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
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Apr 4, 2013)

Dear dpreview, I'm anxiously awaiting an article on who makes the optics for American drones. That would be far more interesting. Thanks.

12 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

YES!

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

Drones don't kill people, people kill people. A ten pound bag of meth doesn't kill anyone, nor does a stick of dynamite exploding in an uninhabited field.....a nuclear bomb doesn't kill anyone if you just park it there and stare at it. And yet for some reason my mom always told me not to run with scissors. Why? Scissors don't kill people, stupid kids running with scissors kill people.

1 upvote
EricAotearoa
By EricAotearoa (Apr 4, 2013)

Nikon and Pentax make optics to assist in killing animals in the wild, while Olympus and Zeiss make optical tools to assist vivisection of animals in laboratories. Is there any decent camera manufacturer who isn't involved in animal abuse? Fuji perhaps?? Nikon is almost correct in their claim though, that they are 'at the heart of nature.' But it should read "through the heart of Nature" with a bullet.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Both Zeiss and Swarovski also make rifle scopes.

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (Apr 4, 2013)

A company has two lines. They are intended for different markets.
What's the problem?

If Nikon photographics are helping in some way to preserve endangered species, great. Not offering the scopes won't stop animals being hunted. Nikon competitors will still sell scopes.

Much hunting supports conservation. I.e. they only issue tags equivalent to the "excess" - i.e. over that the remaining habitat can sustain - population. The revenue from the tags goes to conservation. If hunters did not buy the tags, wildlife officers would kill the excess animals, but no revenue would be generated.

And of course not all big game is endangered. For example the feral wild asian buffalos in Northern Australia.
The Nikon scopes would be excellent for those feral pests.

No-one is screaming about Unilever with the Dove Self Esteem Fund on one hand and selling Slim Fast on the other are they? It's not like this situation is unique to Nikon's lines.

I don't like trophy hunting but I call BS on this!!!

3 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Apr 4, 2013)

This is such a non-issue. I'm loving the red-blue politicizing of it by our hysterical American brothers, though. All this foaming at the mouth for nothing at all.

6 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

See, your foaming-at-the-mouth American brothers have been witnessing their natural rights, which one thinks ought to be obvious, and which have been clearly delineated by our founding fathers ... being attacked from all sides, particularly from the top and the viscous biased leftist-dominated mainstream media outlets. Sorry, some of us are a bit touchy. (And, may I add, quite ready to fight to our last breath to defend what we believe in. I'm talking literally. And for that, A Nikon scope can come in mighty handy)

5 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Apr 4, 2013)

Viscous? Gosh.

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

Vicious. Sorry, it's late. No need to try to undermine my points though with snarky commenting on my spelling and grammar, now! I expect more ...

0 upvotes
Raincheck
By Raincheck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm curious as to why you would be "loving" what you perceive to be "foaming at the mouth" discussion and debate?

Perhaps you are elevated to some self-realized high spot, from where you can look down with royal amusement at "hysterics" about issues important to other people. ?

1 upvote
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Apr 4, 2013)

Yes Raincheck that's pretty much it. It's easy to feel Olympian when so many people are ranting like idiots. It is to such fools we look for some of life's minor pleasures :) To have an issue with hunting, and so to rant on about ... spotter scopes. And without a trace of irony. It's a source of amusement, yes.

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

Well gee, Mr. Birch, that sure didn't come off as disgustingly smug and arrogant at all! NOT. Typical mentality.

0 upvotes
LIGHT SABRE ELTERIBLE
By LIGHT SABRE ELTERIBLE (Apr 4, 2013)

Seriously catch a wake up people. Nikon is a corporation. Their sole aim is to identify gaps in the market and exploit those gaps for financial gain. Like any successful corporation they do this very well. Yes I am completely against big game hunting if it is not regulated correctly and if it makes no provision for proper conservation. Conservation and regulation of hunting practices is not Nikon's Job or any other photographic companies job for that matter. Their job is to produce the best quality equipment that will suit the needs of their different market segments. And that job they do very well. Nikon and many other photographic companies have been making scopes for years and I guarantee you many of those scopes have been used to hunt big game. What exactly is the difference here?!?

0 upvotes
LIGHT SABRE ELTERIBLE
By LIGHT SABRE ELTERIBLE (Apr 4, 2013)

So help me understand this please.....they can produce hunting scopes and various other hunting related accessories such as rangefinders, binoculars and monoculars specifically marketed for hunting and not much of a fuss is made. But as soon as they produce a scope aimed at big game hunting people climb up onto their high horses and act like this has never happened before!

1 upvote
TCMercury
By TCMercury (Apr 4, 2013)

My point exactly!

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

Every now and again dpreview makes a serious misstep.
(Been lurking here for over a decade) ...
Re-posting this irrelevant-to-photography, politically-charged story is precisely one of those missteps. Learn from your mistakes, guys.

11 upvotes
Octav1an
By Octav1an (Apr 4, 2013)

I twice that

3 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Apr 4, 2013)

Why is this a "serious" mis-step? It's a story about imaging devices. It generates interest in site content. If you, after a decade of lurking, suddenly awaken from your slumber, you're kinda demonstrating the article's effectiveness, even though your comment hints at a personal bias that isn't really germane.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

I am not awakened by this article, simply irritated, that's all. I have been commenting on articles here off and on for several months.

