How to solve the rhino horn saga

It being Rhino Day and all...

You think you are living in a modern world, a world where people are finally beginning to understand the way things work. Using science, logic and technological advances to solve problems is the norm.

No it isn't.

Some crazy backward bastards go and ruin everything by believing that a rhinos horn has medicinal value! According to 16th century pharmacists (yes, 16th century!!!) the magical horn is said to treat fever, rheumatism, gout, snake bites, hallucinations, typhoid, headaches, carbuncles, vomiting, food poisoning, libido, being possessed by the devil... but rhino horn does none of these things. These people may as well treat their condition by eating their own hair and nail clippings. Heck they may as well drink a glass of water, it's far more useful medicinally.

Thereafter, a group of even crazier money hungry sods go and harvest horns from live animals to meet the demand. A win win situation? I think not! Armed with aforementioned technological advances, poachers have become devastatingly efficient at harvesting horns. Rhino numbers are declining and so on and so forth...

THE SOLUTION

Okay it's pretty easy and I can't imagine why it hasn't been tried yet. You see the horn has tremendous value, it must have if poachers are able to form well organised armed teams in helicopters (!!!) to harvest a few (dozen maybe) horns a month at the most. Horns are also very scarce which drives their value up, this is logical. So what if...(let me put this into perspective)... what if authorities were to flood the market with fake rhino horn. If it is traditionally dispensed in a powder form simply drown the black market in fake product (it'll be just as effective, medicinally, as the real stuff).

1. Brainless customers will be happy because they could get their product cheaply.
   
2. Poachers would stop hacking rhinos to bits because selling chickens wings on the black market would be far more profitable
3. Rhino extinction probabilities would be reduced significantly
4. Hippies would stop their endless moaning on the subject (they'd find something else but we can be happy in between complaints)
   

Why I’m taking so friggin long with my thesis

The Epilogue to a paper entitled “Eight Reasons Why Optimal Foraging Theory Is a Complete Waste of Time” by Pierce and Ollason (1987) summarises my predicament quite well I think.

>>>Begin<<<

Optimization theory has no place in current evolutionary thought: its use is a throwback to the comfortable determinism of Divine Creation; to the endeavours of natural philosophers seeking to demonstrate the wisdom of the Creator.

J. B. S. Haldane (1963) observed that there are four stages in the normal process of acceptance of a scientific idea:

(1) this is worthless nonsense;

(2) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view;

(3) this is true, but quite unimportant;

(4) I always said so.

Criticisms of optimal foraging theory have met with all four responses, but current literature suggests very little change in the way ecologists think about foraging behaviour.

So, which excuse is it to be this time?

<<End>>

You see my work and hypotheses all rely on the assumption that optimal foraging theory is a strategy employed by frugivorous birds. I’m either very brave or very stupid to even try going against popular views and opinions expressed by other so called ‘experts’ in this field. Nevertheless, I will endure and make sure I get my two cents worth in there…