The author/authors represent PBS which has always been on the conservation side of things. They do have a good track record of looking at more then one angle whether they are objective or not. This line represents that clearly. Science will provide the answers. And in this case science somewhat supports both sides of the arguments.

It is impossible to get a credible stakeholder side of this argument from the pro Rhino horn market. I had to choose this article because it was the only one with some facts supporting Asian medicine and its use of Rhino horn.

The Author is definitely against the use of Rhino horn, but is just objective enough or has read "I Say They Say" to incorporate a bit of scientific fact about the horns use in medicine. The claim is not well stated but when you think about the article as a whole, the claim is : Yes there is a small merit to Eastern medicine's use of the Rhino horn for certain ailments, but the dosage amount to yield actual results is not practical and not practiced.

On a personal belief: The human brain is an amazing thing, it has power that we cannot harness as of now. What we do have is the placebo effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo. Our thoughts can be so powerful that we think we are better and sometimes that's all we need to become better. A lot of old medicine revolves around this. You take something so rare and unique and say it has these powers, you have to believe, at least a little, because you don't know. It then makes it's own belief and spreads and maybe if you can get some it will work, even if you know it doesn't, you worked so hard to get it or have given so much to get it, you can't just admit that it doesn't work so you say, "yes, it really works." and this just keeps perpetuating itself until the resource is wiped out.

This is a very good conclusion for this article. It give science backed facts that support the idea of Rhino horn use in medicine, but explains it is not relevant or practical, even if its true.

The last sentence ends it with the perfect amount of tone and truth. Chewing on you fingernails would be the same dose and affect of being prescribed Rhino horn.

"Rhino Horn Use: Fact vs. Fiction" PBS. August 20 2010. Web. March 5 2016. <www.pbs.org>

So the opposition (the wolf lovers) may not understand that livestock are very fickle and complicated creatures. You can't just buy some cows and start a heard, its hard work and work that needs constant re-evaluation. A cow might survive a wolf encounter but the stress associated with that could make her barren for a time. Stress also makes bovine lose weight which is bad when you get paid by the pound.

I think people go to the store or to MacDonalds and there's your beef. They don'y think about where and how that meat gets there. I mean come on there are people that honestly believe the meat is somehow magically made at the store.

The reason the statistics are so low is explained here. But even if you take the 1% number, their are almost 5 million cattle in Idaho and Montana, that is still 50,000 head of cattle killed (http://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-vs-human-population-state-0-114255). And that is just cattle, not all other livestock and pets.

This also shows what the opposition base everything off of, just numbers and hearsay. The author is obviously from a ranch back ground with the niche words she uses but she does report both sides. That is good to get rid of the stubborn farmer stereotype.

The audience is definitely not the sierra club and its members but I believe it's anyone who has grown up in the rural West where you do still have predators. People who have grown up and raised any kind of feed animal or even pets, like dogs. In the city your pet goes missing... its either adopted by someone else, at the pound or hit by a vehicle. In the country when they go missing it's either a predator or a highway. So anyone who grew up in the rural West should be interested in this. We are the ones that have to deal with this disaster while the courts and organizations in the East, so far removed, keep these oppressions on the hard working ranches and farmers that feed them. I am certainly the audience here but I have much more of an elevated tone then the article.

Claim: Human involvement placed wolves in a small area but wolves are wolves and go where the want when they want and have the know how and stamina to do so. We humans like to think we can tweek nature to our foreseen outcome, but we are idiots. Nature solves itself one way or another. This wolf debacle is a fantastic example of how human involvement just creates more chaos. First off they forgot that there are multiple species of wolves and placed the big bad Canadian version in our back yard, the ones that are built to cover hundreds of miles a day and are bigger and hungrier then the small local population (which has now been killed of driven out by these new wolves). Whoops, now they are everywhere and livestock are being killed on a scale 5% more then usual and those beloved Elk and Deer that everyone loves to watch from their cars on the side of the highway, they are disappearing too.<br> This claim of the author may come of as sarcastic but it carries meaning if you understand that people in a totally different area and culture decide what to do with the land others have pioneered and fought out a living on.

This web source is all about farm and ranch. Everything from markets to laws to alerts. Wolves are an important thing to this website and it's users. Its easy to say they could be bias towards anything ranch and against wolves, but this article was very factual and pretty objective considering the forum.

More excellent research most likely carried out from behind a desk somewhere or at least skewed to cover what wolves really are, very curious and quick learning animals. Just because you don't see that wolf anymore doesn't mean its gone.

Heather Smith Thomas. "Western Ranchers Fight The Curse Of Introduced Wolves". September 10, 2010. Web. March 6 2016. <beefmagazine.com>

Then because we can't be responsible as a whole society, we think laws and regulations will help. So we take away human rights and choices from those that may be working hard to make everything work. The point is it doesn't matter it takes away all choice and therefore, responsibility. Then it creates resentment, not towards those who make these flawed laws and regulations, but towards the animal or habitat its supposed to protect. It all boils down to educating people and fixing our humanities lack or responsibility.

