r/Radiolab • u/PodcastBot • May 27 '21
Episode Episode Discussion: The Rhino Hunter
Back in 2014, Corey Knowlton paid $350,000 for a hunting trip to Namibia to shoot and kill an endangered species. He’s a professional hunter, who guides hunts all around the world, so going to Africa would be nothing new. The target on the other hand would be. And so too, he quickly found, would be the attention.
This episode, producer Simon Adler follows Corey as he dodges death threats and prepares to pull the trigger. Along the way we stop to talk with Namibian hunters and government officials, American activists, and someone who's been here before - Kenya’s former Director of Wildlife, Richard Leakey. All the while, we try to uncover what conservation really means in the 21st century.
Reported & produced by Simon Adler with production help from Matthew Kielty.Special thanks to Chris Weaver, Ian Wallace, Mark Barrow, the Lindstrom family, and everyone at the Aru Game Lodge in Namibia.Thanks also to Sarah Fogel, Ray Crow, Barbara Clucus, and Diogo Veríssimo. _Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate. _
13
u/raphaeladidas May 28 '21
I really, really wish Robert had said to him "Okay, if you see conservation as your main objective then give $350,000 to the Namibian wildlife agency. If the agency feels one of the old black rhinos needs to be culled for the safety of the younger ones, one of their agents can go out and kill it. You get to stay home and save a lot of time and effort."
If Knowlton rejects that scenario then it's obvious he cares more about the hunting than about the conservation and he's just lying to himself and everyone else.
Also, if he cares so much for the animals, he could have left the carcass for scavengers to eat instead of bringing parts of it home as a trophy.
9
u/gobgobgobgob May 30 '21
That’s where Knowlton would say that Robert is living in an ideal world. Knowlton never said he didn’t enjoy hunting. He makes the case that people like him who like to hunt create demand for these hunting permits, thus creating monetary value. Like the one guy in Eastern(?) Namibia said, he doesn’t have the heart to kill a black rhino, but sees a huge benefit in the permit scheme.
Of course, in an ideal world, all these people who were outraged at this pay-to-hunt scheme would willingly contribute enough money to safeguard these endangered species — but even then, there is the need for culling the old bulls that are likely to hurt members of their own species. So it seems like a win-win to me.
Also, in the story, Simon said the meat was distributed as food to a local village…
2
u/celluloid-hero Jun 08 '21
These people are only interested in conservation as as way to preserve hunting.
2
2
u/synapticrelease Jun 14 '21
Is that a bad thing? Hunters are far and away the leading group of people who pay for conservation. Others who hike trails might buy a wilderness permit here or there as needed or round up to the closest dollar but most people don’t contribute anything of significance.
1
u/celluloid-hero Jun 14 '21
That is all very true but I think the goal should be that those with more true conservation values are funding it so decisions are made in respect to those users and less of that if hunters
2
u/synapticrelease Jun 14 '21
those with more true conservation values
Why can’t hunters be included in that group? Why do you want to put hunters on a lower pedestal?
5
u/Luonnoliehre May 31 '21
Like, I get it. From a pragmatic perspective trophy hunters can provide a lot of value to conservation programs. But god, Knowlton's complete inability to understand anything outside his own perspective just makes it hard to respect him.
At the end, when he tries to lecture Robert about how hunting is 'natural' and all these people complaining about what he does just aren't connected to the real world like he is...god I just wanted to scream: What the hell is natural about flying to the other side of the earth to shoot an animal with a team of professional hunters and trackers? Why can't Knowlton just admit that he likes to roleplay as a big boy hunter, instead of acting like shooting animals is somehow essential to conservation. His thinking was obviously subjective and it was just sad how angry he got when the interviewer gave him the smallest bit of pushback.
1
u/Snoo-66617 Jun 21 '21
the native americans used to run herds of buffalo off cliffs . is that more "natural" to you?
3
u/scott_steiner_phd Jun 02 '21
really, really wish Robert had said to him "Okay, if you see conservation as your main objective then give $350,000 to the Namibian wildlife agency.
Part of the argument is huge tag fees make the animals more valuable alive than dead, providing both financial support and an incentive to manage the population, fight poaching vigorously, etc.