I am an observer, first and foremost. But, bringing politics into the mix here tends to prompt me to want to jump in and join in the fray, and not always for the noblest reasons.

Simply put, politics on dpreview seems to brings out the absolute worst in just about all of us. Please, I am begging, no more! There is enough politics across the web to last everyone several lifetimes. Please, not here!

1 upvote
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (Apr 4, 2013)

You brought it on with 'serious mis-step.' Did you honestly expect every single reader with a brain to supinely accept that without commenting? One of us was going to, and today I'm the one who was bored enough. Good luck cap'n.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
TCMercury
By TCMercury (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't really see how anything in this article is political expect the comments section. They have reported that Nikon received a lot of stick for their advertising, which they did, then opened it up to comments.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Absolutely agree.

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

The only time it should be valid to shoot another animal is ;
1. If it is in pain and cannot be cured.
2. For conservation purposes (i.e. numbers growing out of control and killing off the habitat)
3. For food (Inuits taking a whale now and then to feed their people, that kind of thing)
Hunting for sport is sick which ever way you look at it and those that hunt for sport are also sick. What right do we have to kill for fun?

I have no issue with manufacturers producing items that ensure a clean kill for points 1-3 above, but Nikons marketing does seem to be aimed at the sports hunters. I also do take into consideration the fact that the sports hunters may also be paying for this, funding conservation etc but I still cannot get around the fact that they get any enjoyment from seeing a beautiful creature killed.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Ken Phillips
By Ken Phillips (Apr 4, 2013)

The urge to hunt is built-in. When I see a wild turkey, I salivate. Perhaps you'd starve if you had to kill your own food. I would not.
As to simply "sport" hunting, as I mentioned, hunting is part of the survival instinct. Kill the bad animals before they kill you, eat the tasty ones. Given that, would it be OK if someone ATE the lion that they shot, and wore its hide? What if we farmed them for consumption? Are they still special, or now just like cattle?
Don't misunderstand me - someone killing endangered species should be imprisoned. But one animal is really just the same as another, beyond its rarity.
BTW, I believe that cattle are beautiful creatures - and turkey, and pigs. Good eating, too.

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

Ken, I partly agree with you, it is within our instinct to hunt for food, and I have no argument with that. My argument is more around the type of person that hunts for fun and had no regard or respect for the animal.

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Apr 4, 2013)

Hypocrisy...
The same people who complaint here about Nikon or whatever is the same people who collect their money usually invested in toxic venues...
Spare me your pharisaism...
C'mon people show us some mercy with all these big mouthed statements...

3 upvotes
MadMacStew
By MadMacStew (Apr 4, 2013)

So you think it would be better if hunters used inferior 'scopes, thereby reducing the chance of a clean kill? BTW, serious hunters of dangerous game have traditionally used double rifles with open sights, allowing unrestricted vision and a very fast second shot.

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

'Dangerous game' huh!!!!! how do you define 'dangerous'? Nothing more dangerous than some idiot with a hunting rifle killing for so called sport. So can I go shoot game hunters (I wish!!!).

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

It is always mildly interesting to peek inside the workings of the common liberal's mind (like Walters above). Indeed, true to form, they are usually found to be harboring less-than-secret fantasies of violent revenge against their political enemies, and to harbor an odd desire for people who do not share their viewpoints to meet grisly fates.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Mike Walters
By Mike Walters (Apr 4, 2013)

Just making the point that if game hunters feel it is ok to kill 'dangerous' animals that it logically follows that it should also be valid to kil the 'dangerous' hunters.

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

Fair enough. The politics here encourages my 'dark continent' to come out and play, unfortunately. :(

1 upvote
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (Apr 6, 2013)

Funny how liberals like Camediadude want to exact revenge on people, hunters, unborn babies (not sure why they are willing to use tax payer money to shove an eggbeater into a womans ut3rus to k!ll an innocent baby, but are unwilling to tortur3 a t3rrorist to get information to protect Americans), or anyone not going along with their agenda.

Liberals want to tell you what size soda to buy because you are too stupid to buy the right size (actually they want to control health care, and for there to be enough resources available to them, they must control your behavior), how many rounds of ammo you can put into a weapon (you can buy and own a weapon..for now, but in a liberals mind you are too stupid to know how many rounds is the right number).

Liberals are smarter than us Conservatives who just want to be left alone.

0 upvotes
N S
By N S (Apr 4, 2013)

I have so much respect for Nikon products except this. Kind of disappointing :(

8 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Apr 4, 2013)

How does this effect Nikon's products?
Nikon's marketing department, management, board or the corporation as a whole- you might judge any of those bodies on the basis of the ads in questions.
But judging the products using the criteria of the advertising for some other products - that is sorta illogical.
The products themselves are of the same quality as they were before the ads were produced.
That's the problem right their.
Addled minds.

0 upvotes
5DMkIII Shooter
By 5DMkIII Shooter (Apr 4, 2013)

Hmm, The Japanese make both Canon and Nikon.....they also slaugter whales and club seals to death. Damn so I guess I now have to sell all my gear........Seriously it's not the "Brand" of scope that kills the animal, it's the person behind the scoped rifle....irrespective of brand.

7 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Apr 4, 2013)

For all you holier than thou idealists who will "Never buy another Nikon product again"

Please, absolve yourselves from your sins and send me your existing Nikon gear, where I will (cough) properly dispose of them for you. :)

10 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

Ebay will do just fine.

