-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
'Ethical' binocular companies (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter John Cantelo
- Start date
Seems everyone on all sides of almost everything is getting all
wound up over nothing these days. Everyone's crying over anything.
If I cared about any of this, there would be too many fake crises for me to enjoy life.
This insignificant organization now has itself mentioned, though. Congrats ;-)
Trolls of opposite breeds support each other's existence.
wound up over nothing these days. Everyone's crying over anything.
If I cared about any of this, there would be too many fake crises for me to enjoy life.
This insignificant organization now has itself mentioned, though. Congrats ;-)
Trolls of opposite breeds support each other's existence.
Last edited:
Tero
Retired
I once left town without binoculars. I had to buy some on the way in a sport store. The display model was cheap though 10x and kind of at the limit of its optics. But it was a fine trip, saw some birds. The binoculars were a hunter or predator name and the store brand. I just covered that part with black tape. Normally I use Monarchs, a benign name.
If you hadn't used black tape, you could have written a more "benign" name on them yourself.
They can have my S&S "Hunters" when they pry them
from my cold dead hands....haha...
Sorry about the rant on rants, but there are so many forum and email
micro-nuclear spam campaigns these day. My brother even sends me
wildly exagerrated claims of an Apple future and govt. attempts to
destroy Apple...from some fanatic group he''s in.
There are millions and millions of "Killdeers" out there, to pull a bird analogy,
pretending grave injury. And...even more innocents sucked into the storm
and railed against when they were just momentarily bamboozled.
You google someone's personal statement and get tons of hits from
people who say the same thing....exactly.
It's a "Princess and the pea" nation out there....relax, get some perspective.
Between great wars, people can catch fire at the smallest slight. Be good to your
heart...do something fun.
from my cold dead hands....haha...
Sorry about the rant on rants, but there are so many forum and email
micro-nuclear spam campaigns these day. My brother even sends me
wildly exagerrated claims of an Apple future and govt. attempts to
destroy Apple...from some fanatic group he''s in.
There are millions and millions of "Killdeers" out there, to pull a bird analogy,
pretending grave injury. And...even more innocents sucked into the storm
and railed against when they were just momentarily bamboozled.
You google someone's personal statement and get tons of hits from
people who say the same thing....exactly.
It's a "Princess and the pea" nation out there....relax, get some perspective.
Between great wars, people can catch fire at the smallest slight. Be good to your
heart...do something fun.
Ethical binocular companies
How far do you want to take a theme...binoculars are dual use...so is water, we can drink it, bath in it and use it for waterboarding, surfing and sailing.
Swaro, Steiner, Nikon, Leica and Zeiss all sell to hunters and they all make rifle scopes, the Chinese and Japanese optical companies probably all do too.
Lets enjoy what we have and leave our personal dislike of other peoples hobbies off this forum.
Respectfully,
Art
How far do you want to take a theme...binoculars are dual use...so is water, we can drink it, bath in it and use it for waterboarding, surfing and sailing.
Swaro, Steiner, Nikon, Leica and Zeiss all sell to hunters and they all make rifle scopes, the Chinese and Japanese optical companies probably all do too.
Lets enjoy what we have and leave our personal dislike of other peoples hobbies off this forum.
Respectfully,
Art
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
John Cantelo, post 1,
Thank you for the informative paper, I am not a hunter, but the paper gives useful information about the different binocular companies and some of their history.
Gijs van Ginkel
Thank you for the informative paper, I am not a hunter, but the paper gives useful information about the different binocular companies and some of their history.
Gijs van Ginkel
The implication is that an "ethical" consumer must somehow agree with every aspect of a company's behavior. If you accept this then you better turn off your PC, stop using your Iphone and make your own sneakers. The abuses in those industries are often horrific in their effects on...humans. Binocular manufacturers are totally benign in comparison.
perterra
Well-known member
Amen
A2GG
Beth
The binocular forum on BF is made up of birders/naturalists, birders/hunters (they do both) and hunters(never go birding). There are others who are just optics enthusiasts, collectors or experts/professionals. Some members join BF only for the optics forum and they never venture out of the bino forum which is merely a subforum on Birdforum: a large forum dedicated to birdwatching (in its various forms) and the appreciation of wild birds and all topics related to wild birds.
Some members who stay put in the bino forum forget that the bins forum is merely a subforum on BF. They either forget , don't care or never realize what type of forum they signed on to. Outside of the binocular forum , the ethics of hunting is discussed in ruffled feathers forum and in the Conservstion forums...albeit infrequently....but it is discussed at times in depth. Hunting is discussed as it relates to: birding, bird conservation, conservation in general.
