As a long time member of Defenders of Wildlife and receiving almost daily updates on issues such as this, it is sadly a constant uphill battle to defend all wildlife especially the predatory groups against a variety of threats. In these tough economic times the bounties offered up only add fuel to the situation and sponsors need to make better calls on where they are spending their money. Truly hard to understand the thoughts behind Nikon's decision here. It surely cannot be associated with photography, it must be from their other optics like spotting scopes, binoculars, and such. Regardless, the photos in the article speaks volumes about the ending results with the apparently sanctioned hunts.
Posted by Luke Ormand on November 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM
As a Nikon fan I"m extremely disappointed to see this - I'd like to think that it is just one idiot working for the company who didn't read the fine print and said Nikon will sign on... but the odds of that being true are slim to none. There is always a certain conflict when the company makes scopes for rifles, but there is no excuse for this kind of "contest"
- Luke
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Over reaction by photographers--not the hunters.
These are coyotes and are very prolific. Iike to hear their calls at night, but........
Realize in Kansas there are more coyotes killed by cars. They are found along the highways all the time. So.......
These hunts are organized in Kansas all the time and the number of coyotes remains stable.
Can you imagine what would happen if they were not reduced in number?
Rabies outbreaks.
Death by starvation.
Death by freezing. Mange is a problem with overcrowding.
Interface with domestic pets. Do you want your pet dog or cat scarfed by coyotes?
Guys and gals, keep it between the ditches.
And thanks to Nikon for not being afraid to step away from "political correctness".
the fisch
Posted by Ron Williams on November 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM
I have a family history of Michigan Conservation as my father was an employee by the state for over forty years. For those of you that aren't aware these hunts are also organized by the DNR and are used to control disease and starvation and doesn't only apply to predators. I've seen many times this applied to the White Tail deer population. I do realize for some this is very disturbing to see but it is necessary especially after we have upset the natural food chain.
Larry - coyotes maybe, but Wolves are 3 points each, and I don't believe that there's an overabundance of wolves just about anywhere. Clearly the attitude here is not one of environmental care and concern.
Posted by Frank Winters on November 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Guy, thanks for the heads up.
Brutality is brutality. But when human beings are brutal there is no excuse. I am on the Board of the local Conservation Trust and we recently had a guest speaker at our annual meeting. It was Dr. Jonathan Way who recently wrote a book about the eastern coyote entitled "Suburban Howls." His website is here: http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/
His talk dispelled many myths about coyotes -- the largest predator normally found in the northeast. Based on statistics and research they don't attack people very often (almost never -- far less frequently than domestic dogs do for example). They are part of the natural food chain and help control the populations of many other creatures lower on the food chain. And of course they are part of a healthy ecology. As to domestic pets his advice was to keep them under control if you live in an area with coyotes. He showed us some video footage of coyotes encountering domestic pets -- the pets were in danger because they were allowed by their owners to roam. In one case a cat came across a coyote which showed no interest in it -- when the coyote walked into the woods the cat followed! Nature is strange.
One of Dr. Way's most interesting findings is that the eastern coyote is a hybrid between the red wolf and the coyote. He calls them coywolfs and told us that this will soon be their official name.
But suppose there are areas where predators need to have reduced populations to correct an imbalance in nature -- is this sort of contest the way to achieve that goal? Is it good for the mental health of the hunters? Is it civilized?
Yeah I'm sickened by this sort of activity and surprised at Nikon -- seems they don't understand there own customer base -- or do they?
~Frank
Posted by Fred Stearns on November 21, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Posted by Brad Mangas on November 21, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Thanks for the info Guy.
I "can" see and understand the points that Larry is making, (hi Doc) but in this case I will not agree with this type of event.
As I see this, it doesn't matter if it's a coyote, fox, bobcat or wolf, as long as it's one shot it, and shot as many as you can, that is the problem, No limit, oh yeah that makes sense! I would almost lay odds there is no fox problem, bobcat problem and good chance not even a wolf problem!
Yes coyote hunts have been a big thing since I was a boy some 40 years ago growing up in small town Kansas, and I can attest to the fact that there are lots and lots of coyotes still running around Kansas. I have actually seen more this year than in the last few.
As a youngster I grew up hunting and believe it to be not only a sport but when "properly managed" (there's something for them to think about) a necessary sport. Events like this make no issue about over population or not, this is about riding the unwanted off of the lands. Then you must ask, unwanted by whom? Well by a select group of humans of course, well to %$#*%^* bad. "Controlling" populations is what makes hunting acceptable, actually it's the only thing that makes hunting acceptable. That is the part of Larry's comment that I absolutely agree with. Like it or not, this isn't the 1800's and things will and need to be different, but also hunting is not done to just put food on the table many simple like the adventure and thrill, and that is where proper management plays the necessary role, yeah because some people are idiots and don't know right from wrong.
