1. The Nikon logo links to a non-existent web site, so it's highly doubtful that Nikon is sponsoring or involved in this event in any way. Going after Nikon half-cocked about this is just going to make you look stupid, and deservedly so.
2. The so-called "friends of the animals" who get their panties in a knot about this sort of thing actually cause more pain and suffering to the animals they are trying to protect than the hunter they abhor. When a predator gets absolute protection from hunting, two things happen: the predator population increases until they run out of prey, the species the predator preys on (some of whom are endangered in their own right) run the risk of getting wiped out by over-predation. Instead of a nearly-instantaneous humane death from a rifle bullet, many of the predators slowly starve to death over weeks or months. The reason wolves were taken off the endangered species list is because their numbers had increased to the point that they were wiping out the deer and elk populations in some areas. Keeping predator and prey populations in balance requires a continuously adaptive approach, increasing protections when a population drops too low, and decreasing them when a population becomes too large. It is just as destructive to an ecosystem to allow a predator to multiply until it consumes the entire prey population as it is to eradicate the predator and allow the prey population to increase until it consumes its food resources.
I'm not convinced that this "predator derby" is based on sound wildlife management principles; in most states, the wildlife management agency tracks the populations of various species of game animals, calculates what the optimum populations and predator-prey ratios should be to prevent any species from overpopulating, and issues a controlled number of hunting permits based on the difference between current population and optimum population. There is no reason any predator should be completely exempted from controlled hunting when there are sound reasons for keeping the population at a controlled level, but that doesn't mean that indiscriminate eradication is a good idea, either. The best course, both for the long-term health of the environment and the survival of all species of predator and prey, is a middle ground.