In both the article “Permit to Hunt..” and the John Stossel video on Endangered Species both made one point very clear -- in order to save endangered species we have to kill them. The article and the video take this in two very different directions but they are both similar thematically. In the article, the writer talks about the sale of a permit that allows for the buyer to kill one post-breeding black rhino. The $350,000 raised would go on to fund the Namibian Government and their anti-poaching battle. Though it was faced with opposition and a petition calling for the sale to stop reached 75,000 signatures, the auction went as scheduled.
John Stossel talked about different ways to combat extinction, but his main argument was that in order to save them, we have to eat them. He discusses how when animals can become profitable to farmers, the farmers take great action to protect these animals. One animal that this approach worked for was the bison in Alaska. Once an endangered species, once the bison was legally allowed to be eaten it began to flourish. Steadily, the bison strayed further away from extinction.
…show more content…
Scarcity is defined as limited resources vs. unlimited wants and this is especially clear in the article as the scarcity of the rhino allowed the Dallas Safari Club to sell one permit to kill for $350,000 thousand. The article and video also display opportunity cost very well. When selling the permit, the Namibian Government had to take into account what they would give up in order to obtain the funds they desperately needed. This is also true vice versa, should the permit not to be sold, how many Rhinos will die because the necessary action could not be taken without the money raised. Opportunity cost is also displayed in the John Stossel video. If endangered animals are to be eaten, what is to be gained or lost, and if they remain how they are unable to be eaten how many will we