Events like this need to be weighed just like any other sport hunt. Is there a need or not? It can even be just for sport I don't have a problem with that, but it better by gawd be managed properly! "AND ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE SPONSORED BY CORPORATE ENTITIES ". Of course you will never get the hunting community to stop sponsorships, hey it's a billion dollar industry, oh yeah you know there is a money trail behind this, but Nikon is not a hunting company and it is dumb of them to be involved in anyway.
As I see this hunting per say is not the problem, once again the ugly face of man raises it empty head and makes decisions based on emotions. "We don't want any predators on our lands because they kill our livestock". Deal with it, and in case your empty head needs a boot up side it, "killing all the predators is not dealing with it"!
And to Nikon for being involved in this, guess what, you lose!
I'm not sure Nikon can afford not to sponsor such events. Nikon is a huge producer of rifle scopes and spotting scopes for hunting applications. Like in any any other business their success lies in effective marketing.
Posted by Ross Warner on November 22, 2009 at 12:21 AM
For those here that will be dumping Nikon equipment because of this, I might be interested if the price is right.
Posted by Richard Wong on November 22, 2009 at 4:06 AM
Killing another life for fun is murder no matter the species. Shame on you Nikon!
Posted by Basil Greber on November 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Disgusting. How can you at the same time sponsor Frans Lanting and this bullsh*t?
That my species takes any life for sport or points makes me sad and ashamed. This is as far as we've come after thousands of years living with wildlife?
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 22, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Michael E. Gordon wrote:
This is as far as we've come after thousands of years living with wildlife?
Hey Michael,
It's more likely that this is "as far as we've come" through living without wildlife.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 23, 2009 at 7:55 AM
The actions on this discussion are either sport or government sponsored. The latter adds to your tax burden and reduces your discretionary income to purchase more camera stuff. Money, at the end of unintended consequences, does matter.
Your choice! The control will occur regardless.
We have game departments that sanction these events. So do you want to pay for the bullets or do you want predators controlled through the free markets system with through proper laws?
For those of you who wonder, I spent all of a weekend 2 weeks ago in a cold rain searching for deer with the intent of venison stew. I use bow and arrow. And my camera is always with me on such excursions. I was unsuccessfulin the deer arena but got some photos.
I tried again this weekend and was unsuccessful. It is not all about killing--look up the word ambiance--it is the whole outdoor scene and the love of venison stew to boot.
And even deer can become predators and de-vegetate areas where they overpopulate. Again, government or sport? Dead deer are not as "pretty" as live ones but EVERYTHING has to die. Too bad more of our deaths do/did not mean something. I don't look forward to drooling out of my mouth in an old folks home. So are quick deaths preferred to lingering ones. Again, an unintended consequence that needs to be thought through.
Photographers, in general, see the pretty, sometimes the ugly. But like most they fail to see the convoluted web of life and the concept of "untintended consequences".
Consider that EVERYTHING LIVING LIVES OFF OF DEATH OF SOMETHING ELSE.
If that premise is true, then death is not the issue. When predators are controlled there is more of other types of wildlife as well as a myriad of other convoluted consequences.
Someone mentioned there were not too many wolves. Well Alasaka seems to think so. The last time I was there (2006) a resident could shoot five. And eagles were abundant as sparrows. Remember, laws are controlling both.
So, do your photography, gripe and moan but realize we have experts (hopefully) who understand population dynamics.
This whole thread is the age-old issue of emotion versus rationality. If you eat meat then you pay someone else to do your killing. And if the some forms of animal life were not controlled the price you pay for that meat would be higher. That's part of the un-discussed consequence that is favorable. And it is the remote portions of all actions that are most difficult to understand.
That said, if there are any among you who are true vegetarians (not sure if that is possible physiologically--certain B vitamins cannot be synthesized without insect or animal protein) then you may have arguments on this thread. The rest of you------NOPE.
Again, Nikon is NOT in any way at fault. I applaud them for not pandering to the emotional tide that so often overwhelms reality. Life is hard and then you die. If you don't believe that then someone else is living your life for you.
And I'm with Ross, let me know of any good bargains for the Nikon equipment you will be dumping..... like maybe a 14-24 for about $50 bucks. Hey, if you are that upset the show it. (grins) Or does money really mater--government or sportpersons--a money issue at least.
the fisch
Posted by Brad Mangas on November 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM
As I have mentioned Larry your points are well placed and when logically looked at are hard to dispute.
