Define the Problem……………………………………………………………………..pg 3

Ethical Dilemma(s)/ Overall vision/strategy/ Impact if not addressed……..…pg. 4

Establishment of Criteria………………………………………………………………pg. 5

SWOT Analysis………………………………………………………………..pg. 5-8

Contributing Factors…………………………………………………….……..pg. 8

Identification of Possible Solutions…………………………………………..………..pg. 8

Contributing Factor 1 Solutions...………………………………………...…....pg. 8-9

Pros and Cons………………………………………………….………pg. 8-9

Contributing Factor 2 Solutions…………………………………….………….pg. 10

Pros and Cons…………………………………………………….……pg. 10

Contributing Factor 3 Solutions………………………………………………..pg. 10 - 12

Pros and Cons…………………………………………………………pg. 10 - 12

Contributing Factor 4 Solutions……………………………………..……….. pg. 12

Pros and Cons………………………………………………...……….pg. 12 - 13

Solution recommendation and defense…………………………………………..…..pg. 13

Solution 1……………………………………………………………….…..…pg. 13 - 14

Solution 2……………………………………………………………….……..pg. 14 - 15

Solution 3……………………………………………………………….…..…pg. 15

Solution 4……………………………………………………………….……..pg. 15

Execution of Solutions..………………………………………………………….…...pg. 16

Solution 1………………………………………………………………….…..pg. 16 - 17

Solution 2…………………………………………………………………..….pg. 17

Solution 3…………………………………………………………………..….pg. 18

Solution 4………………………………………………………………..…….pg. 18 - 19

Work Cited………………………………………………………………………..…..pg. 20 -21

II. Define the Problem Case 27: Rhino Capture in Kruger National Park brings about many ethical questions and concerns one of the world’s greatest animals, the rhino. Kruger National Park (established in 1898) was a part of South African National Parks (SANParks). According to the case text, by the turn of the century white rhinos were said to not exist at Kruger National Park anymore. However in 1961, white rhinos were re-introduced to the park. In 2009, there were said to be 10,000 white rhinos and 500 black rhinos located within the park. Because of the significant number of rhinos located within the park, management from within decided to being selling some of the rhinos at auction; however, selling the rhinos was under one condition: “its removal could not negatively impact the populations from which it came.” White rhinos tended to sell faster than black ones because since they were less rare and were less aggressive. Some of the biggest issues presented in this case were: Kruger National Park did not know to whom they were selling the rhinos, poaching on Kruger National Park land for the rhinos horn (leaving rhinos dead or tranquilized and in pain to the point they could be killed by other animals,) and the loss of funding that Kruger Park was undergoing. In the Asian population, it was said that to rhino horns worked to retain their cultural beliefs and also that the horn of a rhino could cure cancer as it is said to be “a very beneficial aphrodisiac”, which in fact is not true. The Indian population wanted the horns of rhinos as daggers. The poachers were very tactful and did it to gain a good bit of money by selling on the black market. When it comes to the sale of rhinos, many people viewed Kruger’s approach to selling rhinos as a bit unethical; they did not know to whom they were selling and SANParks association viewed the “put-and-place” of rhinos for hunting unethical. Outside people viewed the sale of rhinos by Kruger posed a threat greater than that of poachers. They also thought it was wrong to move these rhinos from Kruger National Park and sell them for reasons other than keeping the animals conserved/preserved.
a. Ethical dilemma(s) The main ethical dilemmas faced by Kruger National Park and the rhino species is poaching, lack of communication to the public about poaching and animal cruelty, and the loss of funds which would make it harder, if impossible to continue operating . Poaching according to dictionary.com is “the illegal practice of trespassing on another’s property to hunt or steal game without the landowner’s permission.”
b. Overall strategy and vision Kruger National Park’s overall strategy is sell rhinos at conservation to come up with lost funding. Their vision is to conserve and protect the rhino species and other animals/environment on their land.
c. Impact of dilemma if not addressed If the dilemma is not addressed, Kruger National Park would continue to lose funding (perhaps all of it), and the animals would become less protected, resulting in more poaching and animal cruelty. Kruger Park would not be able to fund their operations and it would potentially cause a close of business; which would lead to people stealing the rhinos from the land, etc.

