• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Ethical optics brands (1 Viewer)

kwikstaart

Well-known member
Now you van choose whether you support optics brands who also aim at the hunting community or not:

(Don't know if there is a better place on the forum tot post this?)
 

Mono

Hi!
Staff member
Supporter
Europe
The previous reports from this body have been discussed before, have a search for "ethical consumer".
 

qwerty5

Well-known member
United States
Can you please explain why having ties to hunting is unethical? I think it's funny that the article criticized some companies for supporting the world of "public lands" and "good food"
 

Ries

Well-known member
Netherlands
There's a difference between conservational/ecological motivated hunting and sports hunting (killing for fun), which this article/research (and ones before them) is about.

Although one doesn't technically spoken kill with the optics...
 

John Cantelo

Well-known member
Some years ago I posted about an earlier report from this organisation and received some hostile responses, mainly from pro-hunting Americans, for doing so. My view was and remains that there's nothing wrong with highlighting these reports as they help those with strong opinions about the issues raised to make what they feel are appropriate decisions (which includes hunters!) and the rest of us to reflect upon them. Those who disagree aren't obliged to read the report or take notice of it if they do.
 

qwerty5

Well-known member
United States
There's a difference between conservational/ecological motivated hunting and sports hunting (killing for fun), which this article/research (and ones before them) is about.

Although one doesn't technically spoken kill with the optics...
You've clearly never hunted, because you don't know why sports hunters hunt. It's not killing for fun. In fact, killing is one of the most unpleasant parts of hunting for many, including me.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
You've clearly never hunted, because you don't know why sports hunters hunt. It's not killing for fun. In fact, killing is one of the most unpleasant parts of hunting for many, including me.
You can expand this to whatever degree you wish where binoculars are used - angling, horse racing even most sporting events you wish, where people can object. I think it's more "trophy" hunting that most find abhorrent.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
You may, but there are hundreds of objective answers on here and other sites about the practice and I'm unwilling to repeat it for cluttering up the forum ( see #2 ) .....it usually ends in tears. I also think it's against BF rules and guidelines.
 

Prestdj

its good to be back
Supporter
United Kingdom
unless your hunting to feed yourself or your family becuase of whatever reason? in this day and age there is no reason to hunt to kill,

why?? do people continue to do it, ive never understood why people shoot for sport, its not really a sport is it, whatever your hunting or shooting at is going about its day to day, life why must it be shot?
 

qwerty5

Well-known member
United States
Again, none of you have been hunting, obviously. But Mono said to stop this debate. I'll just say I'm proud to own Vortex.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Again, none of you have been hunting, obviously. But Mono said to stop this debate. I'll just say I'm proud to own Vortex.

Very pompous and presumptuous of you whilst also being incorrect, certainly in my case. I'm guessing that going by sales of Swarovski and Zeiss in the UK, a desire to own the best optics outweighs the fact that these companies also trade in instruments for other uses.
 

qwerty5

Well-known member
United States
Very pompous and presumptuous of you whilst also being incorrect, certainly in my case. I'm guessing that going by sales of Swarovski and Zeiss in the UK, a desire to own the best optics outweighs the fact that these companies also trade in instruments for other uses.
Sorry, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking to Ries and Prestdj, who clearly have no idea of the reasons to hunt. I can't really explain it, but hunting is so much more than killing animals. And even in trophy hunting, the meat (and often the hide) is saved and used, so it's not wasteful.

Of course I want the best optics, so I don't really care whether or not they also sell hunting optics. But I am glad to own a binocular from a company that does support hunting.
 

Eric222

Member
United Kingdom
I must have had too much free time on my hands today as I listened to the entire "Should we care who makes our binoculars" debate in that report.

The distinct impression I came away with is that a small minority of people are not content to simply decide for themselves which binoculars to use. They also want to impose their views on everyone else too by exerting as much pressure as they can on both manufacturers and sales outlets to restrict what products we can choose from. This intolerance of others freedom is not limited to hunting (which personally I have no qualms with, if done correctly), a binocular manufacturer would only be "ethical" if the company (and presumably all their staff) committed to veganism too.

Maybe there is a niche market for such an optics manufacturer. Of course the binoculars could then only be used for watching birds in the garden, as the "ethical consumer" would no doubt not approve either of the carbon emissions involved in travelling away from home...
 

Mono

Hi!
Staff member
Supporter
Europe
The website that produced the report has the sole function of providing consumers with information on a whole host of products and services. They are explicit and open about that and what criteria they are judging on, the vegan-ness of the sandwiches in the company canteen not being one. If a consumer wants to judge products and services by other criteria then they should look elsewhere for information.

If one finds something morally objectionable then should one just say "live and let live, I might not like it but some folk obviously do so let them carry on." or should you campaign to end the morally objectionable? An estate near me has a lovely tea shop with excellent cakes but they also have a huge shooting estate suspiciously devoid of wildlife. Do I frequent the tea shop, do I chuff!
 

Eric222

Member
United Kingdom
Mono, sorry if my comments came across as a dig at people who are vegans. That was not my intention, I have friends who are also vegans and we all respect our choices ( The anti-meat aspect is in that debate, not the written report).

I think tolerance of other peoples informed choices is a good thing. It is when that "informing" and "influencing" is taken to the point of bullying (as advocated in that debate, by applying anonymous pressure using social media), that I find it objectionable. Are those that shout loudest the most ethical ?


Ethics is a tricky thing. My viewpoint on something does not necessarily mean that another persons differing position is unethical.
A rain shower this morning left a worm stranded on our concrete yard. I picked it up and put it on the grass, but should I do that if being watched by a well fed robin ?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top