I find this discussion over emotionalized, and I have to put myself in that initial group as well. When comments like "killing another life is murder", "disgusting", "sickened" take only in to account the emotional side of the issue, (hey that's fine some people are emotionally based creatures). one must realize more than one side of an issue is needed for a logical and hopefully correct decision.
We must realize all animals kill, but only humans do it based on emotional satisfaction. That said it does not make the issue right or wrong. It should play a part not the whole. I am all for hunting, for food or sport. as I mentioned before when properly managed (that is really what this is about) it is not only thrilling but necessary.
As for the whitetail population here in Kansas, thank goodness there is a deer season where most years all permits are sold and hopefully all tags are filled. If we did not hunt the whitetail in Kansas this part of the country would be decimated with their destruction, both on human food sources and disease from things like ticks. There are areas with heavy deer population that I will not go into simply because of when I have I leave covered with ticks, and I'm not real crazy about applying chemicals to myself to prevent it.
3-4 years ago a driver of a minivan with family present was killed when the vehicle struck a deer coming through the windshield killing the father as his wife and children sat buckled up. Was this in some remote country side, no, it was within the city limits of Topeka Kansas, on a 4 lane highway.
Now does that story stir up the emotions, probably so, but it shouldn't. It should simply tell us that, hey maybe there are few to many deer running around, we should look at this.
Hunting for the sake of population control is a necessary fact now that man is trying to rule the world. It just always seems like we realize what we have done when it's to late. Humans can be selfish, egotistical, life depriving creatures, just like the predators they hunt. It's just that the playing field is by no means fair. Man has proven that they will take a specie to the brink of extinction and then only then (and this is hopefully) wake up and say, umm, maybe we should put these on the endangered specie list. And then spend money to manage those types of things. Good grief are we that dumb!
So one can only hope the humans in control of such killing sprees have at least one ounce of common sense.
And there is still something that just seems wrong when a company known mostly for cameras is a sponsor of this "type" of hunt.
Like we all need pictures, "high quality pictures none the less" so we can enjoy the images for years to come. Whatever!
Posted by Ed Cordes on November 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I have read all the posts above and still am dismayed at the wanton killing. I do understand hunting and the harvesting of game for food. I do not understand the wanton killing of as many animals as possible just for the sport of it.
Killing of animals if you are staving and in need of clothing, shelter or food is understandable, but the killing of animals for the sake of sport or money is beyond my comprehension. I just went to a wildlife park where there was a museum with at least 50 stuffed tophies of exotic animals were displayed. Will never return.
In the extreme... there are way too many humans. Who would stand up to be the first killed?
Shame on the sponsors of this "sporting" event.
Posted by Frank Winters on November 24, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Hi John,
I think the hunters in this case believe the sight of dead coyotes will serve as a warning to others -- perhaps to keep them away. That has been the case in the past....
Animals have good sense to fear people -- we kill for fun and sport! (Yes I know populations of animals must sometimes be controlled but as i wrote above brutality is brutality and it isn't healthy behavior for people.)
Frank
Posted by Stan Rose on November 24, 2009 at 7:41 AM
So, we (humans) screw up, and the only solution is to screw things up more?? Sorry, my aversion to that idea isn't based on 'emotions', its based on solid logic and common sense.
Incidentally, not everyone believes it is "necessary" to kill predators to save them; for the extreme view see the Jensen interview that Arthur references below. Overpopulation, consumer-based growth, and overdevelopment are things we take for granted, but they aren't the only possible scenario in this world.
Consider that EVERYTHING LIVING LIVES OFF OF DEATH OF SOMETHING ELSE. If that premise is true, then death is not the issue.
It's not the issue here! The unfettered and thoughtless sanctioning of wanton massacres of predators (and, incidentally, the strongest members are the ones targeted) to satisfy the bloodlust of the participants is the issue. They arent eating the bobcats and coyotes, so all this talk about venison doesnt strengthen your arguments any (it just making me hungry ).
The amazing thing about this whole discussion is Nikon's stupidity. It's as though their different divisions live in complete isolation, with no overarching vision from headquarters.
Most lodges here in Alaska host hunters and fishermen, as well as wildlife viewers. They've learned NOT TO put the dead animal and dead fish pictures on the same web site that promotes their wildlife viewing and photography. More and more have completely separate web sites to reach different audiences. And they don't overlap the consuming guests with the viewing guests if they can avoid it.
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 24, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Hey Larry
EVERYTHING LIVING LIVES OFF OF DEATH OF SOMETHING ELSE.
What does this (incorrect) hyperbolic muttering have to do with the topic?