III. Establishment of Criteria

SWOT Analysis: • Strengths o Professional Staff o Strong domestic Tourism Market o Good infrastructure and equipment • Weaknesses o Park Security o Communicating their message o Decreased funding o Weak Protection of animals from poachers • Opportunities o Could enhance the breeding of the rhinos o Expand revenue by going into new markets such as weddings or honeymoons o Go after international funding for development • Threats o Poaching o Local economic downturn/struggles o Increased costs in food and fuel, which would lead to increase in the park’s expenses o Trade regulation

Strengths Kruger National park has a strong professional staff, which allows the park to continue to gain revenue even with the loss of a lot of government funding recently. Without the staff in place, the park would be completely lost. The staff is able to help control the population of the rhinos of the park, as well as the other animals that call Kruger home. The park also has good infrastructure and equipment in place, but is not getting full use out of them. During the tours that they provide, they should boost their presence of their gift shop and other revenue building streams.
Weaknesses
The park has a very difficult time communicating to the public what they actually are doing for the rhinos. They aren’t able to effective communicate the fact that what they are doing by selling the rhinos is actually helping the overall population of the park. If they had a better public relations person getting their positive message across, they might be able to secure more funding. Another obvious weakness of the park is security. Because of the decreased funding, they have had to cut back on security of the park for the animals. They won’t ever be able to fully stop the poaching because it will never be cost feasible, but by increasing security around the park they could limit it somewhat.
Opportunities
The park has so many opportunities that they could explore such as expanding revenue in the form of different tours, going after international funding, and even making rules to stronger enforce the successful breeding of the rhinos. However, I feel that the opportunity they have to control the market on rhino horns is their best opportunity. They have the chance to regulate the rhino horn market by being the ones who are selling the horns on the open market. As the legality is mixed at best with regards to selling the horns, they should concentrate on convincing the government to clear the way for them to sell the horns, which would possibly limit the poaching threat they have. Roger Porter is a former Ezemvelo planner who has advanced the idea of harvesting rhino horns to deflect poaching. He proposed that, “the horns would be sold in much the same way as diamonds are sold by De Beers. Prices would be controlled by a central selling organization…(Carnie).” He goes on to say that the legally sold horns would be certified with their place of origin, as well as transponder chips. Another opportunity the park has is to expand its tourism efforts to include non-hunting tours. This could be honeymoon trips or even wedding venues. Basically, anything that would be bringing in new revenue is a must. Making the park more accessible to non-hunters will provide the park with more chances to educate people on the efforts of the park also.
Threats
The main threat of the park is the poaching. Hunters are flying in with their helicopters and darting or shooting the rhinos then swooping down and cutting off the rhino’s horns. Most of the time the rhinos are left for dead because of the quick nature the criminals have to have in order to get out before they are caught. At the time of the article in October of 2011, Grim Records Set, there had already been “341 rhinos killed”, which was more than any other year to date, and with two more months to go (Siyabona Africa). Without new laws in place to deter the poaching, this number will surely grow until there are no more rhinos to poach. The overall economy also brings a threat to the park because people will be looking for ways to earn money. This leads back to the poaching, but with the local economy struggling, it will be hard to secure funding to boost security, and it will be more difficult to communicate their message clearly. Another threat to the park comes from animal rights activists that don’t like the fact that Kruger sells hunting packages on their land and sell rhinos at auction to be hunted elsewhere. Again, this could be avoided with better marketing of what they are doing things for.
Establishment of contributing factors: We, as a group, have come up with four different contributing factors that are leading to the ethical dilemmas at Kruger National Park. Those four different contributing factors are: poaching on Kruger National Park land, a lack of communication of Kruger’s ideals and the problems which they are having, a loss of funding from the government, and the sale of rhinos and their destination being unknown and the person whom they are selling to is unknown. As a group we’ve worked up different 2 different possible solutions to each of these contributing factors which are established in the next section.

IV. Identify Possible Solutions for each Contributing Factor

Poaching:

Harvest the Horns

Pros: Harvesting horns would be an effective deterrent for poaching at Kruger National Park. Cutting the horn causes no pain to the animal and is replenished within a few months. Poachers have no motivation to hunt animals that have no value to them. The lives of thousands of rhinos could be saved. Harvesting the horns would also bring in much needed funding. Sell of the horns would provide funding for security efforts, park maintenance, additional staff, animal care, and marketing strategies.