The discussion rules of BF prohibit discussion of hunting. The moderators enforce this rule usually when hunters (mainly in the bins forum) begin talking about riflescopes, their recent hunting trip, etc.; talking about hunting as sport or the general hobby/enthusiasm for the sport will get moderator attention because hunting discussion is not allowed. If the topic of hunting is discussed in the context of how it effects Conservstion and/or wild bird population, health, etc. then the discussion seems useful and appropriate on a wild bird forum. Many hunters kill game birds. This is a bird forum remember and some birders/naturalists in this forum may strongly object to sport hunting.
The article John posted is useful and relevant to those members here (on a wild bird forum )who are concerned who they buy their optics from for their purpose of nature observation. The list of optics companies and which have ties to the sport hunting industries is interesting and it will be helpful info for some shoppers.
Some members who stay put in the bino forum forget that the bins forum is merely a subforum on BF. They either forget , don't care or never realize what type of forum they signed on to. Outside of the binocular forum , the ethics of hunting is discussed in ruffled feathers forum and in the Conservstion forums...albeit infrequently....but it is discussed at times in depth. Hunting is discussed as it relates to: birding, bird conservation, conservation in general.
The discussion rules of BF prohibit discussion of hunting. The moderators enforce this rule usually when hunters (mainly in the bins forum) begin talking about riflescopes, their recent hunting trip, etc.; talking about hunting as sport or the general hobby/enthusiasm for the sport will get moderator attention because hunting discussion is not allowed. If the topic of hunting is discussed in the context of how it effects Conservstion and/or wild bird population, health, etc. then the discussion seems useful and appropriate on a wild bird forum. Many hunters kill game birds. This is a bird forum remember and some birders/naturalists in this forum may strongly object to sport hunting.
The article John posted is useful and relevant to those members here (on a wild bird forum )who are concerned who they buy their optics from for their purpose of nature observation. The list of optics companies and which have ties to the sport hunting industries is interesting and it will be helpful info for some shoppers.
Last edited:
pete_gamby
Birds? What Birds?!
Some of the sources supply pretty vague information. For example, would any reasonable person believe that Alpen could do what it does on a sub $1 million turnover? A few words into Google and you can find an interview that gives a far more accurate and better sourced figure - and they even quote that same interview as a source in the report!
Similarly, they quote a Hoovers estimate for Opticron's turnover. Again, how we could employ 15 staff here, half a dozen in the US, develop our own products, advertise them, provide our dealers with a margin and still make a profit on the figure they quote is beyond my knowledge!
If a research report can't get the simple stuff right, can you trust it to have the more complex analysis and, most importantly, the conclusions accurate?
Gijs - I'm sure you found some nuggets in there but surely a research report should be gold all the way through - not leave the reader having to do his or her own research to find out which of the nuggets are not Fools Gold...?
Cheers, Pete
Piskeddu
Well-known member
Here in Italy (as I think all over the world), hunting is regulated by laws and those laws should be respected.
I am not a hunter but the opposite, I deal with cruelty to animals and thus also the birds, the manufacturers of binoculars have started to be divided into two sectors (hunting and nature) their products when they realized that people were beginning to have more instinct of a time keeping.
Kowa also use for this, does not produce optics for hunting, I know that runs a commercial on the internet where you can see their binoculars in the hands of hunters but this does not upset me, are the people who do evil not the products themselves, but so does not mean that other brands are worse or better, they have made different choices sales.
There are honest and dishonest and so hunters photographers who often do even worse just to have a good photograph.
Good evening. Giorgio
I am not a hunter but the opposite, I deal with cruelty to animals and thus also the birds, the manufacturers of binoculars have started to be divided into two sectors (hunting and nature) their products when they realized that people were beginning to have more instinct of a time keeping.
Kowa also use for this, does not produce optics for hunting, I know that runs a commercial on the internet where you can see their binoculars in the hands of hunters but this does not upset me, are the people who do evil not the products themselves, but so does not mean that other brands are worse or better, they have made different choices sales.
There are honest and dishonest and so hunters photographers who often do even worse just to have a good photograph.
Good evening. Giorgio
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Pete, post 33,
No nuggets and no gold found in the paper, but as an overview of different companies it is useful, especially since a number of companys are not found in Europe/The Netherlands and in that perspective it does not matter than that not every detail is correct or incomplete, that is not what I was looking for. Moreover I am not interested at all in the turnover and/or profits listed, since that willl undoubtedly take some investigation to find correct answers.
