Something certainly must be done to save the rhinoceros from extinction. However, the solutions proposed in the reading have significant weaknesses. First, the idea of dehorning rhinos is neither practical nor good for rhino's survival. To dehorn rhinos, you have to find them in the wild, prepare them for surgery and then remove their horns. But even if we had the time and money to do all this, we'd likely be reducing rhinos chances for survival. Rhinos have horns for good reasons. They use them to dig for water to break branches when looking for food, to guide and protect their young and to protect their territory. So, while dehorned rhinos may be unattractive to poachers, they are also really disadvantaged in the wild. Second, educating consumers is unlikely to be effective. Many people have strong. cultural beliefs about the healing powers, the health benefits of rhino horn. These beliefs are very ancient. They go back thousands of years. Educating consumers works best when the consumers don't already have strong ideas about something, but when consumers have very old and very strong beliefs, new scientific evidence is unlikely to easily change their minds. Third, the effect of government selling rhino horn legally could actually be unpredictable. Currently many people who want rhino horn may not buy it because it's illegal. But if governments start selling rhino horn, buying rhino horn will become acceptable and many more people might start buying it. In other words, the demand for rhino horn might grow dramatically, creating a much larger market for the horn. The laws of economics suggests that the larger demand would increase prices, and the high prices would in turn, attract pochers. So poaching might not stop. Instead, poachers might continue killing rhinos and sell their horn because the government sales might create a large and lucrative market.