'Ethical' binocular companies (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

If this thread was just set up to be an anti-hunting rant.

Then I find it is time to close it.

Jerry

+1

 

[Binastro]

We will all be robots soon anyway. We are well on the way.
So it won't be an issue.

Unless they worry where they get their electricity from.

 

[John Cantelo]

If this thread was just set up to be an anti-hunting rant.

Then I find it is time to close it.

Jerry

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.

 

[Gordon]

Funnily enough it seems to be the pro-hunting fraternity that immediately jumped into the big pond of paranoia - despite the very carefully worded original post. It's hard to believe that they are a threatened (or even vulnerable) species in the good old USA. And now they want the thread closed. Couldn't make it up.

Some pro-hunters make the point about need for control. I agree. But carefully managed culling (yes, I know it's killing) is very different from anybody being able to go out "culling".

It's easy to search internet and find images/videos of big brave hunters who have slaughtered hundreds of sea-ducks, for example, for no apparent reason other than they could. Bad enough, but its the expressions of joy on their faces that really takes the biscuit.

Cheers
Gordon

 

[Troubador]

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 necessary 'pest' control or 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.

Hi John

Well said, and I am glad you posted in the first place.

Lee

 

[Pileatus]

The only thing killed on this thread is time. B

 

[ceasar]

Funnily enough it seems to be the pro-hunting fraternity that immediately jumped into the big pond of paranoia - despite the very carefully worded original post. It's hard to believe that they are a threatened (or even vulnerable) species in the good old USA. And now they want the thread closed. Couldn't make it up.

Some pro-hunters make the point about need for control. I agree. But carefully managed culling (yes, I know it's killing) is very different from anybody being able to go out "culling".

It's easy to search internet and find images/videos of big brave hunters who have slaughtered hundreds of sea-ducks, for example, for no apparent reason other than they could. Bad enough, but its the expressions of joy on their faces that really takes the biscuit.

Cheers
Gordon

I believe you can find more big brave people in places like Malta and the Near East indiscriminately harvesting different varieties of migrating birds, also by the hundreds--not to mention it happening other areas of the world. They probably kill more birds than wind farms do which supply many people with electricity.

Why limit this outrage to private hunting in countries which have laws against this sort of slaughter?

See this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=305730

Bob

 

[Pileatus]

I believe you can find more big brave people in places like Malta and the Near East indiscriminately harvesting different varieties of migrating birds, also by the hundreds--not to mention it happening other areas of the world. They probably kill more birds than wind farms do which supply many people with electricity.

Why limit this outrage to private hunting in countries which have laws against this sort of slaughter?

See this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=305730

Bob

Why hunting is necessary.
https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/1998/Out-of-Control.aspx
and the situation is worse than in 1997.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

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.

 

[Gilmore Girl]

Funnily enough it seems to be the pro-hunting fraternity that immediately jumped into the big pond of paranoia - despite the very carefully worded original post.





Cheers
Gordon

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.

 

[Subzero888]

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.

Agree with what you wrote. I really wanted to say "totally and completely in agreement", but I know the English "Sir" Lee is on the prowl The information you posted is quite informative. This is a Bird Forum first and an international forum foremost which is the reason why I even joined. We all know that different cultures view hunting differently. Like any birder who loves to watch birds with a bucket of KFC next to him or her I am also conflicted about hunting. There are many birders who abhor sport hunting of birds and might find the information provided useful. If anyone mistakenly believes this is a hunting forum it can be remedied by looking at the URL of this page :smoke:

 

[Troubador]

Agree with what you wrote. I really wanted to say "totally and completely in agreement", but I know the English "Sir" Lee is on the prowl The information you posted is quite informative. This is a Bird Forum first and an international forum foremost which is the reason why I even joined. We all know that different cultures view hunting differently. Like any birder who loves to watch birds with a bucket of KFC next to him or her I am also conflicted about hunting. There are many birders who abhor sport hunting of birds and might find the information provided useful. If anyone mistakenly believes this is a hunting forum it can be remedied by looking at the URL of this page :smoke:

Yo 888
You called?