I tend to disagree with most of your posts, which is no big deal - opinions vary, of course. But this post of yours is beyond the rational. For example, let's consider this passage:
Someone mentioned there were not too many wolves. Well Alasaka seems to think so. The last time I was there (2006) a resident could shoot five. And eagles were abundant as sparrows. Remember, laws are controlling both.
a) this 'derby' is not in Alaska, but Idaho, nearly 3000 miles away.
b) Regulations that allow AK residents to shoot up to 5 wolves does not equate to 'Alaskans seem to think there are too many wolves'. How you even came up with that is beyond me.
c) What does the population of eagles have to do with this subject?
d) What laws control the populations of eagles and sparrows?
The issue here, for most folks, seems to be twofold;
i) the scoring of 'points' for killing wild animals, and
ii) that Nikon are sponsoring the event.
You've ignored both aspects of the discussion.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Austin Booth on November 24, 2009 at 7:21 PM
I'm not necessarily against hunting. There are hunting organizations such as "The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation" and "Ducks Unlimited" with a primary purpose of conservation and preach responsible hunting. Its not the fact that Nikon supported a hunting event that is the issue here its the fact that they sponsored a hunting event in which the participants try and kill as many predators as they can in 24 hours including the endangered Gray Wolf. Most hunting events are for the biggest buck or something similar and they have limits this contest does not. Hunting for population control usually has a seasonal limit or at least a daily limit for more populous wildlife. Also responsible hunters usually plan on eating what they kill so it isn't as wasteful and they don't kill more than they can eat or is legally allowed. I would be surprised if anyone in the predator derby planned on using what they killed for meat. I would guess that there are many members of those conservation oriented hunting organizations I mentioned who would not condone a hunting contest such as this. My father is a hunter and a member of those organizations but he is also very environmentally conscious and a bird photographer and I'm sure he would not condone such a contest as Nikon did especially one that encourages the hunting of an endangered species such as the Gray Wolf. Shame on Nikon, not for sponsoring a hunting event for for sponsoring this one!
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 24, 2009 at 9:56 PM
hey Folks
The Nikon logo has been removed from the sponsors list. Interestingly, none of the logos appear to be actual links at all, so I'm not sure the sponsorship is quite as legit as the website might have one believe. The Crossfire logo on the top right of the page, for example, is not a link, but on the home page of the SFW site it links to crossfire gear's site.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Kent Staubus on November 24, 2009 at 10:22 PM
I don't hunt things I don't eat myself, but really, really don't care what they do in Idaho. If they were killing endangered species I would have an opinion, but they aren't. Some of you people need to understand there actually are people and cultures out there that are different from yours. You need to respect that. You need to embrace the diversity that makes up the world. I use a Nikon camera, and also a Nikon 3x9 Monarch scope on my deer rifle. I will continue to buy the products.
Last summer I saw a Canon banner at a fishing tournament on TV (might have been Bass Pro tour, don't remember.) So, no contrived outrage over Canon? If it doesn't have fur on it, you don't care about it? Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
We are a multi-cultural country. Embrace the diversity.
Kent in SD
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 24, 2009 at 10:52 PM
“You need to embrace the diversity that makes up the world”
Hey folks,
Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony in a statement like this?
... 'you people' and 'you need' are such wonderful phrases.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Kent Staubus on November 24, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Plenty of irony here to go around, Carl.
Kent in SD
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 24, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Hey Kent
Telling other folks what they need to do is hardly embracing diversity, eh?
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Austin Booth on November 25, 2009 at 1:30 AM
If they were killing endangered species I would have an opinion, but they aren't.
Kent, I'm not against hunting at all but they are supporting the killing of Gray Wolves which ARE an endangered species. The range of Gray Wolves was once spread throughout much of what is the current continental United States but now it is limited 6 of those states due to over hunting. I don't think hunting is the issue here, I am not against hunting with limits, I think the issue is mass slaughtering and most of all the killing of the wolves which are an endangered species. There are approximately 5000 wolves left in the continental United States in which they were once widespread, that is not a lot when you compare it to the many millions of coyotes. Again the issue I see here is not the sponsorship of a hunting event it is the event itself and the fact that they are condoning the killing of an endangered species and you get extra points for it.
Posted by Stan Rose on November 25, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Kent, with all due respect, surely you understand the problem with the way you phrased your opinion? If i take it on its face, then you are telling me i should also support the KKK in the name of diversity. Please. I most certainly care if fish get killed for the sake of being killed. Usually, fish are either eaten, or released. I don't have a problem with that, there's no hypocrisy there.