The paper is presented as an ethical discussion paper and one can argue about killing beautifful animals just for fun, something that does not receive my appreciation. However there is a topic connected with this discussion. I have made a study of some binocular companies and their role in warfare. Look for example into the enormous production and profits Zeiss and Leica had because of their productions for WW-1 and WW-2. How do we cope with ethical arguments here? Must I understand from your comments in post 33 that you have some answers? If so, I am happy to know them.
Gijs van Ginkel
No nuggets and no gold found in the paper, but as an overview of different companies it is useful, especially since a number of companys are not found in Europe/The Netherlands and in that perspective it does not matter than that not every detail is correct or incomplete, that is not what I was looking for. Moreover I am not interested at all in the turnover and/or profits listed, since that willl undoubtedly take some investigation to find correct answers.
The paper is presented as an ethical discussion paper and one can argue about killing beautifful animals just for fun, something that does not receive my appreciation. However there is a topic connected with this discussion. I have made a study of some binocular companies and their role in warfare. Look for example into the enormous production and profits Zeiss and Leica had because of their productions for WW-1 and WW-2. How do we cope with ethical arguments here? Must I understand from your comments in post 33 that you have some answers? If so, I am happy to know them.
Gijs van Ginkel
pete_gamby
Birds? What Birds?!
No Gijs, I don't have any answers for you with regards what I think the report is trying to achieve.
The reason I picked up on your post was that you indicated you'd found information in there that was useful to you. To me, the "research" in the report is inconsistent, incomplete and in some cases inaccurate.
My years spent in the market research industry taught me that it is far better not to publish incomplete, poorly sourced data then try to dress it up with a lot of rhetorical "analysis".
I remember very well showing a table of figures to a Japanese electronics manufacturer during a presentatiion of some research data. Amongst the hundreds of data points there was one that was inaccurate - it was spotted by one the company's engineers within a matter of seconds of the slide appearing on screen. That meant, as far as that client was concerned that the entire research report was useless - how could they trust any of the data and the analysis if they found even one error?
Cheers, Pete
The reason I picked up on your post was that you indicated you'd found information in there that was useful to you. To me, the "research" in the report is inconsistent, incomplete and in some cases inaccurate.
My years spent in the market research industry taught me that it is far better not to publish incomplete, poorly sourced data then try to dress it up with a lot of rhetorical "analysis".
I remember very well showing a table of figures to a Japanese electronics manufacturer during a presentatiion of some research data. Amongst the hundreds of data points there was one that was inaccurate - it was spotted by one the company's engineers within a matter of seconds of the slide appearing on screen. That meant, as far as that client was concerned that the entire research report was useless - how could they trust any of the data and the analysis if they found even one error?
Cheers, Pete
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
Pete, I know exactly what you're talking about, and I've spend a lot of skull-sweat trying to avoid exactly that (with somewhat mixed success). But itt's not what we're talking of here. Your point was about trying to pitch something actually useful to a very aware audience.
That just isn't this. As I said way back in the thread (and I do hate quoting myself):
The purpose of that is to bamboozle those who don't know into climbing on board your bandwagon. A very different circumstance. See, the DHMO home page, some time:
http://www.dhmo.org/
...Mike
Last edited:
I think it's an excellent idea and have already taken note. I appreciate there are sometimes legitimate reasons for hunting but personally I think these are few and far between. Hunting for food is fine if you have to but wanting to kill it yourself I think is profoundly disturbing, even if the death is more humane than that which might take place in a slaughterhouse. What makes people take pleasure in such extreme violent acts? If you watch ancient tribes hunt out of necessity they seem to show respect for the creatures and feel almost bad for doing it. In western society hunters choose hunting for the kick they get out of it.
As for population control, half of this is probably debatable (look at the mountain hare culling that goes on on Scottish grouse moors; you can call most animals pests and find some half-baked evidence to justify it if you really want to), and the other half pales into insignificance compared to the recreational hunting industry
To me recreational hunters are psychopaths and part of a bygone era. They seem unable to evolve compassion for 'lesser' creatures as most of the rest of us do. There are proven links between hunting, child abuse and domestic abuse because the perpetrators strive for the same feeling of power over their victims and get off on the sense of suffering they witness.
As for population control, half of this is probably debatable (look at the mountain hare culling that goes on on Scottish grouse moors; you can call most animals pests and find some half-baked evidence to justify it if you really want to), and the other half pales into insignificance compared to the recreational hunting industry
To me recreational hunters are psychopaths and part of a bygone era. They seem unable to evolve compassion for 'lesser' creatures as most of the rest of us do. There are proven links between hunting, child abuse and domestic abuse because the perpetrators strive for the same feeling of power over their victims and get off on the sense of suffering they witness.
