You sound surprised. I thought it was fairly well-known that I’m a crazy person.

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “rational investigation would classify us as a plague.”

          I’m sure it would, on your planet.

  6. avatar JeffR says:

    I actually have to hand it to some media outlets who have handled this story in an even-handed way. Even-handed in that some have presented the benefits to conservation of this particular hunt. Very few, however, seem willing to call out those who are making death threats to this guy. If those making the threats were from the other end of the political spectrum, we would never hear the end of it.

  7. avatar Nicks87 says:

    Left wing loonies do not understand that hunting is part of wildlife conservation. This is, yet again, another example of how the “liberal” way of jumping to conclusions based on an emotional reaction to a topic or issue results in an illogical thought process. $350,000 will do more for the conservation of those rhinos than idiots like Piers Morgan could ever understand. The harvesting of a single male Black Rhino will have very little impact on the survival of the species. I do somewhat agree with the criticism of the “Rich American Hunter” being able to have an opportunity like this just because he has the money to do so. It’s very elitist. It promotes the belief that if you have enough money then you are somehow exempt from the laws and regulations that the rest of us have to follow.

    1. avatar Bill J says:

      Same here, why do rich people get to have all the really expensive stuff just because they can afford it? It’s not fair.

    2. avatar ChuckN says:

      There is a sense that if you have enough money, or political
      might, you are exempt from laws and regs. And far too often
      this is proven true. In this case, however, I don’t think the
      sentiment applies. The entire goal of the hunt is to get funds.
      Like it or not, but the average middle-class hunter won’t be
      able to contribute more than a few drops in the bucket cash
      wise.

      The main issue to remember is that this hunt is SANCTIONED.
      It is not an illegal hunt. Just because the permit was bought with
      money (in this case a lot of money), it doesn’t make it any less
      legal. Also, laws and regs for big game hunts, especially ones
      like this, are very strict and nobody is above them.

      1. avatar Nicks87 says:

        They could raffle off the tag. $500 gets you into the drawing for an opportunity to hunt a black rhino. If 100,000 people bought a raffle ticket that would be $500,000. Which is more money than the auction brought in, plus you gave the average joe hunter a chance to win the tag not just the wealthy elites.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          No, it’d be $50 million they’d end up with. The problem is that if 99,999 of those people actually understand how statistics work, they’d only end up with $500. Better to go for the sure thing rather than take a huge loss if not enough people buy raffle tickets.

          Besides, why be jealous of someone hunting a rhino? Deer taste much better.

        2. avatar Bruce L. says:

          Remember, there are a lot of other expenses beside the tag. Do you have a gun, do you have the money for travel, can you pay for the guides and crew to get you to the hunting location? I would bet it will cost at least $25,000 just to get there and be ready to hunt. How many average hunters can afford this for one shot?

        3. avatar Nicks87 says:

          Oooohhhhh, you big man criticize my math mistake! Me so stupid so I not allowed to have opinion… Get real dude. By the way thanks for proving my point. It’s no suprise that someone with an elitist attitude would have no problem with such an obscene display of wealth. $350,000 is nothing compared to being able to tell everyone that you were taken to a game refuge, driven in a truck to where the rhino was taking a sh*t or whatever and pulled the trigger on some ridiculously large caliber hunting rifle and killed an endangered species. Good job, tough guy. I hope your tiny d*ck feels bigger after that.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          Nicks is pretty snarky for someone who can’t multiply, isn’t he?

        5. avatar knightofbob says:

          Hannibal, I’m pretty sure he takes issue with what you made those poor, “peaceful” elephants do as well.

          I also get a kick out of the knee-jerk go-to of micropenis accusations. Freud had a word for that.

        6. avatar Lucas D. says:

          “Me so stupid so I not allowed to have opinion”

          Yeah, you’re getting it now, man.

          Seriously, though: your opinion is an absolute crock with no substantial weight to it, based entirely on your emotional reaction to what you think is unfair; that you don’t know 2nd-grade arithmetic is just lagniappe.