Cons: Dehorning performed by untrained individuals may be harmful to the animal. The horn can be cut too close to the skull causing immense pain and bleeding and put the rhino at immense risk of infection and maggot infestation. Operation by trained professionals can still result in consequential anesthetic side-effects such as: bruising, localized pressure myopathies, overheating, cardiac distress, miscarriages in pregnant females, and increased blood pressure. The dehorning process is expensive, costing an average of $1,142 per animal. This would cost Kruger an estimated $6.7 million to $8.6 million per year (De Bruin, 2011).

Black Rhino Range Expansion Project in South Africa

Pros: This project is a less invasive and inexpensive method for Kruger National Park to combat poaching. The Black Rhino Range Expansion Project provides additional breeding land through partnerships with black rhino landowners (De Bruin, 2011). The animals are relocated to a new location for breeding and protection. The project provides funding for rhino monitors, helicopter rentals, light aircraft for surveillance, and equipment for anti-poaching work (Markham).

Cons: This suggested solution is not as lucrative for the park. The Project provides funding for the relocation of the animals but no further profit is obtained. Also, this suggestion is not a cure-all for poaching. Poachers are very determined and will continue to find a way to illegally hunt these animals.

Lack of Communication

Advertisement

Pros: Awareness is the first step in educating the public. Radio advertisements seem to be an excellent method for communicating fund raisers, hunts, and general information about the park. Radio is low-cost (around $90-$120 per week) and allows audience selectivity (Business Resources – Major Media Types).

Cons: Radio advertisement is audio only and the audience’s exposure is fleeting. Also, advertisement of the hunts sponsored by Kruger may damage the park’s reputation and ethical standing if they are not composed and delivered properly.

Telethon

Pros: A telethon would benefit Kruger tremendously. Veterinarians and specialists could raise awareness with information and celebrity appearances would make the message relatable and memorable. A telethon was held for the families and victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, raising $150 million and viewed by 89 million ("Tribute raises $150 million," 2012).

Cons: Telethons are not guaranteed to yield a certain amount of money. Pre-telethon expenses can get out of control if not handled properly.

Loss of Funding

Government Contracts

Pros: Government contracts or grants are available to help Kruger recoup lost funding. There are grants for land and animal preservation and national/state park grants. Kruger would also benefit from a partnership with the World Wildlife Fund. “WWF helps find investors and offers business training to conservancy members. Joint venture lodges and campsites provide the largest overall source of benefits to conservancies (Namibia).

Cons: Government contracts and grants open up the park to more government regulation and speculation. There will be more control placed on hunts or even their eradication. Kruger may gain more funding through the help of the government but lose it on the back end through loss of hunting money.

Hunts on Kruger National Park

Pros: The hunt for “Big Five” animals is an excellent source of income and is in high demand. Hunting packages average around $450 per day not including airfare and other extras (Hunting of Big Five, African Safari Company). Kruger has all of the "Big 5" animals on its land. A "rhino hunt" could expand into a larger hunt because they have so many different species (Animals and Wildlife Found in Kruger National Park). They could even exclude the rhinos and have 4 out of 5 big game animals and many small animals to include (which all produce a large amount of revenue.) They already have the lodging, the rest stops, the crew and vehicles for hunts. Kruger just needs to partner with a taxidermy firm, train for field preparation of animals, rent or purchase fire arms and ammunition and the ability to help hunters get passes and permits needed to posses game trophies; all of which is not costly and will be returned when the customer books his/her hunt vacation. SANPark views "game hunting" as ethical and as a widely accepted way to utilize wildlife. Conservationists may have an issue with the hunts but that's why the actual "rhino" could be taken out of the game hunt equation.

Cons: Whether it is hunting or poaching, an endangered animal is still being killed for sport. Rhino hunts on Kruger National Park will bring in much needed income but will not solve the ethical dilemma.

Selling Rhinos and their Unknown Fate

Contracts

Pros: Profits from rhino sells are a major source of revenue for Kruger. However, the park has no control over the animal’s fate after purchase. Contracts with strict stipulations and consequences upon breach help protect the animal and preserve the species. The rhinos will be well maintained and protected for a certain length of time. Intentional harm will not come to the animals and owners who breach the contract will be harshly punished in the court of law.