Well, I love my steak (and would never be a vegetarian) and I love the animals too.
Hunting (with care, limits, and protections) is fine in my book for those who like to do so (although I have never had any desire to hunt) but unnecessary cruelty to animals is very appalling to me as well.
So, I say, lets be as humane as possible when dealing with the animals and always try to find BALANCE in issues like this one.
There once was a time when hunting was necessary for survival. That is no longer the case. I understand that population control, or culling is often necessary to ensure the health of the remaining population of animals. If people are allowed to hunt in order to maintain healthy sustainable populations, then I understand that. I don't understand, nor do I agree with killing for fun. Why should any animal's life be taken for the sake of someone's entertainment. Nikon sells cameras to nature lovers, fine. They also sell spotting scopes and binoculars also for nature lovers. It also happens that hunters use and benefit from some of this equipment too.
Chris
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 7, 2009 at 1:07 PM
As a former hunter and a person not opposed to the use of hunting as a means for state wildlife biologists/conservation departments to ensure sustainable populations, I am certainly not "anti-hunting." In fact, now that we as a species have so thoroughly disturbed wildlife populations with habitat destruction and meddling in the prey/predator balance, we truly do "own" the resulting problems now. The need for carefully planned and regulated destruction of "excess population" is a most unfortunate consequence of our interference in the natural balance.
But I have to agree with the backlash against this event. It is NOT slated as a conservation measure, but rather as a contest to see who can destroy the most wildlife. IMO, the destruction of wildlife - even for conservation purposes - is not something to be celebrated. It is certainly not something to conduct a "derby" over.
Perhaps it is a "cultural thing" as Kent pointed out, but I have to believe that the earliest human inhabitants of North America took the killing of wildlife far more seriously, did so only as needed and with the utmost reverence for the life they had ended. That is sadly what seems to be missing here.
Posted by John Reed on December 13, 2009 at 8:11 AM
While I believe I can see merit in many of the opionions given thus far regardless of their stand on hunting/killing/death, I like very much Jim's summation for I think it brings us back to the real core issue. It's not really about hunting or killing or death per se so let's stop debating that. The core issue is the motive behind these actions. To kill purely and simply for the entertainment value just somehow doesn't seem like our finest hour and not something that should be celebrated.
Posted by Ross Warner on December 14, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Damn Bass Pro, damn Canon! My daughter shoots Canon so if anyone is up in arms over Bass Pro and is dumping their Canon gear for Minolta, let me know. I'm still in the market for good used Nikon equipment.
Posted by Jeff Loomis on January 28, 2010 at 1:09 PM
I'm late too in joining the discussion. After reading all of the previous posts, I agree with those who are mainly disgusted with the nature of the event.
I would compare it to how most nature photographers are respectful of their subjects. They are annoyed by photographers who bait, call, harass or otherwise lure wildlife into the open for a better shot. We refer to them as unethical. Likewise, conscientious hunters feel the same way about 'yahoo/redneck' hunters who shoot anything that moves. It gives all hunters a bad name and makes it tough, for example, when you have to ask permission to hunt on private land.
For me, deer hunting was my introduction to nature. Quiet time in the woods opened my eyes to a world of beauty and mystery that has since expanded to birding and photography. During the years when I was actively hunting, a contest such as this would have had no appeal whatsoever. It has nothing to do with enjoying the outdoors and respecting your quarry. So who would it attract? The kind that give other hunters a bad name.
So to have an event specifically designed for people like that is unconscionable. It's every negative thing a person could say about hunting rolled into a sanctioned party. Would Ducks Unlimited hold a contest to shoot as many ducks as possible and then just leave the carcasses in the field? No way!
I think there is a night and day difference between managed culling and an event where they have to specifically tell the contestants that animals don't count if they were obtained by hitting them with a vehicle, being poisoned, or being trapped.
Emotional responses vs sound wildlife management... PC is crap. There is nothing wrong with predator hunting to control their populations where needed (almost everywhere).
Discussion
43 repliesNikon sponsors Predator Derby
Guy
- Luke
These are coyotes and are very prolific. Iike to hear their calls at night, but........
Realize in Kansas there are more coyotes killed by cars. They are found along the highways all the time. So.......
These hunts are organized in Kansas all the time and the number of coyotes remains stable.
Can you imagine what would happen if they were not reduced in number?
Rabies outbreaks.
Death by starvation.
Death by freezing. Mange is a problem with overcrowding.
Interface with domestic pets. Do you want your pet dog or cat scarfed by coyotes?
Guys and gals, keep it between the ditches.