0 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Apr 4, 2013)

@sosmix .... yes but you would be profitting..... living off of the avails of Nikon. Nope.... the only moral solution is to send them to me. Repent now!! ;)

0 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 5, 2013)

And donate the proceeds to my local animal shelter! ;)

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Apr 4, 2013)

Okay! My D4 and D800E are my last Nikons! Looking for alternatives right now. I will never buy a Nikon anymore in my entire life! F.Y. Nikon!

5 upvotes
Johannes Zander
By Johannes Zander (Apr 4, 2013)

Wow! Nikon helped some animal organisations to create another fundraiser!

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Apr 4, 2013)

As to these scopes and the rest used by hunters. I am not pro hunting or anti hunting. I live in Africa and here we are pragmatic about it. Poaching is the problem not organized controlled hunting. Most controlled hunting takes place on game farms where you pay for what you shoot. These farms are the corner stone of conservation in Africa as these game farmers breed animals that would have normally been allowed to die out. They put a value to the animal and therefore it is protected. They also know to balance nature they have to have non valuable assets. So if people want to visit to satisfy some blood lust or primitive urge then they are welcome to come with their expensive toys and pay for to get their rocks off. It we did not have this the farmers would have moved in cows .

As to scopes go into a gun store and see how many brands there are. Nikon is one of many. They screwed up when they mentioned safari. A true wild lion is not a Disney character that eats coco pops.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
17 upvotes
Mike_V
By Mike_V (Apr 4, 2013)

Spot on.

I used to be anti-hunting, but the reality in Africa is exactly as you say.

The animals would likely all be extinct without the rich hunters using the game parks.

5 upvotes
MadMacStew
By MadMacStew (Apr 4, 2013)

Well said - I get really bored by bleeding hearts who want to protect fluffy seal cubs but not rare scorpions, and especially by those ignorant fools who do not understand that dangerous game safaris are funding most of the game conservation in Africa. Funny how those same people (invariably American) don't seem to have a problem with radio-controlled US drones killing women and kids in Afghanistan at no risk whatever to their pilots............

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

Nice to see a balanced view from someone who seems to understand the issues facing africa. My issue is that I really cannot understand those that do get off on shooting wildife or those that do it in the name of sport. People who are doing this purely for conservation have respect for the animals and although they see the neccessity of shooting for conservation purposes they do not like killing another living animal.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

I'd like your take on a simple question as someone close to the situation, if you please. Given these two options, which would you choose?: 1) Conserve by promoting the hunting of a select group of a population and use the money to conserve the remainder, or 2) Those who would otherwise have paid to kill these animals instead choose to send all the money that would have been required to go on a hunt to a conservation agency that is responsible for protecting an endangered wild population.
Here's what I'm trying to say. Some things are a stopgap measure because nothing else seems to be working, but in the end do we want to have every acre of land inhabited by humans and just have really enormous and awesome zoos where we can go see animals that used to share our world with us? Do we need 45 billion people on this planet? 100 billion? As much as we use resources now, imagine 50 billion people at the American standard of living. The natural world would preserved behind glass at a zoo.

1 upvote
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Apr 5, 2013)

To howardroak

There is no simple answer to your question. Its more like a Sophie's Choice. Let's start with Option 2 . Here in Africa some agencies are pretty ineffectual and have no teeth. Throwing money at the problem will not solve it. Agencies run as charities and not a business. Wild life has to be managed and tough decisions make. They are also susceptible to political interference.

OK the the first option. Why would anyone send money to conservation. The harsh reality is they get nothing back for their money other than a thank you. It's like the pay and pray system
As to hunting to subsidize conservation it does work. It actually controls poaching in some areas. Its stops land being gobbled up for agricultural use. Its not great but its what we have got.
Strangely South Africa is actually expanding its national parks by dropping fences with a lot of private reserves , The are also by agricultural land for incorporation.

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Apr 4, 2013)

sickening, people go to Africa to kill animals just like colonial days.

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

I want to go to Africa to hunt animals even more now because it would tick off idiots like you.

7 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

Lol candyshave, good one! I like pisssing off these big-corrupt-government-loving clowns as well.

1 upvote
TCMercury
By TCMercury (Apr 4, 2013)

Again with the politics! Why are people incapable of having a purely ethical conversation?

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Because ethics is a very dull subject?

0 upvotes
B1ackhat
By B1ackhat (Apr 4, 2013)

All you ignorant buffoons who are incapable of compassion or empathy can make all the jokes you'd like, but I won't buy another thing from Nikon as long as they support trophy hunting. I won't support Nike, Subway, Modell's, Proctor & Ganble, and a slew of other companies so what's one more?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 18 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Speaking of baffoons... Baboons make for good taxedermy

5 upvotes
MadMacStew
By MadMacStew (Apr 4, 2013)

I have lots of empathy - but not for ignorant fools who don't understand that it's dangerous game safaris that support game conservation. I presume you *do* support Obama killing innocent civilians in perfect safety?

5 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

He does have some of the hallmarks of a hurt, confused, disillusioned obumnuts voter. Those guys are the scariest ones to watch out for, actually .. Emotionally injured and logically disoriented, such brainwashed not-yet-recovered libs are the ones now most likely to go on a rampage, based on my armchair research.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
RBFresno
By RBFresno (Apr 4, 2013)

Yes. It 's refreshing to see someone who keeps to their ideals and such an impressive list of companies that they won't support!
And don't buy or use any life saving drugs from those Horrible drug companies, don't drive any cars from companies who make vehicles that are used in hunting, don't fly in airplanes manufactured by companies that make machines that kill, don't buy any consumer goods where cheap underpaid foreign labor is involved, don't buy gasoline,,,,,,after all, "what's one more?"