This should stir something up in everyone. This is the problem... there are so many of us that we are encroaching massively on animal territory. Poisoning a water hole to keep elephants form damaging crops? There are enough humans to build a fence or chase them off if they come in, poisoning is absolutely ridiculous, lazy and unnecessary. We have enough people to have our own living and work around other animals. If a tiger is eating your sheep you can raise dogs or stay with them to protect them yourself. People just want the easy way like we used to strive for but now that we have it we can work a little harder of spend a bit more time so everything can make it together. When people are lazy and take the easy was the animals are the ones that suffer.

This is the main fact driving Anika's thought. She is not worried about the individual killings but about species wide. The problem is most species can't adapt and evolve as fast as we as humans can destroy it. Humans are destroying habitat for their own or for possessions.

The audience for this article is not one purely of human rights or animal rights but more of a hybrid of the two. It is for people that can see everything is connected and you can't just fix one thing and be fine you have to help the whole system to achieve success.

For me the title struck me because it hit on what I was looking for. I think is is still well done though, it askes a question that ques people up to talk and is not just a yes or no answer.

The claim of the author is that our expansion into the animal kingdom because of our needs is very dangerous for and affecting all animals adversely. I happen to believe this, we used to had plenty of space and that space was shared with animals but now there are so many of us that our sprawl is crowding animals and each other.<br> The world tends to like a balance, so when we get to overpopulated something will happen, plague, war, famine. It might already be too late for some species at that point or it may be the cause.

Anika Mohammed is a Doctors Without Borders member and a keen supported of animal rights. She gets to see first hand a lot of the issues caused by human overpopulation, unclean water, living quality, starvation, etc. As much as she cares for humanity she knows there are other living things in this world too. Some that may need help as much or more then humans.

This website is for the animal enthusiast to put it lightly. They veiw everyone as equals, humans and animals. So this article is going to be a bit bias by making everything equal. With the slogan "Transending Speciesism Since October 2008" you kind of get the hint, but at least they don't try and hide it.

Anika Mohammed. "Human Overpopulation as an Animal Rights Issue". November 26 2013. Web. March 5 2016. <animalblawg.wordpress.com>

This one seals the deal on extremely complicated. It also nails my question square on the head... When is an animals life more important then a humans. These aren't poachers that leave all the meat and take the tusks of a mother with child. No these are humans excercising their primal instincts to survive and provide for their families. Nature does, the Elephants and Rhinos are, the strong have survived and passed on their knowledge. Humans don't need this quality anymore, we are very safe and have an easy life. The only problem with us is us. Now these people have to poach an animal doing its job in this world because they have either been wronged by other humans or were not responsible enough to understand that you have to take care of yourself and the world before you can take care of a family. Our human traits of greed and irresponsibility have led to the near extinction of these animals. Luckly good people remain to try and help but we are being bread out and soon man will start to devolve if we haven't already.

the author may not really know much about this topic but Asgar Pathan does, he lives it everyday. He is a subject expert. You could crunch numbers and look at political issues and black markets and everything else surrounding this topic and make it some boring article passed by by many or let someone who is so in-tune with the topic his life literally depends on it.

This style borderlines on 100% credibility. The only option being if Ranger Pathan was a huge lier, but even though everything in his story is crazy it is told with a calm legitimacy that I personally believe.

This website CRACKED is definitely a popular site resource. It is full of a lot of gossip and forums. Its geared toward people with opinions and people that like to express those opinions.

I am sure the author had a certain view going into his interview with Ranger Pathan, you can tell by his words and his claim that everything is completely insane, more then you can imagine. That is basically all he is doing, shedding light on something that is so complicated and convoluted. Even more then the author could handle i believe. Most of the article is just quotes of Ranger Pathan. This means either the author is terrible at writing and has no thoughts or is so blown away with such a story the only thing that can do it justice is to let the story teller tell it, this is the latter.

Evan V. Symon & Asgar Pathan. "5 Ways Saving Wildlife Has Turned Into All-Out Warfare" June 23 2014. Web. March 5 2016 <www.cracked.com>

WWF or World Wildlife Fund, not to be confused with the one with oiled up wrestlers and bad acting, has been around for 20+ years. They are an international organization the fights for the protection of animal species and habitat. They are deeply invested in the rainforest but now have branches in all parts or the world.

"African Rhinos" WWF. web. March 5 2016. <wwf.panda.org>

This link leads to a page with a bit stronger tone on the topic of poaching.

I cannot verify these facts. They are listed to promote sympathy and action from the audience. I'll i know is the math is correct.

Here the other specific stake holder is addressed. The Asian culture is the main consumer of Rhino horns. The claims of the horn's powers are the main driver. Claims range from sexual prowess to curing cancer to status symbols. All in all bad if you are a Rhino.

If a Rhino horn really did cure cancer would it be fair to harvest then? If you or someone you loved had cancer, wouldn't you try anything to fix it?

This appeals to all, Animal activists, global activists, econimists and humanitarians. Everything has a part to play in life. If the world loses one part it affects the rest of the world, sometimes in ways we never even though possible. Its almost always negative.

European settlers have made a habit out of this. The author includes this not only as a historical reference but knows it should ring a bell with all Americans that have ever heard the story of the American West. We almost drove the American Bison to extinction for their hides. They numbered over 150 million in number and before regulations were put in place declined to only thousands.<br> History will repeat it's self if given the chance.

The claim is simple, we (the organization) are winning but the fight is not over yet and the audience's help is required. The audience appeal is to people concerned with the world's balance and animal lovers... hopefully ones with deep pockets.