          I don’t know if you also missed this basic lesson in class, but here’s a refresher: LIFE ISN’T FAIR, and some people will always get breaks that the rest of us don’t. Save some of that energy you spend on useless whining and go learn a trade, or something.

          Oh, and I’m flattered over your obsession with the size of my penis, but you needn’t bother; if that was really a shortcoming of mine, I’d have a nicer personality.

        7. avatar Cliff H says:

          Lucas – lottery numbers and Las Vegas prove that you are mistaken on that point.

          Bruce – If a raffle were held for the tag it could be as one of the tags, not all. The raffle could continue until the goal was reached, say $500k, and the winner of the raffle would then have all expenses paid out of that fund, including provision of an appropriate rifle on site for the hunt and training in how to use it, if he needed it.

    3. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

      How is he “exempt from the laws and regulations that the rest of us have to follow”? He bought and paid for his license to hunt. Just like everybody else. Hunting trips to Africa regularly cost upwards of ten thousand dollars. They’re trips that men and women save for their WHOLE lives, just to go once. This particular trip, in terms of actual costs of the trip and the hunt, is probably closer to $10,000 – $15,000. The reason it brought in $350,000 is because of the conservation aspect attached to it.

      There are many many many hunts where only a certain number of permits are issued, and you have to win one via a lottery in order to be able to hunt that species in that area that year. Does that make all those people “exempt from the laws and regulations”? No. They’re following the laws and regulations, just like this guy is.

      Now. Does he have an *opportunity* that most of us don’t have, because he has so much money? Absolutely. But that’s how capitalism and a free market society is supposed to work.

      1. avatar Nicks87 says:

        Sorry I pissed off the right wingers but I stand by my point. The only other way that this guy is going to be able to hunt a black rhino is to do it illegally by poaching. However because he has money, he can pay to be exempt from the laws that protect rhinos. Yes I understand that he is buying a tag but many people all over the world are getting sick of wealthy people being able to do whatever they want because they have the means to pay for it. Capitalism is great but once all the money gets funneled to a small group of people the “trickle down” effect isnt going to be enough to keep the rest of the population happy. Couple that with intrusive, over-bearing, tyrannical govt and thats when revolutions take place.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Oh, cry me river about how unfair it is that nobody’s giving you lots of stuff for free, but promise you’ll at least try to master simple arithmetic before you lecture any of us on economic theory.

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          He’s not “exempt” from any laws and regulations that protect rhinos. This hunt is part of the laws and regulations that protect them. That’s the whole point of it: to raise money and awareness for the conservation efforts. If he was bribing an official to not be arrested while he was poaching a rhino, maybe your point would be valid.

        3. avatar PavePusher says:

          No, not “exempt” from the law, their laws are specifically constructed to allow this. No “exemption” required.

          When you phrase things mendaciously, you loose credibility.

          Also, if you’re so against this, how much money have you donated to any organization that works for rhino preservation? A PII-edited scan of the cancelled check will suffice…..

        4. avatar Nicks87 says:

          I never once said I was against it.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          Are you saying absent the legal license they would hunt illegally? Projection at its finest.

    4. avatar Drew says:

      You got something wrong there, eliminating this Rino will effect the species… positively. This older non reproducing male is supposedly preventing younger males from mating thus hindering the growth of the species.

  8. avatar jerry says:

    Some of the comments from the left-wingers over at cnn are rather amusing. One idiot posted how the planet would be better off if humans were extinct. He can lead by example if he likes.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      I agree, they and their families can be first to set an example.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      That, Jerry, is at the core of most liberal/progressives; they hate themselves, they hate all human beings and they want them all dead. This why they fight to have the “right” to murder unborn children, but then go ballistic at the idea of hunting Bambi or the harvesting of baby seals for their fur.

      Liberal/progressivism is a suicide death cult.They will not be satisfied until all human beings are wiped off the face of the planet; well, except for the “worthy elitist few”.