'Totally and completely' is pretty definitive which/that could only be made more emphatic by adding 'without a shadow of a doubt'. But don't listen to me as you can see from the last sentence, I can't work out when to use 'which' and when to use 'that', although a couple of weeks or so ago Julian (who frequents these pages) explained it to me.
This has been a good thread and its right that some or all of us should have strong views about ethics. If you don't have views about ethics then why bother being homo sapiens?

Lee

 

[jgraider]

The main thing I got out of this article is I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt the 5-6 companies who will never get a penny of my money, ever.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

John Cantelo, post 83,
Well phrased comment, I did not read your contribution as being anti-hunting, perhaps the phrase"ethical"provoked some reactions, but thinking about the whole matter: I know that some binocular companies make optics for hunters and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I also know, that some of these companies also use some of the money they have gained by making optical instruments to finance nature/wild life protection projects, so life is not always so black and white. In The Netherlands we have enormous amounts of geese at the moment plundering the grass lands of farmers and also sometimes a danger for air traffic. Now a lot are caught and gassed with carbon dioxide (does not seem a pleasant death if I think about it), but also hunters are asked to help. Some of the meat of the geese is used to supply people who are in need for food (so-called "voedselbank"in Dutch).
I use my binoculars and telescopes to enjoy animals and nature and sometimes to read the time tables of the train, when the time tables are to far away or to read text in musea, when a crowd of observers stand in front of me, so I can not come close to the art I want to see. Seems very ethical, must yield a guaranteed place in heaven, since I may be not allowed to go in when I am carrying a rifle unless it is a good old Winchester.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gilmore Girl]

There are only 4 companies listed in the paper that do not market to hunters.
Interesting that they are all Japanese camera/photo/imaging companies. Maybe this is why they don't market to hunters (just not their niche). Nikon and Leica market hunting, but that's their strategy and this doesn't suggest anything about the others.

This doesn't automatically mean they are anti-hunting only because they don't market to hunters.
Maybe they are. maybe they aren't, but it's not logical to assume they are anti-hunting without any evidence.
I skimmed the paper and it seems the research only reveals no connections to hunting, but doesn't provide official statements
from each company on their stance.

 

[perterra]

John Cantelo, post 83,
Well phrased comment, I did not read your contribution as being anti-hunting, perhaps the phrase"ethical"provoked some reactions, but thinking about the whole matter: I know that some binocular companies make optics for hunters and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I also know, that some of these companies also use some of the money they have gained by making optical instruments to finance nature/wild life protection projects, so life is not always so black and white. In The Netherlands we have enormous amounts of geese at the moment plundering the grass lands of farmers and also sometimes a danger for air traffic. Now a lot are caught and gassed with carbon dioxide (does not seem a pleasant death if I think about it), but also hunters are asked to help. Some of the meat of the geese is used to supply people who are in need for food (so-called "voedselbank"in Dutch).
I use my binoculars and telescopes to enjoy animals and nature and sometimes to read the time tables of the train, when the time tables are to far away or to read text in musea, when a crowd of observers stand in front of me, so I can not come close to the art I want to see. Seems very ethical, must yield a guaranteed place in heaven, since I may be not allowed to go in when I am carrying a rifle unless it is a good old Winchester.
Gijs van Ginkel

The term ethical is what struck me.

 

[ceasar]

Why hunting is necessary.
https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/1998/Out-of-Control.aspx
and the situation is worse than in 1997.

There will always be governmental rules and regulations covering hunting. What is important is that they are enforced evenly and fairly.

 

[stephen b]

The problem I had in this thread was when it went so far sideways that a poster ( not the OP) started calling people that hunt "psychopaths; and compared them to "child abusers and domestic abusers". That is where I thought the wheels really went sideways.

 

[SuperDuty]

How about zero hunting talk of any kind for or against. I'm absolutely for hunting and gun ownership 100 %, but I don't mention it because it is forbidden on here , or at least I thought it was.

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.

 

[Maljunulo]

The problem I had in this thread was when it went so far sideways that a poster ( not the OP) started calling people that hunt "psychopaths; and compared them to "child abusers and domestic abusers". That is where I thought the wheels really went sideways.

It doesn't seem that there were any consequences of that diatribe either.