A few weeks ago the Dallas Safari Club, in partnership with the government of Namibia, auctioned off the chance to go on a black rhino hunt. This may seem like the most natural thing in the world for the self-proclaimed “greatest hunters convention on the planet” to endorse, except for one thing: the black rhino is an internationally recognized endangered species. With a few more than 5,000 individuals left alive, black rhinos are the subject of intense conservation efforts across their natural range in sub-saharan Africa.

What possible reason would the Dallas Safari Club, which supports conservation efforts around the globe, have for selling the chance to kill an endangered animal? As paradoxical as it seems, the hunt was created to raise money and awareness for black rhino protection. The permit issued as a result of the auction does not entitle a hunter to kill any black rhino. A handful of older, non-breeding and potentially dangerous males have been identified in Namibia, and it is one of these select few that will be killed.

The hunt eventually sold for $350,000, although the winning bidder, Corey Knowlton, says public backlash to the event lessened the proceeds. “It was the most unfortunate thing,” Knowlton said. “There were people willing to spend $500,000 to a million dollars.”

Those potential buyers were scared off by animal rights extremists and their intense disapproval of hunting auctions as a conservation tool. Such fears appear to have been well founded, as Knowlton, who now requires personal security, has received not only death threats, but told CNN in a recent interview that he has had his children’s lives threatened as well.

Not all of the hunt’s detractors take their disapproval to such extreme lengths, though. The Humane Society, for example, has announced that it will lobby the US Fish and Wildlife Service to refuse Knowlton a permit he would need to bring the rhino’s body back to the United States.

The Humane Society’s CEO and President, Wayne Pacelle, claimed in a blog post that “The first rule of protecting the rarest animals in the world is to protect each living member of that species.” Sadly for Pacelle and his childlike understanding of conservation, this is simply not true. Ensuring the survival of a species of course includes protecting individual organisms, but there is much more involved. For one, the relative safety of individuals who can still contribute to the survival of the species is something to take into account.

A diseased animal, for example, will often be quarantined from its cohorts in a captive setting. This treatment comes about because the particular animal presents a danger to its healthy brethren. When dealing with black rhinos, it is important to understand that older males can actually cause harm to younger, virile males or, even worse, can cause harm to a fertile female or her young.

An alternative to killing these rhinos would obviously be to quarantine them, like we would do in captivity. This, however, runs into problems when the cost for such a strategy is realized. Unfortunately, conservation efforts do not exist in a perfect world, and economic factors play a role in determining their policies.

Of course, it can easily be said that living rhinos generate money too, that we do not have to kill animals to receive money for their protection. Jeff Flocken, the North American regional director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare pointed out in an online post that ecotourism provides more resources to both local communities and conservation than trophy hunting does.

What Flocken fails to address is the per capita revenue of these practices. $350,000 (and potentially much more, if not for the dangers posed by extremists) is far and away more than what the average ecotourist will spend. Yes, the hunting permit is a one-time event while ecotourism takes little from an environment, but we must realize that these animals will die. Whether it be from “natural” predators or from humans makes no difference to the species, and makes little difference to the hunted animal, apart from the fact that death by humans will likely lead to a quicker, less painful death.

There is another argument against hunting endangered species, though. As Flocken and others have pointed out, selling off the chance to hunt these animals sends the message that they are worth more than common animals, and may contribute to poaching or unsanctioned hunting.

With the vast amounts of money that people were prepared to pay, however, it can be safely assumed that the demand for rare game hunts already exists, irrespective of responsibly controlled permits.

Beliefs that hunting an animal is wrong are fine for an individual to hold, just as it is perfectly fine to hold the belief that every member of an endangered species should be protected irrespective of potential dangers or the cost. These beliefs have no basis in scientific conservation, however, and attempts to masquerade them as such benefit no one, least of all an endangered species.