'Ethical' binocular companies (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

If you like my posts and respect them, youre probably a member of a very small group.

OMG whats this?
A MacDonald being modest? :eek!:

I am sure your posts are respected by more than a few, put me down as one.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

I like your post, and I do hope you have educated some on here.

I am a farmer, and have wildlife conservation on a large part of my farm.
I don't want or get credit for that, it is just a part of being a steward of the land.

Jerry

Good for you Jerry and long may you and others like you continue to do so.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

Whilst most of us tend to buy binoculars entirely on the basis of cost and utility, some may have reservations about purchasing instruments from companies that actively support hunting. If so, they may find this report on 'ethical' optics companies useful http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/portals/0/downloads/optics report.pdf
If nothing else the report gives a interesting short (very short) account of the history and background of various companies.

John,

Thank you for your post and the considered (and successful) way in which you phrased it.

As Jos has reiterated many many times, it is just information for those who like to base their decisions in part or whole on it. Most things are rarely black or white and tend to exist on a continuum - in that regard the information (even if flawed and not perfect - itself a continuum) is of value, appreciated, and up to the individual to decide how to use it in their decision making process, and what weight to give it, and indeed how to interpret or define 'ethics' or any other definition parameters, etc. Everybody has the right to direct their expenditure in support of their values as far as practically possible. If you don't like it, or it is not relevant simply skip the discussion.

As GG has so rightly pointed out this is a BIRD forum. If Any of the pro-hunting inclined would like to start a discourse on the morality or benefits of killing and under what circumstances, or justifications, then the forum rules are quite clear - do it in "Ruffled Feathers" ...... do not pollute the general airwaves with your own rhetoric. I will be very interested to see if any of the HunTers here have The 'b*lls' to start such a thread in RF. :eek!::eek!:

Personally I abhor the notion of HunTing, or killing for 'fun' or 'pleasure'. That's why I get my optics fix on the BIRD forum, not any of the many other HunTing dominated forums. That said, I can acknowledge that 'culling' of 'ferals' by 'professionals', or legal subsistence food gathering by indigenous populations, where death comes in a few 10,000ths of a second from a brain shot does not offend my personal sense of morality or ethics, especially in this country with its myriad destructive introduced carnivore and other pests. The animals resources should then be utilized to the fullest extent possible - it's not their fault they were transported to or born in the wrong country.

What I do personally have a problem with is bullets whizzing about my earhole when I am innocently out enjoying nature, and companies spending money on targeting or glorifying this HunTing, when that wasted money could be better employed giving me and others cheaper prices. In that regard John, I thank you for the efforts to unbiasedly provide us with this information as grist for the mill. :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

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.

It worth reminding that this thread, posted by John, was not to discuss hunting - it was a simple post offering a link to information that some persons might find interesting. Nowhere did John suggest all should take account of the information, nor did he pass any judgement on hunting.

It would seem that quite a lot of persons have taken objection to a post that offers information to persons that hold different opinions to them. This is an issue that, for me, is nothing to do with hunting per se, but to respecting that this is a forum with many members who will be interested in such information.

thank you. yes, exactly. If anyone doesn't like the article they can simply skip it and/or skip the thread discussion entirely.

As I started the thread I can honestly say that I didn't do so to set up "an anti-hunting thread". Some posters seem to be so sensitive to this issue that they didn't notice that I put ethical in inverted commas (implying, I thought, that this was a limited application of the word) nor how I composed my words to avoid (I thought) it becoming an anti-hunting rant. Whether those who hunt like it or not, there are those who would prefer to avoid companies that promote certain forms of hunting (e.g. doing so for sport, trophies, etc) rather than as necessary 'pest' control or for subsistence (and much promotional material/ads seem to fall firmly into the first category). Others find hunting in any form unacceptable. If that's so they may find the information in the report useful. I'm not being prescriptive here. What nobody seems to have considered is that the report may equally well be used by hunters who want to actively support pro-hunting companies (it works both ways). As I've noted already I was as much interested in the potted histories of the companies as the ethical dimension. For the record, although I am against certain forms of hunting (or more often than not their consequences) and personally find the idea of getting enjoyment out of killing things distasteful, I have no intention of imposing my stance on others and am not against hunting per se. I would also agree that there are many circumstances where it has an important role to play. It's a pity if even informing people of their options is seen as such a threat that this thread has to be closed down.

Perfectly said and clarified John...and my views on hunting pretty much mirror yours.

