SuperDuty
Well-known member
Last edited:
-
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
Below is a picture of a fence line between two large (over 10 000 acre) ranches in South Africa. Guess which one is a cattle ranch and which one is for commercial hunting?
I guess that pretty well proves that hunters in general, do not eat grass.
And Another Thing
Ethics is a broader issue than just hunting or no hunting.
For example:
Does the company pay all taxes legitimately owed to the country where they are based or are loopholes exploited to avoid this?
Does the company pay the legal minimum or the market average to its employees?
Does the company grant competitive numbers of annual holiday entitlement or the least it can get away with?
Are women paid the same as men for the same work?
Can women reasonably expect to get promoted as far as their talents and abilities will take them or is there a glass-ceiling holding them back?
Does the company provide high quality training and apprenticeships?
Does the company comply with not only the letter of environmental protection laws but also the spirit?
I think that some of these issues are at least as important as whether the company produces some products that are used in hunting but which are also used in law enforcement and by the military to keep us safe and for some hunting that is used to put food on some families' tables.
Lee
Ethics is a broader issue than just hunting or no hunting.
For example:
Does the company pay all taxes legitimately owed to the country where they are based or are loopholes exploited to avoid this?
Yes, I know there is an argument that loopholes are the fault of governments and that companies couldn't take advantage of them if governments drafted laws more carefully. But taking advantage of loopholes is a managment decision and not entirely excused by the duty of care to shareholders.
Does the company pay the legal minimum or the market average to its employees?
Does the company grant competitive numbers of annual holiday entitlement or the least it can get away with?
Are women paid the same as men for the same work?
Can women reasonably expect to get promoted as far as their talents and abilities will take them or is there a glass-ceiling holding them back?
Does the company provide high quality training and apprenticeships?
Does the company comply with not only the letter of environmental protection laws but also the spirit?
I think that some of these issues are at least as important as whether the company produces some products that are used in hunting but which are also used in law enforcement and by the military to keep us safe and for some hunting that is used to put food on some families' tables.
Lee
There is no problem for you to provide links that reveal how the companies fair in these regards - if there are persons on the forum who are concerned by these, they will read them. Exactly in the style of this post - it was for people who do have concerns about hunting, nothing more, nothing less.
Such as simple opening post has managed to stir so much comment - for those that have no issue with hunting, don't read the links, end of.
Indeed it was. I was expanding the remit of the questions posed by the original post, nothing more, nothing less.
Lee
perterra
Well-known member
I always thought "ethical" would encompass far more than just hunting. I would think Lee was correct in pointing out there is more to ethics.
Ethical binocular companies
If I may, let me get this right. It is OK for a optics company to provide equipment to a dictatorship that uses it to slaughter it's citizens...say the Asaads in Syria or one of the African dictatorships but it is not OK to sell to hunters?
Interesting philosophy on the value of human life.
Art
If I may, let me get this right. It is OK for a optics company to provide equipment to a dictatorship that uses it to slaughter it's citizens...say the Asaads in Syria or one of the African dictatorships but it is not OK to sell to hunters?
Interesting philosophy on the value of human life.
Art
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I think you'd have a point if an optics company advertised and tried to capitalise on the fact that it was developing optics specifically tailored for the "dictator market" to enable their forces to be more despotic and used images & endorsements garnered thereby in their publicity campaigns. I also suspect that were that the case then the discussion would be somewhat wider than a debate limited to a relatively obscure (as far as the general public is concerned) website devoted to birding!
perterra
Well-known member
Then just say the military market. Okay to use them in the hunting and killing of each other, just not animals. I think the point is, there are more to ethics than the title and body of the post would have us think.
Did the original poster try to convey that ethics are solely linked to this one issue? As I read the body of the post, he said if you are concerned by hunting, then the linked information might be of interest. Please also note that in the title of the post inverted commas were used in designating 'ethical'.
Addressing your specific point, if somebody else linked information about the dealings that various optical companies do or don't have with the military market, then I would guess some members might also find that interesting.
I am truly at a loss to understand why so many persons object to this thread. Interesting however that in a forum that has a far greater number of members in the UK than US, most of the objections come from the US ...maybe a cultural thing
perterra
Well-known member
Did the original poster try to convey that ethics are solely linked to this one issue? As I read the body of the post, he said if you are concerned by hunting, then the linked information might be of interest. Please also note that in the title of the post inverted commas were used in designating 'ethical'.
Addressing your specific point, if somebody else linked information about the dealings that various optical companies do or don't have with the military market, then I would guess some members might also find that interesting.
I am truly at a loss to understand why so many persons object to this thread. Interesting however that in a forum that has a far greater number of members in the UK than US, most of the objections come from the US ...maybe a cultural thing
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.
I don't think definitions would usually list any people or activities, would they? Don't they usually run something along the lines of "rules of behavior based on ideas of what is morally good and bad" ...this then leaves us to decide what this means to each of us individually, i.e. hunting for sport could be ethical or unethical depending on the person's viewpoint.
perterra
Well-known member
My point exactly, I dont see hunting as unethical. I'm glad we are on the same page now.
So for me, seeing the thread title as ethical, the body of the link points to hunting as unethical. That would be incorrect.
This is sort of what I referenced in my first post in this thread; I think you have to define "ethical" before you can decry a company as ethical or unethical. Hunting, even trophy hunting, can be done ethically, but non-consumptive users of optics, e.g. birders, can be done unethically..
J
But at the same time, it is correct for those that do see it as unethical.
And, as pointed out, the opening post clearly said the link was for persons that did have concerns with hunting, so no real issue -they have their ethical issue, they read the article, they decide to pay attention to it or not.
For the many members that do not see hunting as unethical, this link was not for them, so no real issue here either, they don't read it and click on whatever else interests them.
perterra
Well-known member
Let me say something John, I am being the devils advocate here. I dont particularity care what others think one way or the other. I grew up in a hunting family, I grew up around ranches and farms. Killing hogs, cattle, goats and chickens was normal in the fall. Just like hunting deer, quail and dove. Not a lot of duck hunting here, but deer and dove is still a big deal. If you want to eat meat, it's gotta die. Theres no joy in the killing, but it is a fact of life. Chicken doesnt come from a Styrofoam tray wrapped in plastic. In comes from an animal that was alive.
I havent hunted in years, I have fished quite a bit, and to me there is no difference. So in my very humble opinion, the only folks who can cast stones at hunting, are those who have sworn off meat. I promise, hang out in a slaughter house for 1/2 a day, it will test your convictions.
You're stretching semantics on this one.
I havent hunted in years, I have fished quite a bit, and to me there is no difference. So in my very humble opinion, the only folks who can cast stones at hunting, are those who have sworn off meat. I promise, hang out in a slaughter house for 1/2 a day, it will test your convictions.
You're stretching semantics on this one.
perterra
Well-known member
Yes sir, all I say is be fair in the post, or at least dont be too surprised if someone calls you on it.
Rathaus
Well-known member
It's a bit of a continuum isn't it.
I know a couple of withered Fruitarians who consider vegetarians and vegans to be ethical monsters.