Cons: A contract would be great motivation for buyers to protect and preserve. However, breach of contracts would be very hard to prove and enforce. A system for monitoring the condition and sale of the animals would need to be put in place. This would be a costly and time consuming venture reaching beyond the scope of Kruger’s ability.

RFID (radio frequency identification) chip

Pros: Rhinos with RFID chips implanted in their horns can be traced and further protected upon leaving Kruger. Implanting the device is of no harm to the animal and the Park can monitor where the animal is at all times. The Park can monitor movements and mating and will be alerted if the animal is in any danger (S. Britzq & N. Bestbier).

Cons: Implanting RFID chips in rhinos is costly and time consuming. “RFID tags can cost as little as 50 cents or as much as $50 depending on the type of tag…” (Frequently Asked Questions: How Much Does an RFID tag cost?) The real cost is in the sedation and implantation, team of veterinarians and staff, and tracking technology.

V. Defend and Recommend 1 solution for each contributing factor As stated before, we have come up with 4 different reasons that all contribute to why Kruger National Park has been experiencing ethical dilemmas, those being: there is poaching on their land, they do not have good communication of their values and what they are hoping for (or their goal), they are selling rhinos just anyone who is willing to buy them without checking who they are, and they are losing funding from the government. We, as a group, have come up with an excellent way to curb if not solve these problems as a whole. Below is a list of the problems and the solutions in which we have chosen to recommend to the management team at Kruger National Park: Poaching: To curb the want of poachers to invade the land and steal horns and potentially harm, if not lead to a rhinos death, we would recommend to Kruger Park that they being a horn harvesting operation. Not only does this bring in a substantial amount of funding for the park, by selling the horns and controlling the market of rhino horns, but it saves rhinos from death in the process. Clipping a rhino’s horn does not hurt them, when done properly; it is like a human clipping his/her fingernails. The horn will eventually grow back and be able to be harvested again. According to Wildlife –at Animal Corner, a rhino’s horn is “not a real horn but thickly matted hair, consisting of Keratin” and typically if broken off “a rhino’s horn grows throughout its lifetime and grows at a rate of 1 – 3 inches per year.” (Rhinoceros) So, when it comes to costs, they would only have to trim a rhino’s horn every 2 – 3 years, or when monitored that the horn needs to be trimmed. The funds from selling rhino horns could be could make a very good impact on the funding for the park. On the black market, it is said that a “heft sum [is] paid for rhino horns – about $65,000 a kilo” (Kelley, 2012). Savingrhinos.org says that the market in Vietnam from a “freshly cut’ rhino horn commands a retail price of USD $25,000 - $40,000” (Illegal Rhino Horn Trade: The Vietnamese Connection, 2010). If Kruger were able to control the market, they could set their prices much lower, but still at a hefty premium to make large sums of money. Lack of Communication: We would recommend that Kruger Park try to hire marketing professionals, PR firms, or advertising firms to help in the communication of the overall goal of preservation. Kruger Park has many options on tourism in the park and they aren’t communicated very well to the public. Their overall goal of rhino repopulation and animal repopulation is also not communicated well with the public. Communicating their overall goal and the attractions at the park could stimulate a lot of attention and more visitations to the park. Not only that, but it could also potentially grab the attention of future investors, or anyone who would like to donate to the cause of saving rhinos, and the other animal populations that reside on Kruger National Park land. Advertising firms could provide pamphlets on information on rhino poaching that could be dispersed to the public to make them more aware of the cruel things that Kruger is trying to prevent in hopes that people around Southern Africa would do more to help the fight in poaching. This could also stimulate volunteer help within the park, to help preserve and inform visitors in the park. Not only pamphlets could be dispersed, but also advertising in Airports, on landmarks, billboards, “Street furniture,” etc. could all bring in business and be able to communicate what Kruger Park is all about. Kruger could do this by simply contracting “AllianceMedia” to help produce and market their views and beliefs and goals (Alliance Media). They could also purchase “SARAD” software which is a big help in adversiting and figuring out the best place and best way to adversite for any business in South Africa (The Ultimate Media Directory). The sale of rhino: Kruger National Park has come under a lot of heat, ethically, about whom they sell their rhino to, as we’ve mentioned. We believe that starting to monitor more closely who they sell their rhinos to, rather than selling them at auction, could prevent some ethical sandals in the eyes of the public and SANpark systems overall. If they started to provide contracts to be signed when rhinos were sold, they could stipulate that rhinos must be preserved for more than 2 years on the land of the purchaser. They could also stipulate that by buying a rhino they are agreeing to have that rhinos horn RFID chip tagged so Kruger Park and monitor the whereabouts of the rhinos and its horn. This would end many of the “put-and-place” killing of rhino that SANparks view as unethical (which was stated in the book.) It would also bring their ethical problems closer to none and we believe that more people would look at Kruger Park as a place of preservation and repopulation, which is their overall goal. Funding: Kruger National Park is having a loss of funding, as we’ve stated, and will need to continue to make money to keep their business in operation. We would recommend that they pursue other forms of government contracts to continue getting funding. They have many opportunities for grants when it comes to preservation: they not only have animals, but they are able to apply for land and nature preservation grants as well. Private investors might also be a good way to go when it comes to getting grants. It all ties into the communication of their efforts to outsiders in hopes of attracting more investors and private donors.

