Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!  (Read 11396 times)

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« on: November 22, 2009, 10:59:08 AM »

Please tell me that this is some kind of mistake!

http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/

http://news.deviantart.com/article/100543/

- Bobcats are worth 2 points
- Foxes are worth 2 points
- Coyotes are worth 2 points
- Wolves are worth 3 points
- Ties are resolved by weight.

A "shooting spree" of apex predators for "points" in some kind of game -- and Nikon is sponsoring this?   WTF?!

Vomit!!!!!!!

Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2896
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2009, 11:31:59 AM »

For those who are unaware: Nikon makes fine hunting scopes.

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2009, 11:46:29 AM »

Quote from: feppe
For those who are unaware: Nikon makes fine hunting scopes.

This is not about hunting, this is about slaughtering predators for fun and "points" while throwing away the carcasses.

People can argue about the ethics of hunting -- and there are a lot of points of merit on both sides -- but I find it difficult to believe that any lover of nature could agree with or sanction this event which is about slaughtering predators for fun and to win a contest.
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2896
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2009, 01:32:50 PM »

Quote from: MatthewCromer
This is not about hunting, this is about slaughtering predators for fun and "points" while throwing away the carcasses.

People can argue about the ethics of hunting -- and there are a lot of points of merit on both sides -- but I find it difficult to believe that any lover of nature could agree with or sanction this event which is about slaughtering predators for fun and to win a contest.

You're implying I somehow condone activity described in your links. I don't. You're free to express your indignation, but don't use me as a conduit for it.

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2009, 02:05:41 PM »

Quote from: feppe
You're implying I somehow condone activity described in your links. I don't. You're free to express your indignation, but don't use me as a conduit for it.

I think your understanding of English needs some work.  I implied no such thing.  I merely responded that this is not about hunting.


Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2896
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2009, 02:08:09 PM »

Quote from: MatthewCromer
I think your understanding of English needs some work.  I implied no such thing.  I merely responded that this is not about hunting.

No, sir, it is your reading comprehension.

I'm done with this. And IBTL.

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2009, 04:59:06 PM »

Feppe,

I did not imply that you condoned either this activity or hunting.

My initial reply was only to note that this was NOT about hunting but rather about the mass slaughter of predators for "fun" and to gather points for a contest.  I know many hunters who also find this "contest" sick and twisted.

I have to imagine that when Nikon hears from its wildlife-loving customers tomorrow they will pull their sponsorship of this event.

Logged

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2009, 12:06:26 AM »

Thom Hogan has mentioned to me in a private email that he believes that Nikon is not actually sponsoring this event, because the web site linked by the Nikon logo on the predator shoot website is not actually owned by Nikon.

Hopefully we will get some clarification from NikonUSA soon and if in fact Nikon is not sponsoring this event their logo will be removed from the predator slaughter website.   I will update this thread when I find out more.
Logged

Paul Sumi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1217
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2009, 01:38:06 AM »

Quote from: MatthewCromer
Thom Hogan has mentioned to me in a private email that he believes that Nikon is not actually sponsoring this event, because the web site linked by the Nikon logo on the predator shoot website is not actually owned by Nikon.

FWIW, I went to the event website and clicked on the Nikon logo.  It is linked to a currently non-existent site called www.nikonoutdoors.com.

Paul
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 01:38:30 AM by PaulS »
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1992
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2009, 02:43:54 AM »

Quote from: MatthewCromer
Please tell me that this is some kind of mistake!

http://iamidaho.deviantart.com/

http://news.deviantart.com/article/100543/

- Bobcats are worth 2 points
- Foxes are worth 2 points
- Coyotes are worth 2 points
- Wolves are worth 3 points
- Ties are resolved by weight.

A "shooting spree" of apex predators for "points" in some kind of game -- and Nikon is sponsoring this?   WTF?!

Vomit!!!!!!!

UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS, HORRENDOUS AND DISGUSTING IN THE ABSOLUTE.

