Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon under fire over rifle scopes designed for 'dangerous game' hunting

By dpreview staff on Apr 3, 2013 at 18:36 GMT

Nikon has come under fire from animal welfare groups and some wildlife photographers over its new 'Monarch' line of rifle scopes, designed for game hunting.

Nikon Inc has manufactured 'sports optics' for many years, and is not alone (so does Leica, Pentax and Carl Zeiss, for example) but it is the marketing behind its newest Monarch line of scopes that has caused anger in some quarters. Marketed as being 'Engineered for Safari' Nikon's Sport Optics website carries claims that the new Monarch-series scopes are created 'for those seeking dangerous game adventure on the Dark Continent' - an archaic term for Africa which is controversial in itself. 

Nikon's new Monarch range of rifle scopes are aimed specifically at hunters - something that has angered wildlife campaigners and some photographers.  

Among those who have taken Nikon to task are wildlife protection groups and some Nikon users who shoot animals with cameras and lenses, rather than guns. British newspaper The Independent has published a short feature on the controversy, noting that Nikon's photographic products are often marketed as ideal tools for getting close to, and capturing images of animals, while - crucially - not harming them.

In fact, in Nikon's latest camera and lens catalogue the company claims to be 'at the heart of nature' (no pun intended - presumably) and Nikon's marketing materials for its cameras and lenses are typically packed with photographs of rare and endangered animals, and quotes from high-profile wildlife photographers who use Nikon gear. The company has also sponsored numerous wildlife photography competitions and among many feature articles on its American website, you'll find an article by Moose Peterson, entitled 'Preservation of Wildlife Through Photography'. Elsewhere, in Nikon's current photo catalogue, a photograph of a pair of polar bears is captioned 'Nature is full of moments of timeless beauty, to be captured before they are gone forever'.

Nikon's 'Coyote Special' riflescope is designed to be used in the killing of coyotes - the most damaging predators to livestock in North America. A very different type of use to trophy hunting in Africa, and far less controversial. 

Trophy hunting, of the sort that Nikon's Sport Optics division seems to be explicitly referencing in the marketing materials for its Monarch-series scopes, is hugely controversial. This kind of hunting is highly lucrative for certain African countries, but many claim that it is damaging, too. The Independent cites research by Scientific American magazine research that suggests the practice may have contributed to a halving of the population of lions in Africa over 30 years.

What do you think? Nikon Inc isn't alone among photographic companies in making equipment designed for use in hunting, and also not uniquely, Nikon has created optical equipment for military use in the past. So is Nikon's manufacturing of rifle scopes for trophy hunters inconsistent with the claim from its camera/photo division that the company is 'at the heart of nature'? Or should Nikon's product lines be viewed separately, and only considered on their merits for their intended use?

Let us know in the comments (which will be carefully moderated).

via The Independant.

Comments

Total comments: 412
123
reptocarl
By reptocarl (6 months ago)

It is a proven fact that humans will slaughter to extinction any animal species it can. Americans have a huge black mark for slaughtering the passenger pigeon to extinction in only fifty years. Because of the passenger pigeon we now have laws that without them other species would be extinct, the sea otter and american crocodile come readily to mind. The nikon scopes can be used on any rifle for taking any animal. I am a hunter and see no problem in taking game animals as long as they arent endangered and are 100% legal. Because of poaching the tiger now has more in captivity than in the wild. Nikon had nothing to do with that. Nikon had nothing to do with the passenger pigeon either.

0 upvotes
MinisterOfSarcasm
By MinisterOfSarcasm (8 months ago)

I use the Nikon 1-4x20 Monarch African Riflescope on my 30/30. It was priced decent at just under $300. One of its advantages is its short length (10.35 inches). For those who don’t shoot some rifles are nicer to shoot with a shorter rifle scope (Like a 30/30 or an SKS).
Nikon has clear optics and their scopes hold zero quite well. The 30/30 gets packed around a lot backpacking. Still shoots tight groups. They are advertised as being able to handle some pretty heavy recoil. I never tried it on anything big but it handles the 30/30 well enough anyway. This is the second Nikon scope I’ve owned and I recommend them. They have a good ballistics calculator on their website (Also available in a smart phone app) that works pretty well.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sunil Talati
By Sunil Talati (Apr 19, 2013)

I have always bought Nikons, will I continue to do so, probably yes. All companies are involved such activities, some advertise openly and some do it under the carpet. However their marketing colleagues need a good kick, the sentence that really bugs me 'for those seeking dangerous game adventure on the Dark Continent'.

0 upvotes
Page Jr William
By Page Jr William (Apr 11, 2013)

Sad what really is the issue hear?If any.

0 upvotes
lorenzo de medici
By lorenzo de medici (Apr 11, 2013)

Nikon should contribute $20 from the sale of each (likely premium priced) scope to malaria prevention in Africa. Malaria kills more children in Africa than any other disease, and over a million deaths per year are attributed to malaria. It also causes ongoing suffering, disability, and economic losses. Perhaps that will appease the people who are worried about the lion population, which I'm sure is highly regulated.

0 upvotes
Class Four
By Class Four (Apr 11, 2013)

Any scope will work just fine in Africa or anywhere else. This is more marketing tool than anything else. It's certainly not made for low light. If you want to be ticked at Nikon, be ticked at them for making the optics used in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

No one you know is ever going to Africa to hunt big game.

0 upvotes
kenyee
By kenyee (Apr 8, 2013)

Pentax used to make colonoscopy scopes. Should we dump all our Pentax gear because no one should be subject to a butt probe? :-)

Optics is a business...

2 upvotes
absoluutbeginner
By absoluutbeginner (Apr 8, 2013)

I Agree .....
But hey...... I am a european....!
No shoot to kill on life unless it can shoot back at you ..with the same effect !

0 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (Apr 8, 2013)

Wah Wah. Wait, I'll try to make this more sensitive. Wah wah. Too insensitive? wah wah.

1 upvote
birdbrain
By birdbrain (Apr 8, 2013)

Nikon shoot to kill, Canon shoot to thrill :-D

1 upvote
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

As a photographer and hunter I need good optics for both hobbies.

I thought the green-weenies appreciate the trophy hunting income provided to certain economically depressed areas..oh, they have not thought that through?

There are no shortage of cattle in America because we breed them for food. With good stewardship, herds of wild animals are a manageable, renewable resource with income potential for those who see the opportunity. An animal that has commercial value will never become extinct.

