Posted by Austin Booth on November 24, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Considering that many of Nikon's customers are conservation oriented nature photographers this event sponsorship by Nikon has really comes as a surprise to me and I can't believe they really did this. Nikon is sponsoring a predator derby in Idaho where the goal is to shoot as many predatory mammals as you can in a 24 hour period including bobcats, foxes, coyotes and what really gets to me the most is you get more points for wolves which are an endangered species (isn't that illegal?).
Its not the fact that they sponsored a hunting event that really bothers me, as I understand they make optics that hunters will use as well and that is just part of their business. Its the fact that this event is turning the hunting into a game where they kill as many as they can for no reason at all. I don't want to turn this into a pro-hunting or anti-hunting thread as there is a difference between hunting for food and hunting for sport. Whether or not hunting in general is wrong is besides the point of this post. What really matters is that Nikon is one of the sponsors of an event in which the goal is to shoot as many predatory mammals as possible including one which is an endangered species. My dad is a hunter but he was also a wildlife biologist and is conservation minded and I'm sure he would agree even though he is a hunter that this event is morally wrong as well as hurtful to the ecosystem.
I would urge any of you who also are appalled by Nikon's participation in this event to write to Nikon's event sponsorship committee at:
Sponsorship Committee
1300 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, NY 11747-3064
Unfortunately Nikon makes it difficult for you to just email them about matters such as these but I think a real actual letter says a lot more to them about what their nature photographer customers or potential customers think.
Posted by Austin Booth on November 24, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Sorry guys I didn't realize Guy had already posted this in the Hot Topics forum, you can delete this if you want.
Posted by Kent Staubus on November 24, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I really, really dislike this kind of stuff put on my hobby forums. I dont' shoot coyotes myself, but I don't care what they do in Idaho. I use a Nikon hunting scope and think it's entirely appropriate for them to sponser any legal event they want to. Do keep in mind there are other cultures of people out here that are different from you. Get used to it. Embrace the diversity.
Kent in SD
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 24, 2009 at 10:59 PM
“my hobby forums”??
Posted by Austin Booth on November 25, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Kent,
I'm not really against hunting itself and I wasn't trying to attack the hunter community (my dad is a responsible hunter who abides by the laws). I can see the legitimacy of hunting for population control and for food. I respect hunting organizations like the "Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation" and "Ducks Unlimited" which also have goals of conservation and trust that those respectable organizations would support a ban on the hunting of an at risk or endangered species. If it was just coyotes which are very abundant I wouldn't have posted this although this contest is different than most hunting competitions where you are just trying to bag the biggest buck. Its not the fact that Nikon sponsored a hunting event that I feel is the issue as I realize they make rifle scopes as well and thats just business, I think it is the particular hunting event they chose to support, and the coyotes are also not my biggest concern about this event as they are very abundant.
I think the thing that I really dislike about it is that they are sponsoring the killing of Gray Wolves which is an endangered species in North America. Gray Wolves used to be common throughout most of North America but due to over hunting their population and range in the continental United States has shrunk to approximately 5000 individual wolves in areas of Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming. I just don't feel that it should be legal to hunt them until they start to reclaim part of their former range if it isn't too late. The hunting of endangered species can have an effect on the ecosystem because the extinction or depopulation of a species can cause an unbalance especially if it is a predator which helps with population control of other species as well. I feel that it is a relevant topic in a nature photography forum because a healthy ecosystem and nature photography go hand and hand, without a healthy ecosystem there would be no nature to photograph.
"...Do keep in mind there are other cultures of people out here that are different from you..."
in Idaho?
just because Nikon produces hunting scopes, doesn't mean they have to sponsor bs-events like this one. shooting animals for the heck of it, no matter which - pradator or not - and make it plausible with cheap excuses - like they would otherwise eat your children (yeah, right...)...
I mean, have some respect of the natural world.
and yes, there are other cultures out there doing all kinds of stuff you would NOT BE VERY PLEASED if they do it next to your door... (not to mention if they would be sponsored by, say, Mc Donalds or sg alike...
georg
Posted by John Reed on November 25, 2009 at 8:13 AM
I have really strong feelings on this and it's killing me to hold them in, but let's just give the guy a break and move on. He SAID he did not want this to turn into an argument over the virtues of hunting.
Posted by Ian Cox-Leigh on November 25, 2009 at 9:15 AM
UPDATE: From http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/journal/28470288/
"You CAN make a difference
If you go to the Website of SFW you will notice the Nikon Logo is DOWN: http://www.sfwidaho.org/SFW/Idaho_Predator_Derby.html
I have also had official communication from Public Relations of Nikon confirming this.