2 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (Apr 4, 2013)

The big questions is:

Does it focus?

0 upvotes
Johannes Zander
By Johannes Zander (Apr 4, 2013)

And is it awaylable in pink?

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
TCMercury
By TCMercury (Apr 4, 2013)

DigitalRev will probably paint one in about a year.

0 upvotes
kozack
By kozack (Apr 4, 2013)

People, where is your common sense?
What is wrong with rifle scopes and "black continent"?
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

11 upvotes
B1ackhat
By B1ackhat (Apr 4, 2013)

And ignorance such as yours is truly a cancer upon our society.

6 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (Apr 4, 2013)

Lets say that 'black continent' sounds rather colonial.
What's wrong with calling it by its continent name 'Africa'.
Then again, what else can you expect from conservatists like you...

7 upvotes
MadMacStew
By MadMacStew (Apr 4, 2013)

Actually 'blackhet' is just an ignorant fool - *real* conservationists understand that trophy safaris are *funding* game conservation, without them the African elephant would probably be extinct in the wild.

3 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

What's wrong with colonial? My greatest regret is being born too late to enjoy colonial life.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

What! People hunt animals!
That is soooo new!!!!
Agendists love free PR.
Most Dangerous Game hunting is under 50 yards. Try getting charged by a leopard, lion, elephant, hippo and see if it is not a life on the line thing. You would be lucky to get two shots off on a fast moving target. It is more combat in a charge. True most people who hunt DG are elderly retired types but before you pass judgement learn a bit. See the photos of the meat the starving vilagers get and the huge fees that go to stopping the poachers that are the real danger. A scope does not make much of a diference. Open sights or a red dot sight is better IMHO. That said I like my Leupold but hear good things about the Nikon scopes.

5 upvotes
Jim Bianchi
By Jim Bianchi (Apr 4, 2013)

Those scopes have an excellent reputation from real world users, This minor dust-up should be ignored by Nikon. The target audience is not offended.

7 upvotes
ultimitsu
By ultimitsu (Apr 4, 2013)

No one really pay any attention to these marketing statements, everyone knows they are not sincere. Nikon after all is a Japanese company and used and still do make military gear, these statements are written by western advertising execs who get paid good money. Why do we expect it to care for Africa?

People should just wake the hell up.

1 upvote
scottmontreal
By scottmontreal (Apr 4, 2013)

Why are most of the comments supportive of Nikon aiding killing trophy animals, not addressing this point: "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." It is not about free choice or the market - as animals don't have that option, do they?

11 upvotes
MadMacStew
By MadMacStew (Apr 4, 2013)

If you think that a rifle 'scope is truly helpful in hunting dangerous game, you have certainly not been stood 30 yards from a charging rhino.......

BTW, lions are *really* nasty animals whose numbers do need to be held down. Funny how no one wants to preserve their canine counterpart, the hyena, even though hyenas don't kill babies sired by a different father, like lions do.

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

And humans are also really nasty animals..

Lions hunt to eat, that does not make them nasty. They do not hunt for fun like we do. Usually a lion will not kill its own cubs. Male lions who take over another male's territory (after winning a fight) will usually kill the other male's cubs - this is to prevent the other male's genes from being passed down, and also because the lioness will usually go into heat almost immediately (nature has made them do this so that if their cubs die, they can have another family to replace them). The males have learned that they can pass along their own genes by killing the cubs of their rivals. It's not a nice thing to think about or watch, but that's the way animals act in order to survive in the wild.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Rest assured that lions would be extinct if it were not for hunting. The locals would have no reason to tolerate them when they kill cattle etc and would simply shoot them out of hand.

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

The "lesser of two evils" argument is only designed to make people less evil than other people sleep easier at night.

0 upvotes
KHemmelman
By KHemmelman (Apr 4, 2013)

Good grief. Nikon has made scopes for many, MANY years. This is NOT news and has no business being posted here, other than to fulfill someone's need at Amazon/DPReview to push their personal agenda.

8 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 4, 2013)

Since you seem to know more about this than me, would you care to tell me what 'agenda' that might be?

4 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Apr 4, 2013)

I hope Amazon doesn't sell that

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

Amazon sells tons of rifle scopes, electronic sights, lasers and accessories, actually. I know because I bought some myself :)

2 upvotes
dark goob
By dark goob (Apr 4, 2013)

Don't blame the marketer, blame the market.

4 upvotes
digitallollygag
By digitallollygag (Apr 4, 2013)

What's next, background checks on rifle scopes? Seriously, aren't there bigger issues to be passionate about?

5 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Like poachers.

2 upvotes
B1ackhat
By B1ackhat (Apr 4, 2013)

The taking of innocent lives seems like a pretty massive issue to me. What makes your life more valuable than another creature's? Nothing. In fact, I'd say your lack of empathy and compassion makes your life far less valuable.

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

B1ackhat,
So you deem me less valuble because I hunt?

2 upvotes
digitallollygag
By digitallollygag (Apr 5, 2013)

Whoa, calm down there, B1ackhat. Breathe, breathe...