Kill a few Americans using superior optics in the 20th century and your armed forces are mentioned throughout history with reverence, as honorable fighters..(as a 51 year old still on Active Duty in the United States Army, yes, I am qualified to honor the memory of past warriors of my profession, both friend and foe, by speaking reverently of them)...legally kill a few wild animals in the 21st century and you are a criminal! Not sure what this world is coming to.

4 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 10, 2013)

Are deer terrorists? Is it brave or ethical to "hunt" unarmed civilians? So what's the relevance of the military biz here?

It may be ethical to hunt certain animals, but is it "stars and stripes" brave or sporting to bring them down with advanced guns and at no risk? A real "warrior" is the guy who can snare a rabbit with cunning, or handicap his advantage by means of rustic weaponry (musket or bow and arrow). Fly fishing is perhaps the most fare and square pursuit of all, since one must mimic (but not use) the natural food, and all small catches (and many big ones) return to the water.

Unarmed tourists probably bring more money into depressed areas.

1 upvote
Gnaeus48
By Gnaeus48 (Apr 6, 2013)

Let's get over this ridiculous 1970s liberalism...we have had enough.

4 upvotes
Chopingman
By Chopingman (Apr 5, 2013)

You're kidding right? Nikon's rich history in the optical business includes bomb sights and submarine periscopes used in the attack of Pearl Harbor. Tens of thousands of Americans were killed by optics made by Nikon. Now you all want to get indignant about a few rifle scopes used legitamently by hunters? Where exactly are your priorities?
As the son of a Marine that spent a lot of time in the South Pacific killing Japaneese, and growing up in the age when "Made in Japan" was widely considered a joke, take it from me-- some people just live to be offended. I have managed to forgive and forget. I now proudly buy Nikon products, and ANY Japeneese product that is best of class. Sadly Nikon's rifle scopes are not best of class or I would proudly have a few of those too.
Truly, what is the real agenda here?

12 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

Bravo. I tried to reference this history as well below in one of my countless ocd posts here way down there but you put it much better, and from personal experience. Japan is our ally and friend now. We have helped each other in immeasurable ways since the war. There has been some bad too, but I tend to think that those drawbacks pale compared to the benefits of our alliance. Here is sincerely hoping that our bonds can stay strong throughout any coming global wars that will rock us once again, horrible as that sounds. It is the human condition, let us not deny it. Just try to weather it best as we can.

0 upvotes
Tommot1965
By Tommot1965 (Apr 5, 2013)

well said mate

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Apr 5, 2013)

I'm right this minute hammering my scope sights into plowshares.

3 upvotes
EricAotearoa
By EricAotearoa (Apr 5, 2013)

Elders of the Maasai from Tanzania, one of Africa’s oldest tribes, have said that the Tanzanian government has just announced that it plans to kick thousands of their families off their land in order for wealthy tourists to shoot lions and leopards. The evictions are to begin immediately. So, you big tough hunters that say ‘legal’ hunting helps both the people and animals of Africa, this seems to disprove your argument somewhat. No doubt they’ll be assisted by a Nikon or Leica or other branded name of fancy shmancy scope to help them in their killing sprees. You can go here to petition against the mass eviction: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_the_maasai_loc/?bTwosab&v=23734

3 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/avaaz-org-and-the-lefts-hall-of-mirrors/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

Avaaz’s credentials and claims of a global network of activists coordinating international advocacy were rarely challenged until it claimed to be involved on the ground in Syria. In May it claimed to have played a leading role in rescuing Paul Conroy, a wounded photographer, from Syria. But Conroy claimed never to have heard of Avaaz or to have had any contact with them.

Avaaz built up its image of having an extensive network in Syria by describing Free Syrian Army members as its activists. Wissam Tarif, its leading activist in Syria, is actually a Lebanese man who has been passed off as Syrian on a number of occasions. Deceptions like these raise real questions about whether there even is more to Avaaz beyond a website, a few viral videos and some goofy stunts.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

Avaaz was co-founded by Ricken Patel, who formerly worked for George Soros’ International Crisis Group. Patel then worked for MoveOn.org whose president, Eli Pariser, is also a chairman of the board and a co-founder of Avaaz.

Avaaz was created through Res Publica, an earlier front group aimed at mobilizing the religious left. Res Publica went nowhere, but Avaaz took Res Publica’s attempt at applying MoveOn.org’s online advocacy and did it globally. And Avaaz not only gets money from Soros, it feeds money back into the Soros machine through such efforts as a fundraising campaign for Burmese democracy where the donations were to be administered by the Open Society Institute.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

What is Avaaz really? Its name may mean “Voice” in Persian, but it might as well mean self-importance. Avaaz inserts itself into every trendy issue, accomplishing nothing, but harvesting donations and email addresses that are likely to be useful in much bigger projects for its parent groups.

Avaaz doesn’t actually do anything, but it isn’t meant to. It brings Ricken Patel a paycheck and keeps the money coming in for a movement that isn’t actually any bigger than a website. Avaaz’s member focus means that the site will jump early on trending issues, fundraise off them and claim them as their own through a network of Avaaz activists who aren’t actually Avaaz activists at all.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (Apr 8, 2013)

Maybe so and very sad. But not really on target is it? By the same logic, I should boycot Goodyear for supplying tires to gangs who have killed hundreds in my city.

0 upvotes
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (Apr 5, 2013)

Any press is good press...

0 upvotes
electrophoto
By electrophoto (Apr 5, 2013)

Oh my god!!

Thus I'll have to burn the nikons, stomp on my leicas, and probably throw away half my electronics!
I'll commence with this operation RIGHT NOW.

meh... I think not.
Geez... get over it. Half the large scale electronic manufacturers either supply law enforcement, military, hunting, etc...

Why not get rid of cell phones too? hell, did you now that the mexican drug cartels have THEIR OWN NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE... Let's get out on the road and destroy ALL CELL TOWERS and Boykott the manufacturer! Yeah!

Oh I bet some warlords have used COMPUTERS... let's throw the computers in the trash then...

People are such hypocrites - sitting behind their screen, luxury leather chairs, driving cars and what not, ... but then it's all EVIL NIKON.... Burn them at the stake for supporting big game hunting... sure.