I applaud Nikon for requesting that the logo be pulled and sponsorship withdrawn. By doing so Nikon, including the camera division as well as the optical Hunting division of the company is supporting ethical, conversationally minded hunting and outdoor lifestyle practices.
They deserve our thanks and encouragement for this action."
Posted by Ian Cox-Leigh on November 25, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I am somewhat disturbed that Nikon chose to sponsor this event. However, I it is a legal event. It is not just allowed but encouraged by the Idaho state wildlife services. The issue here, for me, is more about the positions of the Idaho government and its agencies (and those in Wyoming, among other states) than Nikon.
"which are an endangered species (isn't that illegal?)"
Not any more. The populations in Idaho and Wyoming were delisted. The states involved are encouraging the cull.
(NB: I don't share all the biases of that author either. But, it was a succinct post to which to link).
--
Lastly, I watched a very interesting documentary last winter on the issues around wolves in this region. It was filmed by an environmentalist who set out to try and understand the outrage against wolves. I still believe in the wolf re-introduction and do not support culling; however, I was quite moved by an interview with a small (less than 3-400 head) ranching family who lived just south of Jackson WY. They had lost dozens of their heard to the wolves in the winters. More movingly, they had lost 2 family dogs (that lived in the home) and 3 working dogs (that stayed with the heard) to the wolves. The family dogs had been killed when they had been let out to pee in the mornings – their carcasses found with 100m of the home. I can sympathize with their heartbreak, their frustration, and their outrage that an outside force had reintroduced this threat into their region and then prohibited them from doing anything about it (i.e. shoot the interloping wolves). Their argument was that we, as a society, have so destroyed the natural ecosystem here that it does not make sense to reintroduced the wolves because there is no longer a place for them.
I am not sure I agree. However, I ended up with a lot more sympathy for the other side. I still find the photographs and the ethics of the "predator derby" disturbing.
I don't care if it would cost a LOT more, I would prefer if wildlife officials performed any culling they deemed necessary (whether I agreed with those decisions or not). I do not think there is a place for bloodsport style derby events. The people performing any supposedly necessary cull should be those who would be heartbroken over having to perform the act.
Posted by Kent Staubus on November 25, 2009 at 10:18 AM
The coyote hunt thing seems rather pointless to me, but I think too many people have become hysterical about it. I doubt it had much of a dent in the population of any critters in Idaho, other than the likely rebound of troublesome rodents like jackrabbits. I just don't care what they do in Idaho. Nikon is free to sponser any legal event they want, and I'll continue to buy their products. If anything I'm now apt to buy more of them. I'll give you a direct comparision. About ten years ago I was in San Francisco for a business meeting. I had a free day and went downtown. There was some sort of gay pride parade going on. I saw some very disturbing and disgusting things on public display there. Very graphic perversion and I'm not at all talking hugging & kissing here. Try public masturbation etc. Nasty, nasty stuff. There was a flyer being handed out that had the logo of the rental car company I was using. I was very surprised they were involved in something like this. Did I immediately call them up and complain? No. Did I take the car back and demand a refund? No. Have I used that company's cars since then? Yes. Since no one was forcing me to stick around, I simply left and went to Chinatown.
My point is this. We live in a multicultural society. All sorts of things are going on that some of us won't like. I don't agree with nor care what they do in San Francisco. I don't agree with nor care what they do in Idaho. I don't care who sponsers their events. All I'm saying is we should show respect for others and their local culture, even when they are doing things we disagree with. It's called "tolerance". Too many posts here have people coming off as intolerant bigots. Embrace the diversity that makes up our country. I'm a bit tired of fanatics who scream "boycott" every time they see something they don't like. At some point it becomes childish. Beyond that I think it hurts society. I don't care how the car company rental spends its advertising budget. They aren't hurting me or my family. In the big scheme of things it just doesn't matter. I'll let the people who live in San Francisco and Idaho decide what goes on there. It's their home, not mine. They call the shots. (Pardon the pun.)
Kent in SD
Posted by Stan Rose on November 25, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I understand your point, Kent, but a big portion of it is simply wrong because you are confusing tolerance with apathy. The former is a good thing, not the latter. To use your analogy, if nothing illegal (and public masturbation is a criminal offense) or even 'disgusting' or 'nasty' was going on, then tolerate it. Tolerance doesn't demand inaction--you can still be as vocal as you'd like about your disatisfaction with a gay pride march, that is your right. But, you should have complained to the car company. Apathy allows things that are "hurting society" to grow. The things you fight against then spread to your hometown--we don't live on islands. I disagree with you.