VI. Execution of recommended solutions

The four concerns that need to be executed are harvesting the horns, better communication, sales of rhinos, and more funding. These contributing factors are leading to unethical behaviors of the park and will need to be curbed through execution of these plans.

The first contributing factor is poaching. We decided that a plan to harvest the horns to create a safer way to get the product to the market. At the price of $25,000 to $65,000 per Kg or Rhino horn, poaching will always be a viable source of income for law breakers. We would follow the implementation of private conservationist John Hume. He currently has 800 Rhinos and has been raising them like cattle for years. He has the Rhinos in 1000 acre, 7 foot high electrical fences. This would be a substantial initial investment but could easily be paid back if the demand increases for the horns. Demand has been steadily increasing due to the rising middle class in China. China also has begun farming Rhinos for horns, but in a less ethical and humane way. In the enclosure you have can fit 80 rhinos at a time. The Kruger National Park should start with a 500 acre enclosure at 5 feet high. The high estimate of this initial cost is around 1.6 million US dollars. This estimate includes the electrical for the first year. After harvesting the horns, the Rhinos can be released to other parts of the park until their horns grow back. There is also a cost of around 1100 dollars for veterinarians and capture that is involved for each Rhino harvested. There are around 10,000 White Rhinos in Kruger National Park. A male in its lifetime will probably grow 50 to 60 kilos; a female maybe 30 or 40 kilos. If the Park could harvest and sell just 100kg at a low price of $30,000 US dollars per Kg, they would have 3 million dollars the first year alone. This all depends on legislation to make Rhino horn trade legal. The risk of farming and harvesting Rhino horns would come to the other 10 thousand Rhinos expected to live in the wild in South Africa. Poaching could spike in surrounding areas not protected by law and the poachers would increase their killings. Additionally there would probably be a spike in horn theft from the employees to sell on what would still be a black market. This would probably hurt the conservation effort, even though excess profits could go to increase the effort. The ethical dilemma is still there. The maiming of an animal would still be on the minds of conservationists and activists, which would lead to bad press and probably stunt the effort for more charitable funding.

The next contributing factor is lack of communication. The communication of the problems associated with an increasing poaching problem and lack of funding for the sustainability of the Rhino population has to be more effective. The Save the Rhino foundation is not conveying answers to these problems. A more informational and up to date website would be a good start. Kruger National Park should help with website effort because it protects half of the estimated Rhino population. A partnership with this activist group would be easy and a cheap way to go about this. Enlisting an up and coming celebrity by giving them free access to the park, to take up the cause of saving the Rhinos, could be very beneficial to creating more of an international buzz to this localized problem. The more that it is communicated that Rhino are being slaughtered for their horns, there is evidence that information can curtail harmful acts. In 1971, the government banned advertising for cigarette use and came out with the surgeon general’s warning that smoking cigarettes was harmful to your health. Adult smokers represented 43 percent of the US population then and after years of getting the information to the public; the rate has dropped to around 19 percent. This strategy of getting the information to the public has seen great success. The risk of putting more information and advertising the cause more effectively would be that the park would probably open the eyes to create new poachers. The money to be made selling Rhino horns is just too hard to pass up for a poor African.