I felt ill just reading it.

I shake my head in shame that elements of humanity can be so cruel.


Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2009, 09:45:36 AM »

2 points:

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.

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2009, 10:02:23 AM »

Quote from: Josh-H
UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS, HORRENDOUS AND DISGUSTING IN THE ABSOLUTE.

I felt ill just reading it.

I shake my head in shame that elements of humanity can be so cruel.

Being killed with a rifle is less cruel and disgusting than having your guts or other body parts chewed and eaten while you're still alive to appreciate the experience, or being slowly strangled by being bitten in the neck hard enough to cut off your air supply. Most predators are oblivious to the concept of a clean, quick kill, and the experience of their prey becoming dinner is often horrendous, drawn-out torture. Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? From the mouse's view, it's sick and twisted sadism--the intentional infliction of pain and suffering deliberately drawn out for extended periods of time for the sole purpose of entertaining the cat. Wolves aren't quite as sadistic as cats, but I'd much rather be shot by one of the hunters you find disgusting and abhorrent than eaten by wolves if I was forced to choose one or the other.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13205
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2009, 02:50:43 PM »

I am quite sure that nature can no longer balance itself, perhaps because of the input from humans over many years, and I can accept that some form of intervention is needed to keep stocks at some kind of sustainable balance that is compatible with our own survival.

Where I feel this all goes badly wrong is when fun, sport and money are invoked. In my opinion, killing for those reasons is not acceptable, reasoned adult behaviour; it is blood-lust. If control is needed, then that's why there are professional gamekeepers, rangers who have the skills to do the job cleanly and without turning it into a carnival.

That anyone can take life and derive pleasure from so doing says a lot more about the individual than he/she might think.

Rob C

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1992
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2009, 05:15:29 PM »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Being killed with a rifle is less cruel and disgusting than having your guts or other body parts chewed and eaten while you're still alive to appreciate the experience, or being slowly strangled by being bitten in the neck hard enough to cut off your air supply. Most predators are oblivious to the concept of a clean, quick kill, and the experience of their prey becoming dinner is often horrendous, drawn-out torture. Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? From the mouse's view, it's sick and twisted sadism--the intentional infliction of pain and suffering deliberately drawn out for extended periods of time for the sole purpose of entertaining the cat. Wolves aren't quite as sadistic as cats, but I'd much rather be shot by one of the hunters you find disgusting and abhorrent than eaten by wolves if I was forced to choose one or the other.

Its just this kind of twisted logic that 'shooters' use to justify their actions.

Nature is cruel; we all know that. But that is NOT the point. Many of these animals that will be shot may have lived many more years and contributed to their environment. The point is that they are being shot for nothing more than the pleasure of it - and that is sick.

Nature has something called 'survival of the fitest' - which basically ensures the strongest of the species survive to perpetuate the species. So a certain amount of animals must die to predators to keep the species healthy. But this is a natural process - it is not about blowing animals apart with high powered rifles for the thrill of it.

Shooting animals for sport and pleasure is just SICK. And no amount of justification makes it acceptable or excusable.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 08:09:29 PM by Josh-H »
Logged

ternst

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2009, 06:37:59 PM »

How about killing an animal so that you can hold your pants up (leather belt), or killing an animal just so that you can bite into a big, juicy steak instead of corn on the cob - is there a difference? Animals are killed every day so that all of us can live better lives - fact of life that a lot of folks seem to ignore (millions of products we use everyday use animal parts, not just what we eat or wear). That hamburger didn't come out of a plant. We don't actually REQUIRE meat every day in order to survive, nor do we REQUIRE leather shoes or belts, but we like them - makes us feel good. Visit your local slaughter house sometime. It's kind of the same thing...
Logged

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1670
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2009, 11:12:45 AM »

Quote from: MatthewCromer
I did not imply that you condoned either this activity or hunting.
Actually you did, but quoting his message and making your reply seem a direct response to his statement. That may not have been your intent, but that's how I read it (and I'm guessing many others would, as well).