0 upvotes
Caoedhen
By Caoedhen (Apr 4, 2013)

What a waste of space. Was this posted just to start the flame wars? Has DPreview sunk that low since Amazon took over?

It has nothing to do with photography, digital or otherwise. You've got poor Howardroark's blood pressure up, he's gonna need new fingers after replying with whiny snark to every post he doesn't like.

Nikon makes scopes. Big deal. If that is enough to make you change camera brands, you have more money than sense.

10 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Apr 4, 2013)

Nikon's brutal side.......

5 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

Pentax makes great rifle scopes as well. Are they now "brutal" in your eyes as well? What if a rifle equipped with a Nikon scope was used by a soldier (or you) to protect you and your family? Would you still feel the same about the company and its product? (Mind, while I like Nikon I do not own their cameras. I have always been more of an Olympus guy (the poor man's Nikon lol), for what it's worth.

4 upvotes
B1ackhat
By B1ackhat (Apr 4, 2013)

Soldier don't protect anyone. In fact, all US soldiers do is invade lands where they're not wanted and kill innocent women and children.

0 upvotes
Roobje
By Roobje (Apr 4, 2013)

If you're thinking your way, US soldiers don't invade, they follow orders. The US government invaded those countries, and the government was chosen by, you, the the US citizen. Don't blame the soldier for killing, just like you can't blame Nikon for trying to make profit. That's the market, nothing illegal.

1 upvote
MadMacStew
By MadMacStew (Apr 4, 2013)

BTW, Nikon microscopes are helping to cure cancer...........

2 upvotes
crypsis101
By crypsis101 (Apr 4, 2013)

Avid wildlife photographer here in the NW and Alaska for too many years to recall. To supplement my 400 2.8 on my D800E, I also carry a Nikon Monarch 4-16 Rifle Scope as an incredible spotting scope! You should try it. Beats the heck out of a pair of even expensive powerful binoculars and has an equal field of vision and of course the optics are incredible even at only $800.00 or so and made a rifle stock to put it on with a quick release mount. Only hunt with a camera so I have no problem with someone who hunts with a firearm. To each his own. Forty some years ago I carried a rifle with a scope and hunted men. Enough killing for me so now anything I appreciate all forms of life, but I also eat meat, fowl and fish. Call me just a zany guy, I guess.

Good shooting everyone!

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
xmeda
By xmeda (Apr 4, 2013)

Bad Nikon, baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad :D :D :D

1 upvote
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (Apr 4, 2013)

"The Dark Continent"

Title a best selling novel "The Dark Continent"... But Nikon gets flamed for using it for flowery ad speak?

When did everyone become so sensitive?

13 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

It was a much used phrase because little was known about the interior of the continent. Read a little book about Jonathan Livingston to gain perspective.

3 upvotes
lightandday
By lightandday (Apr 4, 2013)

NIKON YOU NEED TO OPEN A CONSERVATION FOUNDATION TO PUT LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY BACK INTO NATURE !!

SOONER RATHER THAN LATER--- LIKE NOW !!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Paul Storm
By Paul Storm (Apr 4, 2013)

i cannot stand any company making tools to assist in the killing of animals, especially for entertainment. it saddens me greatly.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

You must not buy many things to have that level of integrity. What about the killing and poisoning of humans? HUNTERS PRESERVE SPECIES. POACHERS ELIMINATE THEM. LEARN A FEW THINGS WHILE YOU ARE IN YOUR IVORY TOWER (Pun intended)

8 upvotes
B1ackhat
By B1ackhat (Apr 4, 2013)

That is one of the most asinine statements I have ever read. Hunters don't "preserve" anything. They destroy life. Period.

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

B1ackhat... Since I cant take the stupid out of you go educate yourself on hunters and conservation.

4 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 4, 2013)

That's why I hate GM and Ford - they make vehicles that run people over.

4 upvotes
Craig Gillette
By Craig Gillette (Apr 4, 2013)

You all do understand that while Nikon makes these scopes (as do other manufacturers of optics, like Pentax, Leica, Zeiss, etc.), and many also make spotting scopes. binoculars, rangefinders and a wide variety of other hunting related products, these are sold by retailers like Amazon, B&H, Adorama, and the list is endless.

So, are you really going to boycott all these firms or are you just shooting from the lip?

Remember, it's "for the children." If there were no cameras, there would be no kiddie porn or sexist exploitation, or if there were no cars, there would be no drunk driving.

14 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

What an asinine argument. When Nikon starts actually putting child pornography in its promotional material, every human on the planet will boycott them. As it stands, they're just alienating those who don't want endangered animals hunted to the brink (or to actual) extinction.

6 upvotes
Craig Gillette
By Craig Gillette (Apr 4, 2013)

They seem to just be alienating the people who don't understand the difference between clips and magazines.

6 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

George W. Bush pronounced the word nuclear "nucular" and somebody put him in charge of the largest military force the world has ever seen. I'd bet a grand that I'm a better shot than you.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Howard... Poachers are the issue in Africa. Hunters are just the whipping boy.

5 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

And Japan "hunts" whales despite there ever dwindling numbers. I'm sure there are ways to turn hunting into a conservation effort. I know a lot of hunters and have some in my family, so I can understand what a responsible hunter is and when hunting is appropriate. I'm really glad that guns suddenly stop functioning when a law is being broken....the difference between poachers and hunters being the law, you see. What's legal isn't always right and what's right isn't always legal.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

I guess we should all turn in our guns and harpoons. Lets all become prey to have a moral superiority boost. Yay! Sigh... I feel so much better. Hey! Stop raping my wife at gunpoint or I will write you an argry letter!