    3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      The mindset of the main antagonists in Rainbow Six (the book) doesn’t seem to be that far off from the bloggers who espouse similar beliefs.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Good example; Rainbow Six perfectly describes their mindset. How many times I’ve heard them describes the human race as a virus, a disease, a cancer on the earth to be eradicated. Talk about poor self image. Is it any wonder they can contemplate mass murder? after all, we are only a disease to be cured.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I remember one time that I was suicidally depressed, I felt like a calcification at the distal end of the hemorrhoid of the Universe.

          But even then, I didn’t want to kill anybody but myself.

          I’m feeling much better now. %-}

  9. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Any eco-lib who hasn’t ponied up $350,000 for rhino conservation STFU. If they’re so worried about rhinos, why don’t THEY do something about it. They’d just rather whine like hippies.

    1. avatar Leadbelly says:

      Goddammit – quit calling modern liberals “hippies”. I was, and still am an armed hippie, and the self-loathing “liberals” you are talking about are NOT hippies.

      1. avatar Lucas D. says:

        Get a haircut, hippie.

        1. avatar Leadbelly says:

          PHLBT!

      2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Judging by the fact that you claim you’re an armed hippie, I think we may have different definitions of the term ‘hippie’. But using my definition, ‘hippie’ and ‘self loathing liberal’ are about as different as white tail deer and mule deer. Either way they both make for some pretty tasty chili.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          It’s easier to clean the deer for chili. Dammed dirty hippies. Who knows what’s in their system? Ate a hippie chick once and went on a 3 day trip.

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Use a gut hook, or at least a drop point knife and be careful to avoid cutting the lower intestine and bladder. And of course, always thoroughly cook meat, especially if it’s hippie meat.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      This exchange made me laugh. Thanks, Leadbelly and Lucas D.

  10. avatar Dustin Eward says:

    How much woukd you pay to hunt poachers? Make it a group hunt with no ‘guide’ and I bet the poaching problem will end REALLY fast…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I have had the same thought–have hunters hunt poachers. They’d be going up against highly mobile, large groups of men armed with automatic weapons. I bet you’d get hundreds of “operators” out their drooling over the opportunity. The hard part is making sure they don’t hunt the wrong people.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        … I’m pretty sure you’d have hunters hunting hunters pretty quick.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          That might be a feature, not a bug.

  11. avatar Dustin Eward says:

    I still don’t understand the dedire tobkill an animal you’re not going to eat, but at leadt the money does more good than the hoards of idiots whining about it ever will.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Who says this won’t be eaten? I’m thinking someone will eat the meat, maybe not the hunter but the bushmen.

      1. avatar knightofbob says:

        One of the earlier articles I read had mention of a village having already been designated as the recipient of the meat, free of charge.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          FEAST!

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Not bad for a low budget movie. I think they stretched it a bit making a trilogy of it.

    2. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

      As Griz noted the meat does not go to waste. Please read up on how an African hunt differs from North American white tail deer hunting. They are much more “community ” affairs where the locals benefit trememdously. There is a trail of economic benefit that starts at the airport on landing. There is cultural, political, and yes nutritional /health benefit to the locals both black and white. These PETA pyschos are going to destroy one of Africa’s proudest tradtions then leave the locals high and dry to cope with the wake of devastation created.

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        I was listening to Mark Levin show (listening to both the left/right babble stations while commuting is one of my joys) about a week ago, and this hunt was being discussed. A young college student called in and described a recent project for one of his classes, which required that the students arrange and plan a mock travel plan for an extended trip to a third-world culture – i.e. one where the student would have to “live and communicate with the local population” or some such. The student, being a hunter, decided that he would plan a mock Safari hunt very similar to this. He did all the work of arranging the details of available hunts that included staying with local villagers and interacting with local populations in rural South African bush land. When he turned in the completed project, his professor simply rejected it because he found the ultimate goal of hunting and shooting an African wild game species offensive to him, despite the student’s adherence to all of his projects’ requirements.

        Talk about “cultural insensitivity” – to both American and South African cultures.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          What a drip. Speaking of which,

          Cuomo: Extreme Conservatives Have No Place in New York

          http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/203801/cuomo-extreme-conservatives-have-no-place-in-the-state-of-new-york/

          Time for all of his to send him a letter, thanking him for saving us the expense of coming to his state and spending money. Thanks for the heads up, Andy!