I'm done... got to get back to the kitchen... to finish that lion steak.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

Reductio ad absurdem at its finest. Nobody I've seen has villified Nikon to nearly that extent, and many people with strong convictions don't necessarily research every company they buy from for various reasons....time, difficulty, or they know they'd never buy anything ever again if they did. However, when a company advertises in such a way as to promote a certain behavior then they have made themselves a target. When Chik-fil-a took a public stance on a controvercial political issue they chose to make politics part of their marketing strategy. They learned what a poor idea it is to mix business and politics, at least publicly. If Nikon advocated one use their cameras for the completely legal activity of taking pictures of teenage girls on a public beach wearing their bikinis I think people like you might sing a different tune. It's all legal, after all. They're just promoting an activity that, no doubt, is already common amongst certain people (teenage boys or old perverts).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

I am 51, neither a teenage or old pervert, yet I appreciate the female form...yes, I am coming out of the closet...I am the last heteros3xual male! I hope my Mother and Father are not embarrassed.

0 upvotes
stevo23
By stevo23 (Apr 8, 2013)

Wah wah.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (Apr 5, 2013)

You can't blame responsible hunters who know how to husband wildlife to prevent the decimation of species. Blame rich Asians who are financing (by offering poor Africans and Indians more for one day's work than they can earn in a year) to poach tigers, rhinos, elephants. All to make art objects, member-enlargement concoctions and other nonsense borne out of 10th century superstition and quack medicine.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

well put.

0 upvotes
belfox
By belfox (Apr 5, 2013)

If you want to get a feeling of the disaster taking place in Africa, go visit biglife.org, the site documenting the slaughter in the Amboseli region.

For those who look at the pictures by Nick Brandt, you have to know he never uses big telephoto lenses, be it for lions, cheetahs, buffalo's, rhino's or elephants. That really puts the heroic exploits of trophy hunters with rifle scopes into perspective.

5 upvotes
Nick Bangkok
By Nick Bangkok (Apr 5, 2013)

Nikon exec. must be scratching their heads. Why now ? They've been making rifle scopes for decades. Pentax also do, with Leica and Zeiss before them.

I've used Nikon products - cameras, lenses, eye-glass frames AND rifle scopes - from factories in Thailand, the Phillipines and, in the near future, Laos. I'm not switching just because some ad-man got careless with the choice of words.

2 upvotes
ryanshoots
By ryanshoots (Apr 5, 2013)

If Nightforce, Leupold, or Bushnell ever start making DSLRs, I'm going to quit using their products.

I refuse to contribute to company profits for any company that supplies the paparazzi and helps them continue to invade people's privacy. Ditto for companies that enable the taking of low quality pet pictures for forums with multi thousand dollar cameras. I've had it!

7 upvotes
lightandday
By lightandday (Apr 5, 2013)

If Nikon has offened you - make a donation to Conservation Education and
" Don't shoot to kill leave your RIFLE at home and shoot with a CANON !! "

4 upvotes
Soggoth
By Soggoth (Apr 4, 2013)

Wow, I really didn't expect that much ignorant tree-hugging comments on dpreview!

FYI, Nikion makes this particular series ("Monarch African") of riflescopes for years, but you didn't care until now, did you?

4 upvotes
digitaldemon
By digitaldemon (Apr 5, 2013)

No, you are ignorant, what gives us the right to kill these wild animals for 'sport'. I wonder if animals could shot back how many of these brave hunters would be out there in the first place!

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
ryanshoots
By ryanshoots (Apr 5, 2013)

@digitaldemon
Do you argue the same for fetuses?

0 upvotes
Soggoth
By Soggoth (Apr 5, 2013)

@digitaldemon

Google for "wildlife management"

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 4, 2013)

First it was "Nikon hates babies" a few years ago, now they hate wildlife. And they have proven over and over that they really, really hate their customers. There is some serious dysfunction at that company and as a Nikon owner, it scares me. They need a new CEO and a big change in their corporate culture.

3 upvotes
david kohn
By david kohn (Apr 5, 2013)

they don't hate babies or wildlife, but they love money

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 5, 2013)

Doesn't everyone love money?! Much more useful than babies, at any rate.

0 upvotes
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

Nikon just hates people on the left side of the sensor, the ones with dust and oil on them.....Nikon D600 issues for those who do not appreciate my sense of humor.

0 upvotes
Thinking out loud
By Thinking out loud (Apr 4, 2013)

Trophy hunters are serial killers who get great pleasure out of destroying living creatures - the "trophy" is just a convenient excuse for their blood lust. If you doubt this, watch videos of the "hunt". They stalking their prey from a distance (the animals do not sense them) using telescopic sights on their rifles,they slaughter them with a high velocity bullet. The interesting bit is just how excited they get - orgasmic in fact, they rush over to the kill and marvel at just how magnificent the dead animal is. It does not occur to them that it was magnificent until they brutally end its life!
Perhaps the only good thing about this is that these morons are killing animals and not humans - as far as we know.

12 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

The real trophy of the hunt is the experience and the memories. A mount is just a reminder pretty much. Not all good hunts end in an animal harvesting. Do you know many hunters? Ever been on a hunt? There are bad examples in all groups yourself included.

5 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

I know a lot of hunters. Hunters may take trophy but they hunt locally primarily for food to actually feed their families with. They hunt species of animal that exist in abundance. The follow hunting laws that are designed to keep exploding populations of pray animals that no longer have natural predators at a reasonable level. And then there are hunters who just want to kill something so they'll feel cool. I'm sure the experience of killing something for fun is something you'll treasure for all eternity in a very warm place.

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

lol! People go to hell for hunting? Do you even read the Bible?

2 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Apr 5, 2013)

But killing humans is fair game? You are twisted. Auction off your organs and live it up for a year then off yourself so others may benefit from your existance even if not from your morality or ideology maybe your biology.

Your just one of those SICK hunters who enjoy killing things for fun ..............
Most serial Killers start by abusing Animals before they move on to Humans ...or if they are American Gun fanatics SCHOOL CHILDREN.........

3 upvotes
Mr Physics
By Mr Physics (Apr 5, 2013)

Every living human would not exist but for the hunters in their ancestry. Hunting is the rule set forth by the Higher Power (whatever your name for him/her) of everyone.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

For the record, I love meat. Hunting was a necessity because animals were great repositories of protein....humans being lousy at growing food or finding enough of it to support an increasing population. Technically we no longer have any need of meat. We can get complete proteins from the crops we grow. In fact, if we didn't waste so much grain manufacturing very large quantities of livestock feces (since that is the majority of what is produced when raising livestock by about a factor of 10 to 15 pounds of feces to every 1 pound of meat) we could easily feed every hungry human being on the planet. Talk about being a humanitarian and trying to preserve these endangered animals (supporting them by safari hunts being so effective and profitable). I'd bet money that hungry people are much more likely to kill anything to get money to live than well-fed people being treated as though their lives are more important than a cow giving us a nice burger for lunch.