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 25, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Hey Kent,
I think Stan pointed out the discrepancy between 'tolerance' and 'apathy'; the 2 are not the same ( though I disagree with his comment that “you should have complained to the car company” .. it's not his position to decide what you should or should not do any more than it's mine).
Violence is not something we do well to be apathetic about. Aggressive violence, such as a ‘predator derby’ is not something, IMO, to tolerate, but something to remove. It's rooted in disrespect, and I'd submit we all have not just a 'right' to stand against it, but a responsibility to do so.
Ian Cox-Leigh wrote
"which are an endangered species (isn't that illegal?)"
Not any more. The populations in Idaho and Wyoming were delisted. The states involved are encouraging the cull.
Not quite .. Idaho and Montana - wolves are still listed under the ESA in Wyoming, and Judge Molloy is currently considering the situation, it'll likely be overturned in ID and MT after the hunting season (MT's 2009 wolf hunt has already ended, I believe). Either way, to have a species not yet 6 months off the ESA targeted in something like this is simply absurd, aside from the ethical considerations of event itself.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Basil Greber on November 25, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Kent - I respect your point, and the way you make it. It's a well argued case. I agree that tolerance is a prerequisite for our world of diversity to function. However, tolerance has its limits - and obviously, the predator derby is within the limit of the things you're willing to accept, but beyond of what many readers are willing to tolerate. What I want to say is this: This is not an issue of black and white, of tolerance and intolerance. It's an issue of different shades of grey, and everybody's got their limit. So, you really can't label those who object to Nikon sponsoring this event intolerant - only less tolerant than you are.
That being said, I object to prizes being given to those killing the most animals. Yes, it may be necessary to keep populations in check. But this looks more like a shooting gallery with life targets...
Posted by Kent Staubus on November 25, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I suppose my main point is we should keep a sense of perspective about things. A few people out in Idaho shooting a few coyotes has no impact on much of anything. If wolves should continue to have some protection for awhile longer, I have no problem with that either. (Although I doubt very many wolves were shot as they're very smart wary creatures. Same for bobcats.) Part of the problem with today's society is we have all these websites that are designed to get people all riled up. This is how we got so polarized. I'm willing to tolerate people shooting some varmints out in Idaho and parades in San Francisco if it helps us all calm down just a bit. I do think it's OK to have opinions about these sorts of things and even vocalize them, of course. However, I also think it needs to be kept in perspective.
Discussion
13 repliesIts not the fact that they sponsored a hunting event that really bothers me, as I understand they make optics that hunters will use as well and that is just part of their business. Its the fact that this event is turning the hunting into a game where they kill as many as they can for no reason at all. I don't want to turn this into a pro-hunting or anti-hunting thread as there is a difference between hunting for food and hunting for sport. Whether or not hunting in general is wrong is besides the point of this post. What really matters is that Nikon is one of the sponsors of an event in which the goal is to shoot as many predatory mammals as possible including one which is an endangered species. My dad is a hunter but he was also a wildlife biologist and is conservation minded and I'm sure he would agree even though he is a hunter that this event is morally wrong as well as hurtful to the ecosystem.
For more information take a look at this article written by a local Idaho nature photographer. http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/journal/28470288/
I would urge any of you who also are appalled by Nikon's participation in this event to write to Nikon's event sponsorship committee at:
Sponsorship Committee
1300 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, NY 11747-3064
Unfortunately Nikon makes it difficult for you to just email them about matters such as these but I think a real actual letter says a lot more to them about what their nature photographer customers or potential customers think.
Kent in SD
I'm not really against hunting itself and I wasn't trying to attack the hunter community (my dad is a responsible hunter who abides by the laws). I can see the legitimacy of hunting for population control and for food. I respect hunting organizations like the "Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation" and "Ducks Unlimited" which also have goals of conservation and trust that those respectable organizations would support a ban on the hunting of an at risk or endangered species. If it was just coyotes which are very abundant I wouldn't have posted this although this contest is different than most hunting competitions where you are just trying to bag the biggest buck. Its not the fact that Nikon sponsored a hunting event that I feel is the issue as I realize they make rifle scopes as well and thats just business, I think it is the particular hunting event they chose to support, and the coyotes are also not my biggest concern about this event as they are very abundant.
I think the thing that I really dislike about it is that they are sponsoring the killing of Gray Wolves which is an endangered species in North America. Gray Wolves used to be common throughout most of North America but due to over hunting their population and range in the continental United States has shrunk to approximately 5000 individual wolves in areas of Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming. I just don't feel that it should be legal to hunt them until they start to reclaim part of their former range if it isn't too late. The hunting of endangered species can have an effect on the ecosystem because the extinction or depopulation of a species can cause an unbalance especially if it is a predator which helps with population control of other species as well. I feel that it is a relevant topic in a nature photography forum because a healthy ecosystem and nature photography go hand and hand, without a healthy ecosystem there would be no nature to photograph.
in Idaho?
just because Nikon produces hunting scopes, doesn't mean they have to sponsor bs-events like this one. shooting animals for the heck of it, no matter which - pradator or not - and make it plausible with cheap excuses - like they would otherwise eat your children (yeah, right...)...