Indeed. If this thread was started in a hunting forum it would be inappropriate (not to mention strange) ... however, some need to be reminded over and over again, this isn't a hunting forum. If you can only abide all pro-hunting talk...you've joined the wrong forum.

GG, Jos, and John,

Very Very Extremely well said! || :clap: :clap:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

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.

This is not what I come here to read. I come here to read about and learn about optics.

Spare us your "opinion" which is just that, not fact.

I second and triple that.

No objection at all to this thread, but what is the title of the thread?

What is the report John linked titled in his post?

What is the web site called he linked?

And if you were to look up the definition of ethics, would it list people who hunt for subsistence or sport as unethical.

As for an objection, there is none from me unless it is an objection to some form of pseudoscience as was mentioned about a link between hunters and child abuse.

Okay. So my reason for commenting in this thread was to thank John for the information, and to support him, Jos, GG, and others that this was not to be a debate over ethics, or the semantics of definitions, let alone personal opinion and morality. Since these big optics companies exist on a continuum of behaviours, then for me personally there is no clear cut outcome (even though I do not wish my $ to contribute in any way to HunTing marketing or products, and even though the HT has been the source of much good natured mirth here on the forum over the years), so I have no further comment to make in relation to that.

With the growth in excellence, expertise and reputation of the Optics sub-forum here on BF, there has been an influx of new members drawn here, many HunTing inclined, and some even with more commercially orientated intent behind them. This is after all a BIRD forum, so my next bit of house keeping is solely to tidy up a few loose ends as in the quoted posts above, and not to enter into discussion, or spark further debate. I will say that two or more wrongs do not make a right. The correct place to discuss HunTing, ethics, morality, rights and wrongs, opinion, slaughterhouse comparisons, justifications and personal preferences, and indeed even links to psychopathic tendencies and/or adequacy (or lack of) in the trouser department etc is in "RUFFLED FEATHERS" ...... As I said before - we'll see who among the HunTing inclined (if not apologists) is of sufficient agate ownership to start such a thread ...........

To specifically (and in a one-time statement only) address the backlash to Jhanlon's rather broad brush post, let me say that the links between gratuitous violence, lack of empathy, or remorse etc by the more disturbed smiling 'HunTers' and such toward animals that are killed for 'fun', 'pleasure', or 'sport' and further abuse, violence, or other pathological tendencies on the psychological scale, toward fellow humans is documented, with related causal factors such as repeated exposure to violence. A simple Google search will reveal a multitude of material, and if you have access to peer reviewed psychological journals etc, then you will find the more rigorous evidence among that. https://www.google.com.au/search?si...c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..3.36.8248.3.ziCfE6dijhU

Over and out.


Chosun :gh:

 

[perterra]

Okay. So my reason for commenting in this thread was to thank John for the information, and to support him, Jos, GG, and others that this was not to be a debate over ethics, or the semantics of definitions, let alone personal opinion and morality. Since these big optics companies exist on a continuum of behaviours, then for me personally there is no clear cut outcome (even though I do not wish my $ to contribute in any way to HunTing marketing or products, and even though the HT has been the source of much good natured mirth here on the forum over the years), so I have no further comment to make in relation to that.

With the growth in excellence, expertise and reputation of the Optics sub-forum here on BF, there has been an influx of new members drawn here, many HunTing inclined, and some even with more commercially orientated intent behind them. This is after all a BIRD forum, so my next bit of house keeping is solely to tidy up a few loose ends as in the quoted posts above, and not to enter into discussion, or spark further debate. I will say that two or more wrongs do not make a right. The correct place to discuss HunTing, ethics, morality, rights and wrongs, opinion, slaughterhouse comparisons, justifications and personal preferences, and indeed even links to psychopathic tendencies and/or adequacy (or lack of) in the trouser department etc is in "RUFFLED FEATHERS" ...... As I said before - we'll see who among the HunTing inclined (if not apologists) is of sufficient agate ownership to start such a thread ...........

To specifically (and in a one-time statement only) address the backlash to Jhanlon's rather broad brush post, let me say that the links between gratuitous violence, lack of empathy, or remorse etc by the more disturbed smiling 'HunTers' and such toward animals that are killed for 'fun', 'pleasure', or 'sport' and further abuse, violence, or other pathological tendencies on the psychological scale, toward fellow humans is documented, with related causal factors such as repeated exposure to violence. A simple Google search will reveal a multitude of material, and if you have access to peer reviewed psychological journals etc, then you will find the more rigorous evidence among that. https://www.google.com.au/search?si...c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..3.36.8248.3.ziCfE6dijhU

Over and out.