1 upvote
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Apr 6, 2013)

'Thinking out loud' are you even aware that these big game hunting trips are what help finance the preservation of the big game parks and the animals under their care. Not ideal but culling etc is a part of whats needed.

The illegal hunting of big game and the disgusting slaughter of animals in the past is more worthy of your rant.

edeit: oh and howardroark are you vegi or vegan? Always nice to know how serious you are in your convictions.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 4, 2013)

You guys just don't know that Pentagon is one of the largest client of Canon.

1 upvote
tonywong
By tonywong (Apr 7, 2013)

Canon photocopiers?

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 4, 2013)

First it was "Nikon hates babies" a few years ago, now they hate wildlife. And they have proven over and over that they really, really hate their customers. There is some serious dysfunction at that company and as a Nikon owner, it scares me. They need a new CEO and a big change in their corporate culture.

2 upvotes
stratplaya
By stratplaya (Apr 4, 2013)

Another left wing group trying to intimidate a business.

7 upvotes
Roman Korcek
By Roman Korcek (Apr 7, 2013)

Spoken like a true Don. :-D

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Apr 4, 2013)

I have no issue with hunting in general but I have a great disdain for trophy hunting. It seems so wasteful of life. It gives these people something to inflate their egos even more. They are some of the most narcissistic people you will ever meet. All blab blab blab look at me types.

8 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Apr 4, 2013)

Anyone who refers to Africa as the "Dark Continent" doesn't care who they offend. It doesn't even matter that it isn't a racial slur. The people who don't know what it refers to could misconstrue it that way.

Only bad things can happen by referring to it as the "Dark Continent". No one is going to say "I should buy their lenses because they used antiquated terms in their advertising". However, some people might be offended by that term if they don't know what it means.

4 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

You do not need to debase, erase or denegrate language, history and culture to suit those with insecurities and a lack of education. It will never end. Dark continent has nothing to do with race as much as black hole or white dwarf but funny enough some people were trying to rename black holes to coddle the race baiters. Everyone can get a library card but it takes just a smidgen of maturity to ask a few questions before sharpening the knives. This is like book banning of "Tom Sawyer" or movie sweeping under the rug like "Song of the South". Do not enable the weak of mind.

9 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Apr 4, 2013)

Those who actually understand the phrase shouldn't care who gets offended through ignorance.

Thanks for the perfect example of the PC thinking.

In a rational world it is the individual who is responsible for understanding the media they consume and how they react to it! Yes... people are responsible for their emotions. Thus the existence of the term "self control". Responsible people understand why they should not make mole hills into mountains.

Political correctness would have it the other way. Everyone should be constantly weighing everything they do and say modifying their behaviors and language to avoid any possibility of "hurt feelings" as though that were the equivalent of a crime.

It should be self evident why that view leads to the death of personal responsibility and rational discourse. It's generally accepted that... that is not a good thing.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
SanDiegoICE
By SanDiegoICE (Apr 4, 2013)

Everyone has the right to be offended...

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Everyone has the right to be offended but not force their idiocy on others.

6 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Apr 5, 2013)

Well said.
But why are you doing it?

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

And what am I forcing anyone to do?
The anti gun/hunting crowd are trying to force their stupidity on others and usually are the least knowledgeable about the subject.

2 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Apr 4, 2013)

so what?! it's not the scope killing the animals...it's the people! duh!

2 upvotes
SRT201
By SRT201 (Apr 4, 2013)

Ugh...

The term "Dark Continent" came about when little was known of this far away place called Africa. It had nothing to do with skin color. To the average European it was a land shrouded in mystery and full of dangerous beasts. I'm sure the frequently combined terms dark and mysterious are familiar to many of those wringing their hands over the "insensitivity" of the ad. "Dark and mysterious" is no reference to skin color either. If you think it is you may want to put your own racism in check.

This sort of PC idiocy is laughable but dangerous as well. Instead of being ignored as it should be societies actually enact laws based on garbage like this. Those who hold dearly to PC ideals happily construct walls around themselves and others. They are eager to dilute basic freedoms like speech while doing something that makes them feel warm inside.

12 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Bingo! Someone with an education or a seach engine.

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

It also came about in a time when Africa was being occupied by foreign forces and its people used for cheap labor. Funny how some might be a little sensitive about that time of their history.

2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

So by your idiotic thinking all cultural, historical and language terms of all colonial times must be banned? You are one brain cell away from a vegetable.

5 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

Your only defense is to use insults and demeaning comments. You must be a genius.

Comment edited 8 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

I am mixing critical thinking, the real world and insults just for fun. You are a huge target for the lack of thinking through of your viewpoints. Do you have a well thought out world view or just a knee jerk humanist?

1 upvote
jttravis
By jttravis (Apr 4, 2013)

Big and dangerous game hunting preserves the wildlife when properly managed. The poaching (especially for ridiculous purposes like rhino horns for consumption) and habitat loss are responsible for the species decline.

Well regulated hunting has brought more species back from near extinction than the reverse.

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

Hunting and poaching are linked. See my comment and link below.

If legal hunting is allowed, then people simply forge papers saying that their illegal ivory is legal. There is very tight linkage between allowing legal hunting, even when it is justified by overpopulation of an endangered species locally, and poaching. Environmental groups have been working on this issue for years.

6 upvotes
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Apr 4, 2013)

To bobbarber. What you say has some truth but one has to weight up the pros and cons of game farming and hunting. Stop it and the farmers move in cattle , sheep and whatever then why bother with game as you cant charge much to shoot them with a camera. Yep lost of cattle and they will put lots of money into companies who supply this type equipment. https://www.google.co.za/search?q=slaughterhouse+equipment&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=vLV&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=28FdUb7vHc27hAfV_YG4Ag&ved=0CGYQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=888 .

OK because we don't see the equipment or the deed we have this private 'dark hole ' about that type of thing' we just see nice lumps flesh in consumer friendly packaging already to pop in the oven etc. Have ever been into a slaughter house and seen the terror in some of animals eyes. A wild animal is grazing quietly in the veld totally unaware "BANG" it falls down dead.