I mean, have some respect of the natural world.
and yes, there are other cultures out there doing all kinds of stuff you would NOT BE VERY PLEASED if they do it next to your door... (not to mention if they would be sponsored by, say, Mc Donalds or sg alike...
georg
"You CAN make a difference
If you go to the Website of SFW you will notice the Nikon Logo is DOWN: http://www.sfwidaho.org/SFW/Idaho_Predator_Derby.html
I have also had official communication from Public Relations of Nikon confirming this.
I applaud Nikon for requesting that the logo be pulled and sponsorship withdrawn. By doing so Nikon, including the camera division as well as the optical Hunting division of the company is supporting ethical, conversationally minded hunting and outdoor lifestyle practices.
They deserve our thanks and encouragement for this action."
"which are an endangered species (isn't that illegal?)"
Not any more. The populations in Idaho and Wyoming were delisted. The states involved are encouraging the cull.
http://animalrights.about.com/b/2009/09/04/idaho-wolf-hunt-begins.htm
(NB: I don't share all the biases of that author either. But, it was a succinct post to which to link).
--
Lastly, I watched a very interesting documentary last winter on the issues around wolves in this region. It was filmed by an environmentalist who set out to try and understand the outrage against wolves. I still believe in the wolf re-introduction and do not support culling; however, I was quite moved by an interview with a small (less than 3-400 head) ranching family who lived just south of Jackson WY. They had lost dozens of their heard to the wolves in the winters. More movingly, they had lost 2 family dogs (that lived in the home) and 3 working dogs (that stayed with the heard) to the wolves. The family dogs had been killed when they had been let out to pee in the mornings – their carcasses found with 100m of the home. I can sympathize with their heartbreak, their frustration, and their outrage that an outside force had reintroduced this threat into their region and then prohibited them from doing anything about it (i.e. shoot the interloping wolves). Their argument was that we, as a society, have so destroyed the natural ecosystem here that it does not make sense to reintroduced the wolves because there is no longer a place for them.
I am not sure I agree. However, I ended up with a lot more sympathy for the other side. I still find the photographs and the ethics of the "predator derby" disturbing.
I don't care if it would cost a LOT more, I would prefer if wildlife officials performed any culling they deemed necessary (whether I agreed with those decisions or not). I do not think there is a place for bloodsport style derby events. The people performing any supposedly necessary cull should be those who would be heartbroken over having to perform the act.
My point is this. We live in a multicultural society. All sorts of things are going on that some of us won't like. I don't agree with nor care what they do in San Francisco. I don't agree with nor care what they do in Idaho. I don't care who sponsers their events. All I'm saying is we should show respect for others and their local culture, even when they are doing things we disagree with. It's called "tolerance". Too many posts here have people coming off as intolerant bigots. Embrace the diversity that makes up our country. I'm a bit tired of fanatics who scream "boycott" every time they see something they don't like. At some point it becomes childish. Beyond that I think it hurts society. I don't care how the car company rental spends its advertising budget. They aren't hurting me or my family. In the big scheme of things it just doesn't matter. I'll let the people who live in San Francisco and Idaho decide what goes on there. It's their home, not mine. They call the shots. (Pardon the pun.)
Kent in SD
I think Stan pointed out the discrepancy between 'tolerance' and 'apathy'; the 2 are not the same ( though I disagree with his comment that “you should have complained to the car company” .. it's not his position to decide what you should or should not do any more than it's mine).
Violence is not something we do well to be apathetic about. Aggressive violence, such as a ‘predator derby’ is not something, IMO, to tolerate, but something to remove. It's rooted in disrespect, and I'd submit we all have not just a 'right' to stand against it, but a responsibility to do so.
Ian Cox-Leigh wrote
Not quite .. Idaho and Montana - wolves are still listed under the ESA in Wyoming, and Judge Molloy is currently considering the situation, it'll likely be overturned in ID and MT after the hunting season (MT's 2009 wolf hunt has already ended, I believe). Either way, to have a species not yet 6 months off the ESA targeted in something like this is simply absurd, aside from the ethical considerations of event itself.
Cheers
Carl
That being said, I object to prizes being given to those killing the most animals. Yes, it may be necessary to keep populations in check. But this looks more like a shooting gallery with life targets...
Kent in SD