And thanks to Nikon for not being afraid to step away from "political correctness".
the fisch
Brutality is brutality. But when human beings are brutal there is no excuse. I am on the Board of the local Conservation Trust and we recently had a guest speaker at our annual meeting. It was Dr. Jonathan Way who recently wrote a book about the eastern coyote entitled "Suburban Howls." His website is here: http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/
His talk dispelled many myths about coyotes -- the largest predator normally found in the northeast. Based on statistics and research they don't attack people very often (almost never -- far less frequently than domestic dogs do for example). They are part of the natural food chain and help control the populations of many other creatures lower on the food chain. And of course they are part of a healthy ecology. As to domestic pets his advice was to keep them under control if you live in an area with coyotes. He showed us some video footage of coyotes encountering domestic pets -- the pets were in danger because they were allowed by their owners to roam. In one case a cat came across a coyote which showed no interest in it -- when the coyote walked into the woods the cat followed! Nature is strange.
One of Dr. Way's most interesting findings is that the eastern coyote is a hybrid between the red wolf and the coyote. He calls them coywolfs and told us that this will soon be their official name.
But suppose there are areas where predators need to have reduced populations to correct an imbalance in nature -- is this sort of contest the way to achieve that goal? Is it good for the mental health of the hunters? Is it civilized?
Yeah I'm sickened by this sort of activity and surprised at Nikon -- seems they don't understand there own customer base -- or do they?
~Frank
http://www.sfwidaho.org/SFW/Idaho_Predator_Derby.html
Nikon is still listed as a sponsor.
I "can" see and understand the points that Larry is making, (hi Doc) but in this case I will not agree with this type of event.
As I see this, it doesn't matter if it's a coyote, fox, bobcat or wolf, as long as it's one shot it, and shot as many as you can, that is the problem, No limit, oh yeah that makes sense! I would almost lay odds there is no fox problem, bobcat problem and good chance not even a wolf problem!
Yes coyote hunts have been a big thing since I was a boy some 40 years ago growing up in small town Kansas, and I can attest to the fact that there are lots and lots of coyotes still running around Kansas. I have actually seen more this year than in the last few.
As a youngster I grew up hunting and believe it to be not only a sport but when "properly managed" (there's something for them to think about) a necessary sport. Events like this make no issue about over population or not, this is about riding the unwanted off of the lands. Then you must ask, unwanted by whom? Well by a select group of humans of course, well to %$#*%^* bad. "Controlling" populations is what makes hunting acceptable, actually it's the only thing that makes hunting acceptable. That is the part of Larry's comment that I absolutely agree with. Like it or not, this isn't the 1800's and things will and need to be different, but also hunting is not done to just put food on the table many simple like the adventure and thrill, and that is where proper management plays the necessary role, yeah because some people are idiots and don't know right from wrong.
Events like this need to be weighed just like any other sport hunt. Is there a need or not? It can even be just for sport I don't have a problem with that, but it better by gawd be managed properly! "AND ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE SPONSORED BY CORPORATE ENTITIES ". Of course you will never get the hunting community to stop sponsorships, hey it's a billion dollar industry, oh yeah you know there is a money trail behind this, but Nikon is not a hunting company and it is dumb of them to be involved in anyway.
As I see this hunting per say is not the problem, once again the ugly face of man raises it empty head and makes decisions based on emotions. "We don't want any predators on our lands because they kill our livestock". Deal with it, and in case your empty head needs a boot up side it, "killing all the predators is not dealing with it"!
And to Nikon for being involved in this, guess what, you lose!
http://nikonusa.com/About-Nikon/Contact-Us.page
Hey Michael,
It's more likely that this is "as far as we've come" through living without wildlife.
Cheers
Carl
Your choice! The control will occur regardless.
We have game departments that sanction these events. So do you want to pay for the bullets or do you want predators controlled through the free markets system with through proper laws?
For those of you who wonder, I spent all of a weekend 2 weeks ago in a cold rain searching for deer with the intent of venison stew. I use bow and arrow. And my camera is always with me on such excursions. I was unsuccessfulin the deer arena but got some photos.
I tried again this weekend and was unsuccessful. It is not all about killing--look up the word ambiance--it is the whole outdoor scene and the love of venison stew to boot.
And even deer can become predators and de-vegetate areas where they overpopulate. Again, government or sport? Dead deer are not as "pretty" as live ones but EVERYTHING has to die. Too bad more of our deaths do/did not mean something. I don't look forward to drooling out of my mouth in an old folks home. So are quick deaths preferred to lingering ones. Again, an unintended consequence that needs to be thought through.
Photographers, in general, see the pretty, sometimes the ugly. But like most they fail to see the convoluted web of life and the concept of "untintended consequences".