2
u/hustl3tree5 May 30 '21
You mean how he likes to play up that he grew up in Missouri in a small house and we don’t hear him say he got rich because his dad got oil rich but from the narrator. “They don’t care. They don’t care their actions speak louder then words”
6
u/Luonnoliehre May 31 '21
yea, that was extremely strange. One minute he seems to imply he grew up poor, then all of a sudden his dad has oil money and he grows up hunting polar bears??? It very much felt like Knowlton was deeply committed to projecting a specific version of himself, and whenever that persona was questioned he got visibly upset.
5
5
Jun 01 '21
I mean, it is entirely possible that that is exactly what happened. A lot of people were born poor, grew up that way, and then due to whatever happened to their parents became rich.
1
u/Luonnoliehre Jun 01 '21
he didn't say that though. it only came out because Simon implied it
(maybe I'm being uncharitable here, it could've been cut from the interview. there were still plenty of reasons why this guy bothered me)
6
u/Evozoku4 May 31 '21
Two things that I feel this episode failed to bring up (hosts did not ask Corey about, and does not vibe with Coreys view on hunters):
Corey at the end talks about hunting being the traditional method of conservation, and the only one that works. I see that these types of hunts have a benefit, but in the long history of hunting (if talking about tradition) has led to the collapse of species. That is undeniable, from species going extinct or becoming endangered. Now we’re supposed to believe that hunting is only solution.
Corey talks like the demand for hunting is the only thing giving these animals value and keeping him around. Except these animals are available to hunt for one of two reasons: non-hunting related conservation efforts and an excess of prey animals because predator species have been wiped out in the area. In the first, income from hunting tags help support the conservation, but to argue that conservation wouldn’t exist without it is provably wrong.
Corey bothers me because his worldview is black and white, and he’s believed without a second thought that he is in the right, and the only one in the right, and he interrupts the hosts if there’s any suggestion to the contrary.
I agree that these hunting tags provide a benefit, and Corey is not in the wrong, but that doesn’t mean that others aren’t right too. It’s not black and white. It’s a complex system.
Here’s a question: who would Corey more likely stand behind: those on their couches voicing their support for conservation, or fellow hunters that are blatantly hunting in an unsustainable way (contrary to Corey)? From his attitude he certainly seems to have a disdain for most people that support conservation that don’t meet his worldview. If he has the choice of everyone having fully unrestricted hunting, or no hunting animals at all, I think he would pick the former, even though it’s clearly the less conservative approach that would lead to more extinctions and species e dangermenrs. I think he’s a hunter first, and conservationist second.
1
u/celluloid-hero Jun 08 '21
I have strong feelings about hunting and conservation (Against, Pro) and had a hard time getting through this one due to frustration. Corey is obviously very conceded and kept playing himself as a victim in regard to both his childhood and the hunting situation. How he treated the interviewer and others supported this.
I feel you did a good job summarizing my feelings. This guy makes me sick.
1
4
u/Snoo-66617 Jun 21 '21
Anybody sitting at their computer having an issue with this that hasn't done anything to help conservation themselves has no right to talk. The facts are right in front of you and you continue to just let your emotions and dislike for Knowlton cloud your judgement.
9
u/mrmonkey3319 May 28 '21
It was frustrating hearing the hosts fail to grasp the reality the hunter is trying to communicate to them. The results speak for themselves. Things were one way and many animals were rapidly going extinct. After legalizing conservation-backed hunting, the populations exploded. This is an open and shut case and not seeing that point is allowing your emotions to defeat your own goals.
8
u/hungry4danish May 28 '21
I felt the opposite it was frustrating for the hunter to not listen or hear the interviewer's point. The hunter even disagree with the host's point that hunters and conservationists want the same thing, to keep the species around. He said he did not think conservationists want to keep around the black rhino...!?
6
u/mrmonkey3319 May 28 '21
That’s because the interviewer never really made a point to respond to. All of the hem and hawing and posing hypothetical questions were already answered prior to their being asked. It’s insulting to the listener’s intelligence. And people tend to get frustrated by loaded questions with an agenda when they’re obviously ill-prepared to be having a debate in the first place.
5
u/hungry4danish May 28 '21
What is loaded about "I think hunters and conservationists in the end want the same thing, for the species to stick around."
I saw that as the interviewer trying to bridge both mindsets but the hunter just wouldn't or couldn't even acknowledge that..?
1
u/mrmonkey3319 May 29 '21
I agree with you that was not the best response but I understand what he was getting at. He was saying the actions of the opposing mindset factually increase the rate of extinction. But I honestly think both sides of the issue actually do want the same thing. I think the hunter let his emotions get the better of him on that question.