Chosun :gh:

And that relates how to hunting?

I'm done.

 

[Pileatus]

I like your post, and I do hope you have educated some on here. Your
individual contributions do much more for wildlife conservation than most birders will ever do.

I am a farmer, and have wildlife conservation on a large part of my farm.
I don't want or get credit for that, it is just a part of being a steward of the land.

Jerry

You should get credit for proper stewardship of the land and its resources. Too many urban dwellers have absolutely no connection with the land on which their daily sustenance is produced. When I see the piggish nature of many young urbanites in some of the most beautiful places on earth I know earth day was a dismal failure. Bravo to the farmers who feed us all!

 

[KC Foggin]

It certainly did not help us toward civil discourse, at least they deleted it.

The poster didn't delete it. I did.

 

[perterra]

The poster didn't delete it. I did.

Thank you, I never saw it, though maybe hanlons could have stood some cleaning up.

 

[perterra]

The poster didn't delete it. I did.

By the way, I guess we do need our parents to make us play nice.

 

[John Cantelo]

By the way, I guess we do need our parents to make us play nice.

Well, my dear old Mum dead these past 16 years, still metaphorically sits on my shoulder telling me to 'Behave!' when I fail to walk along the pavement next to the curb so my wife is protected from unwanted splashes, insists I should stand and let the old and infirm have my seat, etc., etc. Unfortunately, not having been internet savvy, she never says "Don't start that thread, our John, it'll only end in tears!

 

[perterra]

Well, my dear old Mum dead these past 16 years, still metaphorically sits on my shoulder telling me to 'Behave!' when I fail to walk along the pavement next to the curb so my wife is protected from unwanted splashes, insists I should stand and let the old and infirm have my seat, etc., etc. Unfortunately, not having been internet savvy, she never says "Don't start that thread, our John, it'll only end in tears!

It was a good post, peoples emotions just got in the way.

Once name calling starts all posters suffer.

 

[KC Foggin]

By the way, I guess we do need our parents to make us play nice.

:smoke::smoke::smoke:

 

[Pileatus]

Okay. So my reason for commenting in this thread was to thank John for the information, and to support him, Jos, GG, and others that this was not to be a debate over ethics, or the semantics of definitions, let alone personal opinion and morality. Since these big optics companies exist on a continuum of behaviours, then for me personally there is no clear cut outcome (even though I do not wish my $ to contribute in any way to HunTing marketing or products, and even though the HT has been the source of much good natured mirth here on the forum over the years), so I have no further comment to make in relation to that.

With the growth in excellence, expertise and reputation of the Optics sub-forum here on BF, there has been an influx of new members drawn here, many HunTing inclined, and some even with more commercially orientated intent behind them. This is after all a BIRD forum, so my next bit of house keeping is solely to tidy up a few loose ends as in the quoted posts above, and not to enter into discussion, or spark further debate. I will say that two or more wrongs do not make a right. The correct place to discuss HunTing, ethics, morality, rights and wrongs, opinion, slaughterhouse comparisons, justifications and personal preferences, and indeed even links to psychopathic tendencies and/or adequacy (or lack of) in the trouser department etc is in "RUFFLED FEATHERS" ...... As I said before - we'll see who among the HunTing inclined (if not apologists) is of sufficient agate ownership to start such a thread ...........

To specifically (and in a one-time statement only) address the backlash to Jhanlon's rather broad brush post, let me say that the links between gratuitous violence, lack of empathy, or remorse etc by the more disturbed smiling 'HunTers' and such toward animals that are killed for 'fun', 'pleasure', or 'sport' and further abuse, violence, or other pathological tendencies on the psychological scale, toward fellow humans is documented, with related causal factors such as repeated exposure to violence. A simple Google search will reveal a multitude of material, and if you have access to peer reviewed psychological journals etc, then you will find the more rigorous evidence among that. https://www.google.com.au/search?si...c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..3.36.8248.3.ziCfE6dijhU

Over and out.


Chosun :gh:

Absolute hogwash. Those studies begin with the psychopath and work backwards to study formative behaviors that may or may not contribute to the development of aberrant behavior. Abuse and torture of small animals is often a shared psychopathic trait that bears no relationship to the behavior of a responsible hunter. No optics company promotes their products to psychopaths.

This thread is insulting, bordering on the abusrd.

 

[Steve]

Pileatus, If you find the thread insulting and absurd, don't visit it? Then you won't get yourself into any bother will you?