On the issue of the event described in the link, it certainly strikes me as distasteful and unpleasant, but I won't pretend to have a full grasp of the issues at play and whether or not this sort of culling is truly necessary in some areas to maintain a balance in predator populations.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 11:13:58 AM by JeffKohn »
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2009, 11:22:49 AM »

Gotta kill something..
Logged

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2009, 08:58:29 PM »

Thank you everyone who wrote and called Nikon.  They have pulled their sponsorship of this event.
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1992
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2009, 02:19:47 AM »

Quote from: MatthewCromer
Thank you everyone who wrote and called Nikon.  They have pulled their sponsorship of this event.

Thats a good start.

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Nikon sponsors predator slaughter?!
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2009, 11:17:06 AM »

Quote from: Josh-H
The point is that they are being shot for nothing more than the pleasure of it - and that is sick.

How do you know this? Have you examined the population data for the various species of animals involved and proved that no hunting is necessary to maintain optimal balance between predators and prey? Do you even have a clue what the optimal ratio between predator and prey populations would be, or what the optimal population levels should be, given the local availability of food, water, etc.?

People like you getting involved in wildlife management on the basis of an emotional response are responsible for more environmental problems and animal cruelty than hunters. Let me cite an example. A few decades ago, cougar hunting was outlawed in California because the treehuggers and animal rights people like you thought it was inhumane and disgusting. As a result, the cougar population mushroomed, and the deer population in California was pretty much wiped out. So the cougars weren't able to hunt in their normal wilderness areas any more due to lack of food, and they began moving int urban areas and snacking on stray dogs and cats, small children, and the occasional jogger/hiker--things they wouldn't usually hunt but were forced to due to the circumstances. When I left California in 2005, there had been a string of attacks on humans, and the wildlife management people were concerned about some endangered species being wiped out by the cougars. I don't know how the debate ever turned out; being California, it wouldn't surprise me if the stupidity is still continuing. But if the cougar population had been managed properly via controlled hunting from the beginning, the deer population wouldn't have been nearly wiped out, and several people wouldn't have become cougar attack victims.

Another example: when I was growing up, I lived in northwestern Wisconsin for a few years. During that time, there was a large spike in the starling population. Huge flocks of tens of thousands of starlings were common to see. If one of them passed through your area and stopped to feed, your driveway (and anything parked outside) could go from blacktop to whitewash overnight. It even affected the population of other bird species, like robins, cardinals, blue jays, etc. After a few months of this, the consensus of the community was that the population needed some serious thinning out--it was more or less a civic duty. So I spent most of my allowance on .22 ammunition, and spent much of my free time wandering the woods near my house shooting starlings with a rifle my dad gave me for Christmas. I don't know how many I killed, but I would guess somewhere in the hundreds. That may sound indiscriminate to you, but I can assure you it was a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands that flew by every day. After a year or two, the starling population went back to normal, (as did the other birds) and I moved on to other activities--thinning the starlings out was no longer necessary.

I haven't hunted in years, mostly because I haven't had the free time. But I have no problem with hunting, even if done primarily for sport, as long as it is controlled to keep populations in optimal balance. Believe it or not, most hunters are conservationists--you can't hunt indefinitely if you go overboard and wipe out the animals you hunt. Hunters have done more work to protect and rebuild habitat for game animals than PETA and and the animal-rights activist crowd.

To reiterate my original point: I'm not going to rush to judgment on the "predator derby" hunt. If there is an overpopulation of predators in the area and they need thinning out, then it's a good thing for the long-term survival of both predator and prey populations. If the participants have fun while doing what needs to be done, I don't care. OTOH, if there isn't an overpopulation of predators, then it's a bad idea. Either way, the squeamishness or revulsion one might have to seeing animals shot with a rifle is irrelevant, and is more likely to cause long-term damage to the ecosystem (by preventing needed culling from taking place) than benefit.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 11:18:27 AM by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up