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

Yes, you're right. The eight billion people on the planet might not make it another week without our guns and harpoons. I feel really sorry for you. Oh I know, you feel sorry for how stupid I am. I'd rather be stupid than evil.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

So hunters are evil?

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

You believe in home defense it seems so no fault there.

0 upvotes
Joe Shaffer
By Joe Shaffer (Apr 4, 2013)

Monarch scopes aren't new. I've had one for a couple years, they were advertised as big game scopes when I bought mine. Why is this suddenly an issue?

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

When Gerber starts marketing rat poison will you question the quality of their baby food?

4 upvotes
Squancho
By Squancho (Apr 4, 2013)

Nikon has made hunting scopes for decades, how does that affect the quality of their camera lenses?

6 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

Zero. Their marketing strategy is in the realm of their overall public relations. I didn't care for Nikon before and my personal opinion hasn't changed a drop. That doesn't make them being bone headed any less obvious.

2 upvotes
Greg Beetham
By Greg Beetham (Apr 4, 2013)

Trophy hunting is I believe very closely regulated, the morals of wanting to mount the head of an animal you’ve killed on a wall is probably a topic worthy of discussion in itself, but whatever the reasons for doing so one needs to be exceptionally well heeled to indulge in such endeavours.
I don’t think Nikon needs to be criticized for supplying an item that apparently there is some demand for, how big or small that demand actually is is anybody’s guess, quite possibly they will sell a much larger quantity of heavy recoil resistant rifle scopes merely by association with big game hunting even if the majority of those that buy one will never actually have the opportunity to aim it at a real big game animal.
Greg
Ps encroachment by humans with cattle and the availability of assault rifles are most likely the biggest threat that Lions face.

3 upvotes
James Babb
By James Babb (Apr 4, 2013)

Hunting can benefit a species. If a particular animal brings hunter tourists into an African community, that community will value and protect the species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

As for the "dark continent" reference, that was just a little sloppy. Even NPR made the same mistake.

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

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Squancho
By Squancho (Apr 4, 2013)

Very good point that few recognize. Here in the states people argue that deer hunting is cruel. My response is would you rather have venison go to feeding my family or have a deer suffer and starve to death from over population?

2 upvotes
kozack
By kozack (Apr 4, 2013)

What's wrong with "dark continent"?

1 upvote
B1ackhat
By B1ackhat (Apr 4, 2013)

So if I killed your family to feed mine, I could argue that it's better than them dying of cancer. Yeah great argument. That high school education is serving you well.

0 upvotes
Squancho
By Squancho (Apr 4, 2013)

... That is probably the most ignorant comment I have ever read. Oh and yes my college education* is serving me very well thank you.

2 upvotes
rctrombone1
By rctrombone1 (Apr 4, 2013)

Marketing campaign aside, most of these optics will never see big game hunting at all. Most of them will be used to put tiny pieces of metal through pieces of paper at several hundred yards. Think of it as golf and get over it.

12 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

Except the golf balls are aimed at animals and when they hit them at Mach 1.5 the golf balls kill whatever "holes" they land on.

3 upvotes
DenWil
By DenWil (Apr 4, 2013)

The joys of social media.

If two people somewhere on the planet get their panties twisted it's a cause to angst over in 20 minutes...

the media is so desperate for content and if it is the least bit controversial or can be presented as such, all the better.

58,000 DEATHS in LOS ANGELES COUNTY. SOME BY GUNS. News at 11.

8 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

The big, biased mainstream mass media is fast losing viewers and relevance by the second.

3 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

The following which I am going to share here is not really analogous to this current scenario, -but- it does provide some more fodder for digestion.
.........
http://www.examiner.com/article/pearl-harbor-70-years-after-the-day-nikon-helped-commit-mass-murder
"Little known fact: Nikon played a large part in the success of the Japanese surprise attack.
http://www.nicovandijk.net/nippontekst.htm

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

"In 1941, Nikon was known as Japan Optical Industries Corporation, and the company's main business was certainly not cameras and lenses, either. Founded in 1917, Nikon (I'm using the modern name for convenience) was the product of the merger of three optical companies into one, comprehensive business. From the time of its founding through WWII, Nikon, while it did make camera lenses, was mainly in the business of serving as chief optical supplier for the Japanese military.

So, when Japan decided to declare war on America that December morning, it was only natural that Nikon started cranking out the optics that would soon be trained on American men, planes, and ships. At peak production during the war, Nikon employed nearly 25,000 people in 19 factories for the purposes of making binoculars, sights, and even periscopes, all of which contributed to the heavy casualties Americans endured in the Pacific War.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 4, 2013)

"As an interesting side note, as part of the political alliance that was the Axis, Germany gave Japan, free of charge, many Carl Zeiss patents!"
..................

The above would not stop me from buying or using a Nikon product, and neither would this current hubbub over nothing.

I support the rights of -responsible- hunters, and absolutely the right of the people to protect themselves from unchecked tyranny (and if you 'moderate' this comment, I seriously question your motives).