 

[Pileatus]

Pileatus, If you find the thread insulting and absurd, don't visit it? Then you won't get yourself into any bother will you?

Censoring my rebuttal posts is insulting. I sent you a PM.

 

[Gordon]

This in response to Perterra. I would expect you to agree with all the points I made as they are all demonstrably accurate.
Cheers
Gordon

 

[Troubador]

This thread is insulting, bordering on the abusrd.

Calm down old friend.
There have been many threads on here that have insulted somebody or somebodies and many that have definitely crossed the border and driven deep into the absurd.

Over here in little old UK there are thousands of acres of land that support hosts of wildlife that wouldn't exist if it were not for hunting/shooting/fishing. I wouldn't personally want to hunt but I acknowledge that since I eat meat, others do it for me.

Also in the UK we lack top predators and have a problem with steadily expanding deer populations that are preventing ancient forest regeneration in Scotland and these populations need culling.

On the question of psychopathic behaviour, I am sure that covers a multitude of members of society from hunters to the priesthood, from shopkeepers to politicians and from birders to blacksmiths.

Peace.

Lee

 

[JabaliHunter]

I just cannot see how it is in any way more ethical to pay someone else to rear and kill your meat than it is to take responsibility for it and do it oneself. Just because one person doesn't want to kill their own meat doesn't in itself make them in any way more ethical than someone who does. The supermarket customer is just delegating, it doesn't make them more ethical even if it makes them feel so (assuming that they even think or worry about such things in the first place).

Neither is there anything more ethical in clearing a forest to grow a nice patch of monoculture grass for beef cattle (regardless of whether the clearance happened in the last 75 years or 750) than it is to manage a biodiverse woodland and harvest some meat sustainably from it. No one can suggest that sustainable hunting can possibly supply the world's need for protein, but without further intensification and efficiency improvements, arguably neither can farming at current population growth rates.

So whether or not a binocular company chooses to advertise to hunters or not ultimately has nothing to do with ethics. It is commercial strategy. I didn't notice (although I did skim read) any company in the paper advertising that they do not support or actively oppose hunting...

 

[stephen b]

Wow- just wow. I posted a thread today saying that I was offended by some of the posts being made. And..... My post got deleted. I guess it is not OK here to say you are offended by offensive posts.

After the insulting posts made comparing hunting behavior to "psychopaths and child abusers, and domestic abusers". And another one with a link to a Google search titled "links between killing and psychopath child abuse"; I posted this post: ( and it got deleted)

** Please tell me what is so offensive about my post saying I was offended about the posts I mentioned. And..... Those posts are still here. What is offensive about this post:

Apparently the hunters or hunting apologists do not need to start a separate thread there to "ruffle" some feathers. As the feathers are ruffled up just fine here. I do not think it was any hunters who started the ruffling here in this thread.

Now we have a second poster ( and I usually like Chosun Juan's posts) who wants to paint a picture ( or cast a broad stroke) of hunters, or the like as having demented psychological profiles and behaviors. And they kindly posted a link to further complete the picture. With the link being a goggle search of "links between killing and psychopath child abuse". Well..... For someone who does not know me, my family, or anything about me; and to paint a broad stroke relating a hobby and a behavior that I participate in ( a legal one BTW) to some of the most vile illegal behavior that can be done to another human being- well I personally find that offensive.

We may disagree with hunting and the cons (and pros) of it; on the merits or lack there of. And even discuss which companies or agencies are involved, or not involved in it. And some may think it is then illuminating to make a link (and one posted almost as if it is a direct one) to link hunting participation to demented psychological profiles; and vile illegal physical abuses. Well, when it gets to that, that is no discussing only hunting- that is getting into personal attacks directed towards the human nature of a group of people. It gets down to name calling and finger pointing. That is not a debate. I personally find it offensive.

You can find information to document anything you want- and call it anything you want. News flash- there are sick evil human beings in this world that cause harm, and do awful terrible things to other human beings. And they come from all walks of life. Some of them are even vegans; and oh my- even birders. Do I know this as fact- yes I do. Why, because there are sick people in all sub groups.

Obviously my feathers were "Ruffled" here. Why..... Oh well, I do not like to be portrayed or thought to be a "psychopath from a bygone era; or a child or domestic abuser", just because I participate in a legal behavior that others do not like or agree with. So, yes I found it offensive. Because..... You know nothing about me, my family, or how I live my life. So do not paint me in your picture of "psychopathic" people. Because that does ruffle my feathers.