OK now lets make our choices on whats more humane.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

Proper management is not going to happen when there is profit to be made by not doing it.
Never mind that it is impossible to enforce when wild life itself can ignore borders that human politicians won't.
And that's not even mentioning the criminal elements that will find a way around whatever rules are created.
Oh ... and you would need to manage it on a global scale in an era we can't even agree to killing our own species.

Letting nature run its course would preserve wild life tooif you are prepared to pay the costs in human resources (ie : by not expanding territory into the breeding grounds of endangered species, accepting human casualties, etc. ... ).
It may even be cheaper in the long run.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

@CollBaxter & JaFO

I know this issue is not simple. Nothing is.

I do think that the criminal element is huge. I read an article some years ago (15?) that claimed that the black market trade in wildlife is the third largest criminal trade in the world, after arms and drugs. I'm sure that something like that is still the case. So we have this image of some guy in the bush in a loincloth selling a rhino horn, but that's not it at all. These guys are wealthy, slick, sophisticated, and disposed to do just about anything.

I'm not sure any of us has a "good" answer. The only point I wanted to make is that some guy in Ohio who flies to Africa and bags an elephant is not necessarily helping the animals, in spite of what his outfitter and travel agent might tell him. I guess he MIGHT be, but I'm inclined not to see things that way, and I've thought about (and worked on) this stuff a lot.

1 upvote
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Apr 4, 2013)

To Bobbarber. I hear what you say. The poachers are probably lucky to get $500 for a rhino horn it the people up the line who are cashing in. Its a social / Economic problem. People need work and income and poaching becomes and option when you are hungry.

This might be changing though the head of a rhino horn syndicate in South Africa got 45 years. But alas then there where the vets (Veterinary surgeons) that got away with it.

As to answers well there are son many solutions but it takes the strength of nations to enforce conservation. Some instances not help like , when a high official in Vietnam made a public statement that he used rhino horn to cure his cancer , the price went through the roof and a lot more rhinos died.

We are losing one Rhino every day in South Africa to Poachers. its not the hunters in this case.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Apr 4, 2013)

It's only called 'The Dark Continent' because many who use the term require enlightenment themselves.

5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

You are too quick to show your idiocy.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Apr 5, 2013)

Someone who posts their hunting picture shows your mentality.
You also label anyone who disgarees with you as an idiot again demonstrates your simplistic thinking.
Your comments thus far show that you have no grasp of what is being discussed and that you simply stamp your feet like a spoilt brat when others don't follow your debatable mentality.

5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

Please tell me what my my mentality is.
I can disagree and respect someones opinion but that is diferent from the displays of lies, lunacy, hoplophobia, ignorance and stupidity on display here. My wife is vegan and hates hunting but she understands the reasons for hunting and population control ect but likes guns even though we disagree on some uses for them. I respect her opinions but she does not display stupidity. Some are denouncing Nikon for scopes but they probably have little intelectual honesty across the board. I have no grasp of the subject? LOL! Please inform me then of what I am ignorant of. I would say it is the reverse. I know plenty about Africa, conservation, hunting, scopes, history. I am not stomping feet but slapping down fools who love their stupidity and a false sense of moral superiority.

1 upvote
Alaska Dad
By Alaska Dad (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't see how this is even news. Glass manufactures have been making camera lenses and rifle optics side by side for generations. Animal welfare groups are fanatics just like the NRA. Each group takes their opinion to the extreme limits of reason. I don't like the killing of these endangered animals anymore than anyone of you here. However, don't target Nikon because they refreshed their scopes alongside a new marketing campaign. As long as it is legal to hunt, manufactures are going to capitalize on the buying market. By the way, Zeiss arguably has the best rifle scopes made.

5 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

I still can't get my head around someone going out looking for wildlife with a gun in one hand and a camera in the other.

Photograph them or kill them, it must be quite a dilemma.

6 upvotes
Mr Physics
By Mr Physics (Apr 5, 2013)

Yes, I can't grasp it either. But I don't own a gun but I own more cameras than I like to admit. And my cameras have these HUGE memory disks/cards. HUGE, I tell you HUGE. I'm liable to go out and take pictures of innocent 1st graders at any moment....wait a second, that doesn't sound right. I should just point my big 85mm f/1.4 at my head and end it all. Oops. Wrong format.

If I was a hunter, I would try to "capture the moment" and do both very quickly in sequence. So, it might be both.

1 upvote
Phil M Winder
By Phil M Winder (Apr 4, 2013)

Perhaps Land Rover and Toyota should be blamed as well.

7 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

When their new "plow down one of the natural wonders of the world at 80 MPH then mount its stuffed carcass on your wall" advertising campaign starts they probably will take some heat.

7 upvotes
Phil M Winder
By Phil M Winder (Apr 4, 2013)

Then is it time to start limiting vehicle speeds, and regulate who to sell petrol to?

I do not agree with the "trophy on the wall" thing. But I'd look to the human peeking behind the scope and steering that 'Rover before I'd blame the companies.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Paul Belanger
By Paul Belanger (Apr 4, 2013)

Dear Sosmix
NOT SO, ONE CAN NOW ENGAGE IN DART HUNTING.
This involves close proximity stalking and darting the prey with tranquilizer. Then photos can be taken with the prey unconscious.
then it is revived with antidote and allowed to escape. This is more dangerous for the hunter and in fact somewhat levels the playing field. The hunter has to get within 30 yds to ensure success, pretty close when hunting white Rhino.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

I didn't blame the company for the product, I blamed the company for their stupid ad. A place that makes chicken sandwiches can't say anything political without thousands boycotting them but Nikon thinks....oh, I just got it. Just like gun makers use their scare tactics to increase gun and ammo sales anytime there is even a mention of gun control in Washington, Nikon wants people to hate this ad so those who think everyone is coming for their guns will buy it as a protest to all the controversy. Nice, Nikon.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Apr 4, 2013)

What would we say when Nikon would target snipers in a marketing campaign? Blow out the infidels brains from a safe distance of 1.5 miles with the new Nikon head shot targeting scope.

4 upvotes
jadmaister2
By jadmaister2 (Apr 4, 2013)

1.5 miles? You don't shoot, do you lol.

2 upvotes
photo_rb
By photo_rb (Apr 4, 2013)

You should Google "longest sniper kills"

3 upvotes
Paul Belanger
By Paul Belanger (Apr 4, 2013)

What would we say when Nikon would target snipers in a marketing campaign?

I would think when bidding on military contracts they do exactly that.