The next contributing factor is selling the Rhinos. Ways to curtail the selling of the Rhinos hunters would be to make the purchasers sign contracts detailing the use of the Rhino (rhinos must remain on land 2 year before being “hunted,” etc.) and submit the RFID chips to be implanted in the horn. Selling the Rhinos to private citizens without knowing the intent of the new owner is a huge ethical dilemma for a conservationist group. A criminal background check should be run before anyone purchases a Rhino to let the public know that the park is doing due diligence before profiting of an endangered species. The risks of this are the public backlash of profiting off of an endangered species. It is hard to convince a conservationist that to save more Rhinos you have to put other Rhinos at risk. It is a hard sell to the public.

The last of the contributing factors is trying to get more funding. One way to get more funding is to convince the government to farm to harvest the horns. The government is leaning towards making the selling of Rhino horns legal. The government could fund the operation and take the portion of the profits to fund other parts of the government. The public would get behind this if the profits went to preservation or a public program that has a huge backing. Partnering with the government could mean sterner punishment for poachers and could help alleviate the ethical issues the parks face. Another way to get more funding is sponsorships and donations. This would be for a great cause and contests for free stays in the park for the top contributors would be a way to get more involvement from these organizations. A risk for getting the government to increase funding could be from the public. It would be hard for a citizen to get behind the legislation to fund a conservation effort that is selling what has been illegal to sell for so long. Citizens would probably want farms like John Hume’s farm to harvest the horns and other farmers to take on the risk of poachers. If the private farmers could sustain the population by farming the animals, why would there be a need for Kruger National Park to do it.

Works Cited

African Hunting Packages in South Africa . (n.d.). Retrieved 2012, from African Sky: http://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/africanhuntingpackages.html

Alliance Media. (n.d.). Retrieved from Alliance Media: http://www.alliancemedia.com/

Animals and Wildlife Found in Kruger National Park. (n.d.). Retrieved from Krugerpark.com: http://www.krugerpark.com/allanimals.aspx

Business Resources - Major Media Types. (n.d.). Retrieved from IE Small Business: www.iesmallbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Major_Media_Types.doc

Carnie, T. (2010, July 13). Plan to Sell Rhino Horns to China. Retrieved 2010, from ioLnews: http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/plan-to-sell-rhino-horns-to-china-1.1340599#.ULOUxGejSxd

De Bruin, L. (2011, July 01). Poaching, Mass harvesting of Rhino Horns and Illegal Trade. Retrieved 2012, from Consultancy Africa Intelligence: http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=791:poaching-mass-harvesting-of-rhino-horns-and-illegal-trade-&catid=92:enviro-africa&Itemid=297

Frequently Asked Questions: How much does an RFID tag Cost? (n.d.). Retrieved from Barcoding Incorporated: http://www.barcoding.com/faq/rfid-tag-cost.shtml

Hunting of Big Five, African Safari Company. (n.d.). Retrieved from Kolobesafaris.co.za: http://www.kolobesafaris.co.za/hunting_of_big_five_african_safari_company.html

Illegal Rhino Horn Trade: The Vietnamese Connection. (2010, August 16). Retrieved 2012, from savingRHINOS.org: http://www.savingrhinos.org/vietnamese_rhino_horn_trade.html

Kelley, M. (2012, May 02). The Price of a Signle Rhino Horn now Rivals Gold. Retrieved 2010, from Business Insider: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-02/lifestyle/31536010_1_rhino-horn-face-extinction-main-market

Markham, A. (n.d.). Black Rhino Range Expansion Project. Retrieved 2010, from WWF.org: http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/species/black_rhino/

My Horn is Not Medicine. (2011). Retrieved 2012, from Siyabona Africa: http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-e-10-record-set-with-341-rhino-kills-this-year-25367.html

Namibia. (n.d.). Retrieved from WWF: http://worldwildlife.org/places/namibia

Rhinoceros. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wildlife - Animal Corner: http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/wildlife/rhinos/rhino_about.html

S. Britz & N. Bestbier. South Africans Make History with Technology Against Rhinoceros Poaching. Retrieved from http://www.stoprhinopoaching.com/OwnersFiles/Rhino_history_fin.pdf

Shakya, M. M. (2010). The Challenges and Solutions for Rhino Conservation. Wildlife Times, 3-6.

The Ultimate Media Directory. (n.d.). Retrieved from SARAD: http://www.sarad.co.za/

-----------------------
Kruger National Park Case Analysis

Featured above: a Kruger National Park White Rhino and its child

Table of Contents