Consider that EVERYTHING LIVING LIVES OFF OF DEATH OF SOMETHING ELSE.
If that premise is true, then death is not the issue. When predators are controlled there is more of other types of wildlife as well as a myriad of other convoluted consequences.
Someone mentioned there were not too many wolves. Well Alasaka seems to think so. The last time I was there (2006) a resident could shoot five. And eagles were abundant as sparrows. Remember, laws are controlling both.
So, do your photography, gripe and moan but realize we have experts (hopefully) who understand population dynamics.
This whole thread is the age-old issue of emotion versus rationality. If you eat meat then you pay someone else to do your killing. And if the some forms of animal life were not controlled the price you pay for that meat would be higher. That's part of the un-discussed consequence that is favorable. And it is the remote portions of all actions that are most difficult to understand.
That said, if there are any among you who are true vegetarians (not sure if that is possible physiologically--certain B vitamins cannot be synthesized without insect or animal protein) then you may have arguments on this thread. The rest of you------NOPE.
Again, Nikon is NOT in any way at fault. I applaud them for not pandering to the emotional tide that so often overwhelms reality. Life is hard and then you die. If you don't believe that then someone else is living your life for you.
And I'm with Ross, let me know of any good bargains for the Nikon equipment you will be dumping..... like maybe a 14-24 for about $50 bucks. Hey, if you are that upset the show it. (grins) Or does money really mater--government or sportpersons--a money issue at least.
the fisch
I find this discussion over emotionalized, and I have to put myself in that initial group as well. When comments like "killing another life is murder", "disgusting", "sickened" take only in to account the emotional side of the issue, (hey that's fine some people are emotionally based creatures). one must realize more than one side of an issue is needed for a logical and hopefully correct decision.
We must realize all animals kill, but only humans do it based on emotional satisfaction. That said it does not make the issue right or wrong. It should play a part not the whole. I am all for hunting, for food or sport. as I mentioned before when properly managed (that is really what this is about) it is not only thrilling but necessary.
As for the whitetail population here in Kansas, thank goodness there is a deer season where most years all permits are sold and hopefully all tags are filled. If we did not hunt the whitetail in Kansas this part of the country would be decimated with their destruction, both on human food sources and disease from things like ticks. There are areas with heavy deer population that I will not go into simply because of when I have I leave covered with ticks, and I'm not real crazy about applying chemicals to myself to prevent it.
3-4 years ago a driver of a minivan with family present was killed when the vehicle struck a deer coming through the windshield killing the father as his wife and children sat buckled up. Was this in some remote country side, no, it was within the city limits of Topeka Kansas, on a 4 lane highway.
Now does that story stir up the emotions, probably so, but it shouldn't. It should simply tell us that, hey maybe there are few to many deer running around, we should look at this.
Hunting for the sake of population control is a necessary fact now that man is trying to rule the world. It just always seems like we realize what we have done when it's to late. Humans can be selfish, egotistical, life depriving creatures, just like the predators they hunt. It's just that the playing field is by no means fair. Man has proven that they will take a specie to the brink of extinction and then only then (and this is hopefully) wake up and say, umm, maybe we should put these on the endangered specie list. And then spend money to manage those types of things. Good grief are we that dumb!
So one can only hope the humans in control of such killing sprees have at least one ounce of common sense.
And there is still something that just seems wrong when a company known mostly for cameras is a sponsor of this "type" of hunt.
Like we all need pictures, "high quality pictures none the less" so we can enjoy the images for years to come. Whatever!
In the extreme... there are way too many humans. Who would stand up to be the first killed?
Shame on the sponsors of this "sporting" event.
I think the hunters in this case believe the sight of dead coyotes will serve as a warning to others -- perhaps to keep them away. That has been the case in the past....
Animals have good sense to fear people -- we kill for fun and sport! (Yes I know populations of animals must sometimes be controlled but as i wrote above brutality is brutality and it isn't healthy behavior for people.)
Frank
Incidentally, not everyone believes it is "necessary" to kill predators to save them; for the extreme view see the Jensen interview that Arthur references below. Overpopulation, consumer-based growth, and overdevelopment are things we take for granted, but they aren't the only possible scenario in this world.
It's not the issue here! The unfettered and thoughtless sanctioning of wanton massacres of predators (and, incidentally, the strongest members are the ones targeted) to satisfy the bloodlust of the participants is the issue. They arent eating the bobcats and coyotes, so all this talk about venison doesnt strengthen your arguments any (it just making me hungry
Most lodges here in Alaska host hunters and fishermen, as well as wildlife viewers. They've learned NOT TO put the dead animal and dead fish pictures on the same web site that promotes their wildlife viewing and photography. More and more have completely separate web sites to reach different audiences. And they don't overlap the consuming guests with the viewing guests if they can avoid it.