1 upvote
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Apr 5, 2013)

Sniper confirmed kill(S) at 1.5 miles

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/british-sniper-craig-harrison-silent-assassin-breaks-record-kills-target-1-5-miles-article-1.444566

1 upvote
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

How do you use a Nikon Optic to shoot humans..Just don't lead them as much as a running lion...Full Metal Jacket reference.

0 upvotes
gonzalu
By gonzalu (Apr 4, 2013)

It wouldn't be the first time someone gets into hot water for the use of the term

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2008/02/should_npr_have_apologized_for.html

It is a common definition although it has fallen out of practice. But i am sure Nikon's target audience did not mind. Also, could it be referring to the lack of light as opposed to the color of the skin of the majority population of said area?

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

The lack of light? I'm confused.

I thought that much of Africa was a sunny desert and open savannah-type plains.

Do you mean at night, or underground, or what was your point exactly?

2 upvotes
SLove
By SLove (Apr 4, 2013)

Actually, I think it refers to the practice of coloring unexplored areas black in 19th century maps. Unexplored by white Westerners, that is.

1 upvote
steve0017
By steve0017 (Apr 4, 2013)

What are all the PC types going to say when some group representing native peoples claims that picture taking steals the souls of those photographed and therefore Nikon should stop making cameras and lenses.

3 upvotes
Mike Walters
By Mike Walters (Apr 4, 2013)

There is nothing 'Politically Correct' about wanting to protect wildlife. As a so called intelligent species it should be within our nature to protect wildlife, just as it is to protect one and another.

6 upvotes
Todd Ka
By Todd Ka (Apr 4, 2013)

Why don't you go protect wild life at the local slaughter house.

1 upvote
Mike Walters
By Mike Walters (Apr 4, 2013)

Well thought out and constructed response...if you read my earlier post I stated that hunting for food was ok, that is what predators do.

1 upvote
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

They wouldn't say anything because everyone knows such things are superstitions that ought to be ignored and ridiculed.
Didn't you know ?

1 upvote
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

The same thing as the MAC types I guess.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

To all the people justifying hunters as saving wild animals in Africa:

Legal hunting justifies poaching. The reason is that animal products are marketed (as are hunting trips), and as long as legal hunting exists, poached products can be sold as legal.

"Instead, allowing many tonnes of ivory to enter the marketplace with CITES’s blessing has served only to boost the illegal trade, confusing consumers as to whether ivory is legal or illegal."

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1669938/legal_ivory_trading_severely_undermines_elephant_conservation.html

So while the local view may be that "elephants are overpopulated in such and such an area; it's OK to hunt them", that will actually serve to INCREASE poaching, not decrease it. People will just forge paperwork for illegally killed elephants.

It's the same with lions or any other animal. If you can hunt them legally somewhere, then hunts are being sold illegally elsewhere, and the paperwork forged afterwards.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
BorisK1
By BorisK1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Not "justifies". Enables, or makes easier.
Than again, pretty much anything you do legally, enables an illegal activity. It's like saying that home ownership justifies burglaries.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Those darn small pecker people and their voodoo cures for limp sausage fueling the black market and poaching of endangered species is the problem. Maybe we should charge people with small or limp manhood fees for protecting these animals.

2 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Not to point out the obvious, but many people here seem to have a bad case of hoplophobia.

First, the person with the rifle decides what to point it at, not the scope maker.

Second, what about the rifle makers? Or the ammo makers? Or the guides who take them hunting? Or the governments that encourage and benefit from it? Or the local economies that depend on it?

The brand name on the scope has Sweet FA to do with it.

5 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

ah ... the use of complicated latin-sounding words to describe a non-event.

if one dares to protest against anything advertising guns there must always be someone chanting "guns don't kill people, people do" because that makes the very fact that we are selling an instrument of death less problematic. And the fact that it is aimed at mere animals should make us feel happy ?

Sure, the make of the scope has sweet FA to do with anything.
However its use in making it easier to kill living things at a safe distance can not be denied.

There is no harm in questioning the need for Nikon (or anyone else, let's not focus on just Nikon) to create such things, especially if there is no apparent link to photography as is the case here.

Besides there are enough grognards around that question the use of smart phones as cameras already. You ought to expect them commenting on new fangled stuff like camera scopes too ...

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

JaFO
Have you seen what poachers use to kill these animals? It is brutal and a long painful death. Again POACHERS ARE THE PROBLEM. A scope makes little to no diference. Scopes are mainly used because of the poor eyesight of those who saved up the money to do so for years sometimes are mostly in their 50's and 60's. A propper safari will cost you starting about $20,000. You are required to have a Professional Hunter with you to make sure all goes well including the humane harvesting of the animal. Enjoy your Ivory Tower. Smoke a bowl and feel good about your moral superiority.

1 upvote
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

Using euphemisms like "humane harvesting" doesn't make what you do any more palatable.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Sosmix. It is called "hunting" for a reason. Not all hunts end in the death of an animal and some of the best hunting moments are about the one that got away. In the same way it is called "Fishing" not "catching". Most hunters like to harvest their quarry in the most ethical and humane ways. I know hundereds of hunters and they care far more about animals than the general public and even animal rights activists. I eat meat and I raise animals for food as well as hunt for ethical reasons as not to be a "scavenger". I raise and kill and clean and cook my own organic food. Just having tender feelings for Bambi does not make anyone an animal rights advocate.

1 upvote
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 5, 2013)

I was waiting for "Bambi" to make an appearance. I've seen how much humane harvesters care for animals on numerous occasions and it didn't look ethical or humane to me.

I think your avatar and enthusiasm for killing non-human animals is going to upset people, I guess we all just see the world in different ways.