So, I don't see anything wrong here, and to make an issue out of it in the first place reeks of everything that is rancid and ready for the rubbish heap about this current 'politically correct' age of corrupt trash media sensationalism.

6 upvotes
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Apr 4, 2013)

there is nothing "dangerous" about game hunting....

once again, misinformation by these activist

The more they bend the truth
the less credible they become.

8 upvotes
sosmix
By sosmix (Apr 4, 2013)

It is dangerous for the animals being killed or don't they count?

0 upvotes
Dan4321
By Dan4321 (Apr 4, 2013)

It's the free market. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy their product. I can find reasons to not buy any given company's products but at the end of the day, I am probably just going to ignore them and buy the one that best fits my needs anyways. Some people are more into moralism than I am, but that is their choice and right.

4 upvotes
Mattersburger
By Mattersburger (Apr 4, 2013)

How many hunters are at all upset that Nikon makes cameras and lenses used by PETA members?

7 upvotes
john101477
By john101477 (Apr 4, 2013)

I am upset that Nikon is willing to sell to PETA members HAHAHA!
I hunt, fish, and photograph wildlife. I hunt year round with one tool or the other. I use Nikon for my camera gear and Leopold for my hunting optics. After reading some of the comments here I am glad that at least some have their heads screwed on straight while others need a closer look instead of the look they get from the media on their computers. To thge comment below about ivory sales based on legal hunting areas, double check the ability to sell ivory legally almost anywhere?!?! Probably not gonna happen. A good friend of mine just got back from an elephant hunt. he was not allowed to bring much home from the hunt but he had a blast and is looking forward to another chance.

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

John,

Right you are, and I was working on that issue with environmental groups 20 and more years ago.

So who's responsible for the ban on ivory sales, guys like me, or guys like you and your hunter friend?

P.S. Ivory is still being sold, and I would bet my last dollar that much of this is either legally killed ivory, or justified as being legally killed ivory. They don't just throw it away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade#Renewed_sales

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Jim
By Jim (Apr 4, 2013)

People really, really need to get a *%^#ing life. Anyone who is offended that Nikon makes rifle scopes either has too much time on their hands and/or are too stupid to get real jobs. The establishment of structured hunting concessions in Africa not only improves the economies of many countries, but also contributes to the INCREASED populations of species though increased funding for armed officers who prevent poaching. So, gee, sorry you so-called do-gooders are offended about the wording of Nikon's promotional material, but grow up, get an education and a job and become productive human beings.

12 upvotes
joe talks photography
By joe talks photography (Apr 4, 2013)

Wow...tell us what you really think. Dude, so if someone has an alternate point of view the best you can do is to berate them? Says a lot about you, doesn't it?

4 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

The only way to save an animal from extinction is to make it a food source, right? The chicken and cow will never go extinct, is that the argument? As long as we enjoy killing the animal it will be kept in a pen for people to shoot in the head. What a sport.

3 upvotes
Blake Willis
By Blake Willis (Apr 3, 2013)

Here's another point to consider: hunters want affordable high quality riflescopes so that they can have better shot placement. Why? Because a cleanly placed shot directly in a vital area ensures a quick humane kill so that the animal does not suffer.

Animal activists boycotting Nikon because they make riflescopes is counterproductive. A rifle with a cheap unreliable optic is more likely to end up in a wounded animal needlessly suffering as a result of the hunter not having accurate shot placement.

Nikon is one of only a handful of companies making very high quality riflescopes accessible to people without a lot of money to spend on an optic, and for this they should be commended.

18 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

The right bullet in the right place is more important than the scope. DG is best hunted with open sights but most DG hunters have bad eye sight due to age.

2 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (Apr 3, 2013)

another reason to boycott this lame company.

1 upvote
Blake Willis
By Blake Willis (Apr 3, 2013)

What folks outside the firearms industry don't realize is that most firearms marketing is B.S. Just like most camera marketing is B.S., and most food marketing, and pretty much any other kind of marketing material you're bombarded with on a daily basis.

The difference is that firearms can be used to kill things (more easily than most other consumer goods) and so the marketing B.S. often revolves around that (as opposed to 200mph cars, beer that will get you laid, fresh food at fast food chain restaurants, etc). The vast majority of these scopes will *never* be used on any game more "dangerous" than deer or elk (or possibly coyotes). The spin is simply to get folks to think that their scope was designed for hunting the "big 5" and thus somehow must be better for hunting whitetail deer.

If you want to be an animal activist, please go after ivory poachers, dog fighters, etc. and leave the responsible hunting community alone.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
18 upvotes
Anfy
By Anfy (Apr 3, 2013)

"Responsible hunting community", LOL.

3 upvotes
Blake Willis
By Blake Willis (Apr 4, 2013)

There are probably more hunters in the US than there are photographers, most of whom are responsible folks that enjoy the tradition and take pride in being able to feed their family with game (which happens to be delicious and healthier for you than pen-rased cattle fed with GM corn and antibiotics).

Wolves have basically been exterminated in North America (to the point where there are less than 200 Red Wolves left in the US). As we killed all the wolves, deer have no natural predators (nor do elk, antelope, etc). Without population control, "nature" does it instead, in the form of starvation, disease outbreaks, etc (e.g. getting hit by cars). This is why each state has a game commission that regulates the number of tags that are issued as a function of growth (or decline) and the population that a given area can support.

If you don't like hunting, that's fine. Don't eat game. But please leave the responsible people that do so alone & pick your battles with a more deserving enemy.