  12. avatar Aharon says:

    Is that a black rhino on the Left?

  13. avatar Accur81 says:

    It’s pretty easy to piss off liberals. I’d go on one of these hunts for the experience and for the conservation. The economic benefit to the endangered species and those who would improve their chances of survival is undeniable. The only difference being that I would go fair chase vs. a canned hunt. If those on the left can’t tolerate that, and they can’t tolerate much of anything, then too bad. I refuse to live my life pandering to people who would threaten parents and children for hunting one of their precious animals.

  14. avatar jwm says:

    I’m not a trophy hunter. In fact I’m just easing back into hunting after a 40 year absence. Would i hunt an elephant or a rhino? No. Would I kill a man to protect an animal? No.

    I find it truly disturbing and the sign of a very sick mind to contemplate killing another human being to protect an animal. But then I started life on a family farm. Animals were for work or eating. We didn’t have a retirement plan for elderly animals.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Any man or any animal? What about a cattle rustler?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Now you’re talking about property rights. My cattle, my right to protect them from theft.

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          Some countries place the local tribes in charge of the wild herds, for them poachers are the same as a cattle rustler.

        2. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          I used to know someone who had traveled to Africa to hunt. He mentioned that in some areas the local authorities, if they trust you, will mention that they will look the other way if you happen to shoot a poacher.

  15. avatar Paul W. says:

    I don’t get trophy hunting and find it personally somewhat distasteful but FFS, the money from this does a lot more than any amount of sanctimonious whining ever will.

    It’s also not like they’re having them kill randomly and in quantity; it’s an old bull that will make way for younger bulls with fresh genetic material. I can’t grok paying 350k to go and cull an animal and have my hand held every step of the way, but w/e.

    1. avatar ihatetrees says:

      I’m no fan of trophy hunting either. That said, there are local areas where large animals are too abundant; culls are necessary. What’s wrong with an auction to raise conservation $$ and maybe pay for crop damage from these large creatures?

  16. avatar BTinAfghan says:

    Remember these are the same loony liberals who are out-raged over the deer hunts by the state on Long Island and the Feds near DC. If they would let and encourage hunting to cull the herds these extreme hunts would not be necessary. They don’t and will never understand that nature requires a balance. With no natural predators left, the animal population is now dependant on man to keep this balance.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      “They don’t and will never understand that nature requires a balance.”

      Absolutely correct. And there is no balance at all in their lives (or minds) because of that.

    2. avatar ChuckN says:

      It’s not just Long Island but almost in every state. In Maine
      their was no hunting allowed for decades on Marsh
      Island. In addition there were almost 0 natural predators.
      This caused the deer herds to explode. The herds got so
      big that many started starving to death. There is also a high
      rate of brain worm. The state and hunting groups tried for
      years to open it up but the University and the loud, whiny
      ex-hippies in the area raised such a fuss that all hunting
      was derailed. I guess that for these liberal do-gooders a
      dead emaciated deer with brain rot was more morally
      palatable than a healthy herd and some venison on
      somebody’s table.

    3. avatar Jeff says:

      Don’t think so fast about that. A lot of these same types of people are those who push for reintroduction of wolves, mostly to states that they don’t even live anywhere near. Then they get angry with the locals, who have to deal with the threat of wolves against their livestock, their wild game, and even themselves and their families.

      Wolves are very quickly taking over western states where they were reintroduced, and are breeding far quicker than expected. Hunting in Montana wilderness last winter, I saw the tracks in the fresh snow and caught a glimpse of one slipping into the trees several hundred yards from my position. Later that day, I saw one stop in the middle of a field and just stare at me, no sign of fear.

      Hunters have already been prosecuted for shooting wolves that were threatening them. Game departments don’t really even want to talk about it.

      Who is the wolf’s natural competition? Nothing, really. Just humans and nature itself.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        “Who is the wolf’s natural competition?”

        Bigfoot? Matt Moneymaker?

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          + 1,000,000 for the Matt Moneymaker reference!