What does this (incorrect) hyperbolic muttering have to do with the topic?
I tend to disagree with most of your posts, which is no big deal - opinions vary, of course. But this post of yours is beyond the rational. For example, let's consider this passage:
a) this 'derby' is not in Alaska, but Idaho, nearly 3000 miles away.
b) Regulations that allow AK residents to shoot up to 5 wolves does not equate to 'Alaskans seem to think there are too many wolves'. How you even came up with that is beyond me.
c) What does the population of eagles have to do with this subject?
d) What laws control the populations of eagles and sparrows?
The issue here, for most folks, seems to be twofold;
i) the scoring of 'points' for killing wild animals, and
ii) that Nikon are sponsoring the event.
You've ignored both aspects of the discussion.
Cheers
Carl
The Nikon logo has been removed from the sponsors list. Interestingly, none of the logos appear to be actual links at all, so I'm not sure the sponsorship is quite as legit as the website might have one believe. The Crossfire logo on the top right of the page, for example, is not a link, but on the home page of the SFW site it links to crossfire gear's site.
Cheers
Carl
Last summer I saw a Canon banner at a fishing tournament on TV (might have been Bass Pro tour, don't remember.) So, no contrived outrage over Canon? If it doesn't have fur on it, you don't care about it? Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
We are a multi-cultural country. Embrace the diversity.
Kent in SD
Hey folks,
Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony in a statement like this?
... 'you people' and 'you need' are such wonderful phrases.
Cheers
Carl
Kent in SD
Telling other folks what they need to do is hardly embracing diversity, eh?
Cheers
Carl
Kent, I'm not against hunting at all but they are supporting the killing of Gray Wolves which ARE an endangered species. The range of Gray Wolves was once spread throughout much of what is the current continental United States but now it is limited 6 of those states due to over hunting. I don't think hunting is the issue here, I am not against hunting with limits, I think the issue is mass slaughtering and most of all the killing of the wolves which are an endangered species. There are approximately 5000 wolves left in the continental United States in which they were once widespread, that is not a lot when you compare it to the many millions of coyotes. Again the issue I see here is not the sponsorship of a hunting event it is the event itself and the fact that they are condoning the killing of an endangered species and you get extra points for it.
Hunting (with care, limits, and protections) is fine in my book for those who like to do so (although I have never had any desire to hunt) but unnecessary cruelty to animals is very appalling to me as well.
So, I say, lets be as humane as possible when dealing with the animals and always try to find BALANCE in issues like this one.
Mark
Chris
But I have to agree with the backlash against this event. It is NOT slated as a conservation measure, but rather as a contest to see who can destroy the most wildlife. IMO, the destruction of wildlife - even for conservation purposes - is not something to be celebrated. It is certainly not something to conduct a "derby" over.
Perhaps it is a "cultural thing" as Kent pointed out, but I have to believe that the earliest human inhabitants of North America took the killing of wildlife far more seriously, did so only as needed and with the utmost reverence for the life they had ended. That is sadly what seems to be missing here.
I would compare it to how most nature photographers are respectful of their subjects. They are annoyed by photographers who bait, call, harass or otherwise lure wildlife into the open for a better shot. We refer to them as unethical. Likewise, conscientious hunters feel the same way about 'yahoo/redneck' hunters who shoot anything that moves. It gives all hunters a bad name and makes it tough, for example, when you have to ask permission to hunt on private land.
For me, deer hunting was my introduction to nature. Quiet time in the woods opened my eyes to a world of beauty and mystery that has since expanded to birding and photography. During the years when I was actively hunting, a contest such as this would have had no appeal whatsoever. It has nothing to do with enjoying the outdoors and respecting your quarry. So who would it attract? The kind that give other hunters a bad name.
So to have an event specifically designed for people like that is unconscionable. It's every negative thing a person could say about hunting rolled into a sanctioned party. Would Ducks Unlimited hold a contest to shoot as many ducks as possible and then just leave the carcasses in the field? No way!
I think there is a night and day difference between managed culling and an event where they have to specifically tell the contestants that animals don't count if they were obtained by hitting them with a vehicle, being poisoned, or being trapped.
Pissed and now motivated!
Shane
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=56537&CGISESSID=a19ec6ea653719bd0755a6c0f37ca10f&u=15980
Sandy r
Just to be clear - the sponsorship from Nikon was a hoax; they had nothing to do with it - the derby itself was not.
Cheers
Carl