I'm sure we could keep going round in circles on this, maybe we should just beg to differ.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

I love hunting but killing is the least important thing about it except that it is done quickly and humanely with little to no danger to others. Maybe you can educate yourself on hunting and hunting ethics. I like primitive hunting with the bow and make my own weapons too. I do not have blood lust but hunt for many reasons and one of them is to respect what I eat. A bacon cheeseburger is not just food to me but priveledge that came at a cost.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

Then you should stop defending those who hunt for fun rather than more noble reasons. If someone shooting an elephant is interested in conserving a species, maybe they should simply contribute the cost of the plane ticket and safari equipment to the conservation group protecting the elephants. Then they can stay close to home and go hunting for a deer for food and to feel a sense of responsibility and closeness to the animals giving up their lives so that the humans eating it will continue to live. Defending all guns, all hunters, and all methods of conservation assumes that criticism of any one aspect within those categories is a condemantion of all. You're so used to thinking that everyone is coming for your rights and your guns that you're misinterpreting what others are saying and reacting viloently. Every aspect of our freedoms is regulated to some extent but for some reason if anyone mentions regulating a gun everyone reacts as though they're defecating on the Constitution.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

Look what happened in England, Germany and Australia ect regarding guns. Yes the anti 2A people are defecating on the Constitution because they are violating it all the time. Look at the new laws and proposed laws. Look at the existing laws in states like California. Have you seen the recent runings of the supreme court to stop these stupid infringements? They all are infringing on that right. this is incrememtal criminalizing of guns. the goal is to take away all guns not to regulate it. They are just doing it progressively.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

As for hunting for fun, yes hunting IS fun. I do have friends that hunt Africa on a regular basis and yes charged at close ranges. I do not want to hunt elephant but I have seen the pictures of the vilagers who are so happy to eat the elephant right down to the anus. Again well regulated to keep numbers in check. The huge fees go towards helping preserve the species and stop the poachers. They are quite concerned about the lions and the rhino population. The safari clubs they belong to make donations to protect these species and some do make generous donations to do so. You protect what you know and love. You would be amazed at what some of these hunters do to benefit the locals and the economy and the species if you took the time to get to know some safari hunters.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

I do think there needs to be more game reserves to get the populations up more but the issue is staffing the place and keeping the poachers out and that all costs lots of money. You either move the humans out and keep it locked down like a prison or you will have just a park. With the parks they have right now they are struggling to protect the game already.

0 upvotes
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

I do not know anyone who kills animals "for fun". As a child in Michigan, my Father taught me to hunt, to put food on the table, to revere the animal, to make the kill a clean one and as painless as possible for the animal, and the animal was not to go to waste.

I suspect that people who kill animals "for fun", have no reverence for the animal, are your future serial killers.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

I use Nikon scopes on my rifles - they are very good. I also use their cameras and lenses. They are just as useful for varmint hunting as they would be for Big Game on the Dark Continent.

I fail entirely to see an issue.

3 upvotes
Mike Walters
By Mike Walters (Apr 4, 2013)

So what would you consider to be a varmint and how does that relate to big game hunting?

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Varmints are anything considered to be a pest - which may include lions if they are killing your livestock or farm workers.

1 upvote
Mike Walters
By Mike Walters (Apr 4, 2013)

....or hunters if they are killing lions then...

11 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Poachers could be considered varmits and are. Poachers are killed on sight. It is not uncommon to come accross the bones of poachers while hunting. Poachers are even shot by helecopter. Some poach for greed and others for survival but I know as a conservationist we must protect the endangered species at all costs. Yes I am a conservationist and a hunter. Go figure. News flash! Endangered species are not hunted!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 4, 2013)

Trophy hunters do not need more scopes. What they need is more basic education.
Whosoever takes life to posess a trophy should have their head examined.
Taking photos is just as exciting and no life is destroyed - isn't it time already to put a global stop to killing sports?
As to the Nikon ad... Why do we think that any camera manufacturer would stick to high moral values? It's against the credo of mercantilism, and the motto there is "Sell, sell, sell!"...

8 upvotes
Didier Thomas
By Didier Thomas (Apr 4, 2013)

Agreed !
When one can shoot an animal at a distance of one or two hundred meters, that's not hunting, neither it's a sport or a game. It's just killing. And those who have fun killing animals that way are insane.

9 upvotes
Priaptor
By Priaptor (Apr 4, 2013)

Interesting perspective. So given your comments I assume taking a life if no trophy is involved is morally acceptable??

Funny millions of human lives are taken every year in the name of " a woman's choice" which from your political slant you probably support.

It's a slippery slope when you make yourself the arbiter of morality as you often find yourself contradicting your own hypocritical views.

Me personally I don't understand the thrill of big game hunting or hunting in general love the environment and am as conservative as they come but don't pass judgement as readily as you seem to. Incidentally are you aware that the daming of our rivers have altered ecosystems and wiped out species more than any other act of man? Should we knock them down to rebalance our sensitive ecosystems in order to restore equilibrium and protect and restore those animals you seem to love and want to protect? I'm game.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

Abortion (or "woman's choice") is a heck of a long way removed from killing living beings for fun.

The former at least has a high probability of being a matter of survival, unless you think that the majority of abortions are done 'for fun' too.
Heck, given the kind of 'happy' life shown in those "teenage pregnancy reality shows" abortion would have been the better option by a long shot for those girls and their family.

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

Elevating human life above animal life is where human ego starts running amok. Ironically, people who claim human have dominion over the plants and animals of the earth will then go on to claim that humans are animals.....if we have dominion then I think that makes our animal aspects subordinate to our heavenly endowed responsibilites. We're either animals or we're the chosen species of our creator, it can't be both. If we have dominion then we also have responsibility to protect the lives and lands that were given to us, and if we're animals then we'd be smart to recognize our own survival depends on not destroying everything around us like a cancer.

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 5, 2013)

I was expressing myself strictly re Trophy Hunting, meaning that the hunter seeks to own the best possible specimen... which is contrary to sane conservation logic. The most successful specimen (those which would bring the most points, high "respect", and other bragging value) should be spared in the interest of the race... but that's against the logic of the trophy hunter.
I coudn't be against those who get their food by hunting; the order of things on this World is such that some life is lost to sustain other life. But I am, have always been, and always will be very much against the SPORT OF KILLING.
All the hunters I know and respect do hunt for food. My disrespect is reserved for those who only pay to kill, and just go on wanting to kill what they haven't killed yet. They use money to take life, when they could as well spend equal amounts to bring back unique photos, for instance. This, to me, is the proof of top-class selfishness - which is another word for arrogant stupidity.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

If trophy hunting means shooting the large bull elephant who is past his breeding prime, what is the issue with trophy hunting.

If trophy hunter is killing a large, young, breeding age male, then yes, I have an issue with trophy hunting.

I suspect that legitimate trophy hunting involves the former and not the latter.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 4, 2013)

Does Canon make spotting scopes? If not, I think I just found a new system.

6 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

No, I don't believe they do.

0 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

Olympus is another option if you want to stop moving all those heavy Canons around ;)

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 4, 2013)

This story almost makes me want to drop Nikon and I've been using their cameras for years. Imagine a product that will make it easier to kill some of the world's most beautiful and majestic creatures. what the hay?