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

Blake Willis,

There is much truth in what you say. And kudos for the wolf comments.

However, if you were really concerned with balance in nature, wouldn't you support reintroduction of wolves?

Read "Wildlife in America" by Peter Mathiesen. It is a factual account of numbers of wildlife in America when the first Europeans arrived. Those colonists built stockades more to keep wolves out than native Americans. Wolves ranged over all of the lower 48 states, and were extremely common in most areas. Grizzly bears, that most of us think of as mountain animals, actually prefer plains habitats along river bottoms, and were common over the middle of the country.

But let somebody suggest introducing a dozen wolves in a park somewhere, and it becomes this huge issue, and many times because hunters say that the wolves will kill the deer!

So yes, lots of good people are hunters, but there is more to balance in nature than getting your deer in the fall.

1 upvote
Stan LS
By Stan LS (Apr 4, 2013)

The wolf population has decreased as large urban centers grew? I am shocked! Shocked I tell you! How does that compare to the situation in Europe? No doubt the wolf population has remained the same over the past 5 centuries or so?

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 4, 2013)

StanS,

Is your position that if deer were exterminated, as large predators have been, that hunters would oppose their reintroduction?

I mean, things are what they are, but it's a little much for someone to infer that they hunt to keep nature in balance, yet they oppose the reintroduction of native wildlife.

We're not talking about the rare and elusive wolf here. We are talking about an animal that was extremely common, almost everywhere in the U.S.

It's fine to take a position that wolves must go (I can't understand why anyone would, though), but don't claim that you support the balance of nature at the same time.

1 upvote
Anfy
By Anfy (Apr 3, 2013)

As an animal rights advocate and Nikon user I feel very bad for this news. I am seriously considering complete switch to another brand, mainly Olympus and Panasonic which, as to my knowledge, do not sell hunting devices. Or am I wrong?

4 upvotes
theranman
By theranman (Apr 3, 2013)

I feel the same way. Am a huge animal rights activist. Am now crossing Nikon off my list of cameras.

4 upvotes
lightandday
By lightandday (Apr 4, 2013)

PLEASE Don't change ask Nikon to consider a "LARGE " donation to Elephant, Gorilla, Tiger ,Rhino,Cheeta,Lateral thinkers -----etc. conservation !

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Are you just an animal rights activist or human rights as well? Remember humans are animals.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 4, 2013)

Animals don't fly halfway around the world with the sole purpose of murdering a human while he's eating his Big Mac and fries at McDonald's during his lunch break.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 4, 2013)

Howard... News falsh! Animals eat animals! Being a vegitarian does not make you morally superior.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 5, 2013)

Another non-argument. I hope you live long enough for there not to be anything but cows and chickens to hunt.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Apr 5, 2013)

Do you feel morally superior because you do not hunt?

0 upvotes
Expat Nomad
By Expat Nomad (Apr 3, 2013)

Please, to the author, while you are starting a discussion, I'd appreciate your viewpoint rather than implied criticism - do you think that the product is offensive and does not align with the vision Nikon has for photographic equipment?

Additionally, disclosure of any Dpreview/Amazon policy on the matter would be appreciated.

My personal viewpoint is that trophy hunting mostly is in the public domain, and involves payment of fees (to kill a defined number of animals) that (at least partially) fund conservation areas and thus preserve the very limited range remaining. Not so much the "bush meat" trade or poaching of endangered or vulnerable species for other purposes, both of which are "invisible" and massively debilitating.

However I also find the choice of advertising language distasteful.

Perhaps Nikon should be contributing to preservation of such animals or habitat through every scope purchase?

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 3, 2013)

The problem with legal harvesting of any endangered or threatened species is that it enables illegal exploitation.

Let's say that an area where elephants are overpopulated is opened up to harvest. Unfortunately, that means that a lot of black market ivory will show up, with papers saying that it originated in the "good" or "acceptable" area to hunt elephants.

For that reason, generally groups that work on endangered species issues don't support any hunting, even if it purports to protect habitat or whatever. There are exceptions.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 3, 2013)

This isn't an editorial, we're reporting on a feature run by another publication. As such, our opinion doesn't matter.

As for 'disclosure of any Dpreview/Amazon policy on the matter' I don't know what matter you're talking about, but if you mean whether Nikon should make rifle scopes, we don't have a policy on that.

3 upvotes
Expat Nomad
By Expat Nomad (Apr 4, 2013)

Fair.
With reference to policy, I guess I have been in North America too long - everyone seems to have an agenda. If so, disclosure is only fair.
Thank you for your response.

1 upvote
jedinstvo
By jedinstvo (Apr 3, 2013)

I hunt caribou because I eat them. I find sport hunting offensive but am aware of the cash it provides to remote cultures in Africa and elsewhere. My scope is a Leupold designed for the US Marine Corps for sniper rifles. Animal lovers don't get so excited about shooting people, do they?

10 upvotes
Anfy
By Anfy (Apr 3, 2013)

"Animal lovers don't get so excited about shooting people, do they?"
Since human beings are animals, we get "excited" ( i.e. sorry) about the act of shooting people, believe me.
Love and peace.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 3, 2013)

That comment was just made to be provocative. In the U.S., the movement for gun control is enormous, and obviously concerned with violence against people. Or maybe OP believes what he is saying, because nobody challenges him. I don't know.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 412
123