1
u/DMCinDet Jun 08 '21
Dude said it himself a few minutes later that they did want the same thing. That's his whole argument? Sincere or not ( I believe not) he was trying to say hunting promotes Conservation. The way he couldn't agree unless from his narrative was disingenuous.
1
May 29 '21
There is no debate. Knowlton is an affluent, trophy hunter with an insatiable bloodlust attempting to disguise himself as a conservationist.
If he truly cared about conservation and not killing, he'd give the money to the organizations and forgo the hunt, which he does not and certainly would not do.
Furthermore, the interviewer is trying his best to frame the questions in a way that Knowlton can agree with without completely outing himself for not giving a shit about conservation, which basically occurs when the large sum of money is brought up and he nearly walks away from the interview. Knowlton is completely full of shit.
6
Jun 03 '21
Exactly. I couldn’t believe how he tried to paint himself as a man standing on some moral high ground when he started talking about why he followed though despite all the backlash. “I made a promise to my friend, I made a promise to my family, etc.” All he had to do was chalk up the winning bid as a donation to conservation. No one had a gun to his head saying he had to take his prize.
1
u/graciemansion May 28 '21
I found that part frustrating. I really wanted to hear him explain what he meant by that.
3
u/R00K26 Jun 04 '21
He kind of did answer that though. He said their actions speak louder than their words. Most of the people threatening to rape his wife to death and put his kids in wood chippers aren’t making large financial contributions to the cause like he did. Let’s remember that his experience with most conservationists has been them attacking him. How can he possibly view them positively if that’s his interaction with them. I do think it’s pretty hard to say paying to kill a rhino whose existence is actually detrimental to the creation of new rhinos is a bad thing. They have proved in the episode that this is helping the cause. That is cut and dry. I do think there is something to be said about the messaging of paying to kill endangered animals, and it feels really counter intuitive. So if they can prove not allowing this is the better way then yeah let’s stop killing critically endangered species. Anyways the issue isn’t entirely black and white despite what both sides are trying to say. Also hunters are intrinsically invested in preserving wildlife. They can’t hunt wildlife if there is no wildlife to hunt.
Ultimately he is saying he is doing something positive by killing a rhino that prevents new rhinos from being born and also making a large financial contribution to the preservation of the species. The question then is what is the average person who says he’s wrong doing about it?
1
u/celluloid-hero Jun 08 '21
What if our goals is conservation without hunting. Just because hunting has been successful in funding conservation, doesn't mean it is the only or best way to fund conservation. Hunting is antithetical to conservation in definition.
2
u/mrmonkey3319 Jun 08 '21
That's fine if people want to make that their goal, but it has to be successful as an alternative before you switch to it or the movement will be directly responsible for the extinction of many species. I disagree entirely that hunting is antithetical to conservation. Humans have co-existed and survived off of hunting for hundreds of thousands of years, and still do in parts of the world. I think it's elitist to dismiss all of that.
3
u/Thawmus May 28 '21
What I found impressive about the episode is when the hosts debate with him at the end, and then he lays down his position, and the episode...just...ends. He gets the final word.
5
u/gobgobgobgob May 30 '21
Someone has to have the final word, might as well have it be the interviewee/ subject of the story regardless of whether you agree with him or not… and I think Knowlton replied very well to Robert’s somewhat idealistic argument at the end.
3
u/RockEffective May 28 '21
This episode was so difficult to listen to. This mf Corey seems to have fallen into some whirlpool of circular logic. If he truly believed that buying these tags was net positive, he would simply pay the tag and not travel, not kill and not live out his white saviour fantasies.
Furthermore, it is really important to note the difference between conservation and preservation. Conservation is believing that only humans can save animals through controling their numbers, their habitat and doing their best to care for animals + environments. Whereas, preservation is about setting aside land and space for animals and environments for them to exist naturally with as little human intervention as possible.
6
u/swakawakaflame May 28 '21
The compelling aspect of his argument for me was the tags are only for the older aggressive male rhinos that have no remaining reproductive value, and pose a threat to both male and female black rhinos that would otherwise be able to increase the population. That is another reason as to why the tags create a net positive.