  17. avatar Juliesa says:

    The money from hunting is the main thing keeping several endangered species from extinction. It also provides the money that preserves habitat for other species. If a rancher can make enough money off of her properly managed big whitetail bucks, she doesn’t have to split up her ranch and sell it. Wildlife can’t survive without intact habitat and the savvier conservation groups have the saying that hunting IS habitat.

    The hunting industry is also vital to rural economies in both the US and Africa. Drive through any small Texas town in hunting season, and you see how hunters help keep the local retail, lodging, gas, food and beverage businesses afloat.

  18. avatar Jus Bill says:

    There’s one fact about this hunt that everyone seems to have missed or glossed over. It’s that the rhino to be hunted is impotent, but because he is the alpha male in the herd he is preventing the younger fertile males from mating. So he has doomed the herd to extinction by his presence, and MUST be removed so that the herd can survive.

    I think we should take up a collection to capture that rhino and ship it to, say, Bloomberg’s living room.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      I think you hit the nail on the head here. If this guy Knowlton was smart, he would have already had a charity set up before he went on Morgan’s show. He could have said that if Morgan and his ilk agreed to pay the $350k plus shipping, he would hunt the Rhino with a tranquilizer (whether feasible or not) and have it shipped to a zoo of their choice. Being that Piers and Cooper just each bid over a million bucks for an piece of anti-gun artwork, it would have been nice to paint him in that corner on his own show. And you know Morgan wouldn’t take him up on it.

  19. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    From my understanding, the targeted old bull is one that basically can’t breed anymore, but is tough enough that he guards his harem to the point that the younger bulls can’t mate with available sows. So by taking him out of the herd, it will actually increase herd size.

    A white,(wide), rhino was poached on the concession I hunted last year. The whole animal was lying there. Minus the horn. It wasn’t discovered for about a week, so the meat was wasted. Very sad to see.

  20. avatar Stinkeye says:

    If they wanted to raise more money for the rhinos, they should offer up a solution to the lefties: if you can quadruple the winning bid with donations, we’ll give the rich guy his money back.

    Of course, this particular bull needs to be killed anyway, because he’s unable to breed, and therefore a threat to his herd, but they could do that quietly after they’ve bilked the PETA kids for a bunch of money.

  21. avatar Zach says:

    I’d be willing to pony up $350,000 if I got to hunt a RINO from the New Jersey area myself.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Sorry, but there’s no way get to New Jersey since the bridge was closed.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Besides, they closed that exit.

    2. avatar Jim says:

      Finally – I have been waiting for this joke since I started reading the comments. Well done.

  22. avatar Jim from Norcal says:

    I get so tired of hearing the “if you just care about conservation, why don’t you just donate the money without shooting it” argument; it’s nothing more than a strawman. No one’s arguing that the person who buys the ticket is doing it just for conservation, we all understand that people buy these things because they get enjoyment from shooting an exotic animal. We advocate for it because, regardless of the hunter’s intentions, money is still being paid to the animal’s conservation.

  23. avatar Mina says:

    I admit when I first heard of the black rhino hunt auction I was pretty turned off – turned off enough that I didn’t read any of the background.

    But, being a gun owner and respecting hunters in general I decided to just ignore it.

    After reading the article here and at CNN I can get behind this entire concept 110%. Very informative!

  24. avatar rt66paul says:

    Freedom from religion is a freedom that if posted, I don’t get people at my door wanting to debate whatever book. I may not want people proselytizing my children. I do not want to send a 17 year old to college and have revernand Moon taking his/her college money and then on thier 18th birthday marrying them in a mass wedding so he can have even more control.

    I take offense when someone wearing a wig wants donations so they can pay for school books at a concert or major league game (Hare Krishna), or when someone with a view on Christianity that does not meet mainstream views wants to take my child to a day camp.

    Many teach the Jesus is not God, or have views that girls shouldn’t go to school after puberty, or take a literial translation of the KJV without allowing for language shift.

    Or sit outside of stores in a white habit/nurse suit and ask for donations. I am sick to death of homeless getting aggressive while panhandling, but at least you can be sure where the money is going.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email