Certainly my discontinued support for Nikon products won't make this world any less messed up or make the foolish practice of hunting stop forever. But at some point we all have to take a stand against things we feel strongly about.

Major fail from Nikon. At some point we need to businesses need to be held to a certain standard of ethics. And this story shows Nikon way, way below that standard.

11 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

You do realise that Nikon have been making rifle scopes for decades? This is not new news.

5 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Apr 4, 2013)

And that Nikon isn't the only one involved in these activities either ?

Showing support is one thing.
It may very well be a little more complicated if you really wanted to do so consistently as not all manufacturers are that easy to trace to their source.

0 upvotes
TCMercury
By TCMercury (Apr 4, 2013)

This was a bit of a blunder in marketing. Certainly "dark continent" was badly misplaced and showed little cultural sensitivity.

HOWEVER Nikon, Leica and many others make 'sport optics' (rifle scopes to all intents and purposes) and have done for years. It's a relatively obvious niche to fill for a optics company and they've been doing so long enough for that sector to become well established. Everyone seems to have become squeamish because Nikon referred to the actual purpose of this scope rather than tactfully avoiding it.
People hunt animals. Regardless of your view on this, I don't think it's reasonable to suddenly become indignant, boycott a massive and multi-sectored company and demand ethical business when all that could happen as a result is Nikon cameras get (slightly) more expensive and hunters buy their scopes somewhere else.

2 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Apr 4, 2013)

When a banal fact like this comes to the public's attention there's usually going to be a an outcry from some people. It's nice and simple to take a position on an isolated instance where there appears, superficially, to be a clear-cut moral issue involved. The overall complexity of the world, where every action has both predictable and un-predictable consequences can be conveniently ignored for a moment and moral indignation given free rein. Other posters have pointed out some of the inconsistencies inherent in this moral outrage - such as the well-established fact that controlled hunting usually ensures the survival of environments in which a range of fauna and flora can survive. There are innumerable examples of this all over the world.

5 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 4, 2013)

There is a big difference in controlled hunting and trophy hunting. One is to keep the numbers of the naturally opposed sorts in balance, the other is to seek out and kill the most magnificent specimen and gain a place in Book Of Records, or something equally senseless.
What should be pointed out as an issue here is the motivation difference - regardless of the fatc that, left alone, Nature will sort out its balances the best way possible - as it managed for all the aeons before Man and his ideas about it.

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

Examples, please.

I was under the impression that we were in the midst of the earth's sixth major extinction event, with human activities, in part hunting, playing a major role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Human_influence_on_extinction

2 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Apr 4, 2013)

Compared to, let's say, industrial agriculture, fossil fuel consumption, urbanisation and above all population growth, a few fools paying lots of money to shoot cultivated "wildlife" doesn't amount to a blip on the downward spiral of the planet's species.
To take a (to me) local example, the fact that people are prepared to pay a lot of money to shoot hand-reared pheasants means that large areas of the county I live in haven't changed significantly in the last 50 years. The most significant fact about this sort of debate is that the most strident opinions usually emanate from people who have never spent any time living in wild or even rural environments.

1 upvote
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

I would define trophy hunting as taking the largest animal from the herd that is past its breeding age. This would seem an acceptable practice to me.

0 upvotes
faterikcartman
By faterikcartman (Apr 4, 2013)

The places in Africa where trophy animals are in the most stable numbers are where they're legally hunted. It seems the profit motive in an impoverished country motivates the stewardship of hunted animals. Where hunting is banned their is no incentive to protect the animals and poachers are decimating their numbers -- sometimes to extinction levels. Of course, many Left leaning people are more interested in how a position makes them feel about themselves rather than results. So they'll bash Nikon and big-game hunting -- regardless of whether or not that position actually helps preserve the animals they claim to love.

5 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

I assume that there are a lot more people that go to Africa to see and photograph its wildlife than to kill it.

PS I don't see this as a left/right issue.

1 upvote
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

They pay a lot more to kill it than photograph it. The wildlife management authorities decide each year how many of each species they need to control and they auction the permits off to raise money.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

Legal hunting, even in areas where animals are overpopulated, is used to justify illegal hunting.

Here is a case study from elephants:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1669938/legal_ivory_trading_severely_undermines_elephant_conservation.html

"Instead, allowing many tonnes of ivory to enter the marketplace with CITES’s blessing has served only to boost the illegal trade, confusing consumers as to whether ivory is legal or illegal."
"

In other words, legal hunting, in this case legal ivory, allows people to fabricate papers for illegal ivory. The only way to ensure that this doesn't happen is to close down hunting altogether for threatened and endangered species.

2 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

There is something wrong with people who enjoy killing animals. If you want to shoot animals, do it with a camera.

I for one will not be buying Nikon in the future and any wildlife photographer should consider Nikon's position on this issue very seriously.

10 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Apr 4, 2013)

I take it that you're a vegetarian, in which case this is a reasonable position? If not I call hypocrisy.

2 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

There is a huge difference between killing animals to survive and killing them for entertainment.

No, I don't eat animals.

5 upvotes
Klipsen
By Klipsen (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm not a hunter - nor will I ever be one ... but while I have no Nikon gear, I certainly won't let their manufacturing of rifle scopes stand in the way of me buying, say, a Nikon D800E at some point in time.

1 upvote
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

All I ask is for you to take it into consideration, along with lots of other aspects. I fully respect you and your decision, the D800E is an awesome camera!

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

I really could not care less that Nikon make that - or that various electronics companies (for instance) have parts in warplanes, drones etc.

I enjoy shooting and I enjoy hunting and I find it offensive that you assume there is something wrong with me for doing so.

2 upvotes
Rab G
By Rab G (Apr 4, 2013)

Killing an animal for fun / trophy hunting is just wrong, I saw some pictures on the net etc last year of some idiot from the USA who took his family wife/2 kids to Africa to shoot big game.

I would have loved to have taken their weapons from them and dropped them of in the middle of a game reserve and watch some big game get to hunt them!!!!

1 upvote
BorisK1
By BorisK1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Some primates are omnivorous, some vegetarians. I happened to belong to the former kind, and don't mind at all. To all you wishihg to join your leaf-eating bretheren, I say this:
Oook! Ook ook OOK!

0 upvotes
BorisK1
By BorisK1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Some primates are omnivorous, some vegetarians. I happened to belong to the former kind, and don't mind at all. To all you wishihg to join your leaf-eating bretheren, I say this:
Oook! Ook ook OOK!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 412
123