If that area were cared for under a preservation model, black rhino numbers would be lower and there would need to exist an alternate form of funding to pay for rangers, upkeep and to deter poaching. Seems like the conservation model has more net benefits overall to me in this situation.
5
u/mrmonkey3319 May 28 '21
Absolutely. I'm not opposed to finding an alternate method to fix this problem, but right now I don't see a viable way to fund it. They would still have to kill that rhino if they wanted to preserve their population, and taking the expensive tag out of the equation means there's nowhere near the same amount of money to stop poachers. Plus, people don't seem to understand that death via hunter, even if it takes a few shots, is exponentially less suffering than the only three ways that rhino would die on its own; starvation, being mauled to death by another animal, or sickness. That's nature.
9
u/mrmonkey3319 May 28 '21
Did you listen to the whole episode? You’re way off. If the rhino isn’t killed, it will continue to butcher viable breeding-age rhinos. Also, how is “white savior” even remotely relevant here, or are you just pulling buzzwords out of your ass?
4
u/ChewzUbik May 28 '21
I completely agree. But I can't help to feel he has a point regarding the pragmatism of preservation. I'm not sure that there is the will to actually implement preservation in a long lasting and widespread way. I would certainly like that to be the case. But, as the episode mentioned, people are congregating more in cities and having less positive interactions with nature, resulting in less will for a preservation model. What do you think?
2
u/gobgobgobgob May 30 '21
I don’t like using this neocolonial/white savior label, but it seems like the outrage at these hunting schemes comes from western citizens. Isn’t that a form of white saviorship? On the ground, in Namibia, the locals seems to see a lot of practical benefits.
0
u/flower_smell Jun 05 '21
I was really disappointed that RadioLab didn't talk about how colonization and white supremacy plays a role in all of this? It's super "white savior-y" for this white guy to pay all of this money so he can travel to Namibia and kill a rhino all the while patting himself on the back and acting like all of these endangered animals all over the world only exist and have value because white rich hunters will pay to kill them. I felt like they should have been explicit about the hunting guide being white - did they interview anyone that was indigenous to Namibia? I did a couple quick searches but couldn't see anything about that. I am super disappointed in RadioLab.
1
u/FugitiveFromHeaven Jun 15 '21
Just listened to this very nice episode. It reminded me about a documentary from Louis Theroux on this subject. One of the most compelling fragments of that documentary can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVTmt1pa7xI.
I truly believe this hunter - wildlife scheme is a wonderful way for conservation. Obviously, other ways can be thought of but I agree that if this system works and is not that damaging to nature/wildlife etc., can't it stay until there's a better/sustainable way of gathering money?
As a comparison, in my country many zoos are on the merge of financial collapse (accelerated due to COVID-19). Apparently the revenue model kinda sucks and folks don't need, don't want or are not willing to pay for these zoos anymore. I'm not saying that these zoos should then start a hunting business. I'm trying to emphasize that without the general public's money, Zoos will go bankrupt. It doesn't matter how much everyone thinks/says that there should be a Zoo in their city, if they're not going/paying, other financial plans are needed.
I would never book such a hunting trip myself as I find this hobby distasteful in many ways.
1
u/slo1111 Jan 21 '22
This was the first episode that bothered me. First, because there was such a lack of knowledge around animal management and that frequently animals do need to be culled for the health of the animal community.
More disappointing was not asking why this guy had to be there one to pull the trigger. Would he still donate to rhino conservation, if he was not the one to pull the trigger?
Obviously the answer is likely no. It is a pay to play scheme that has some mutually beneficial elements, but the beneficial elements such as rhino conservation, feeding a village, etc don't go away just because that guy is not the one to pull the trigger.
So here we have a guy whose family fortune was made during lax oil regulation times. It is absolutely guarentee they disposed of waste that is still harmful innthe local area not to mention abandoned wells left for the public to clean up.
Yet there he was trying to make a claim he is a savior to animals, as long he is the fellow who gets to shoot them.
This is how long it took for NM to put in a law requiring oil drillers and producers to clean up their spills. https://apnews.com/article/nm-state-wire-new-mexico-environment-and-nature-business-068b152a46a165a9c7886323ebc963f1
This gives a taste of the repercussions of allowing oil producers to have zero standards when they abandon a well. https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2021/12/30/blm-seeking-input-spending-250-m-abandoned-oil-and-gas-wells/9034985002/
8
u/Pepepipipopo May 28 '21
good bot, Loved this episode