Ethical Consumer magazine has published a report on the links between optics companies (binoculars, telescopes, cameras) and hunting. It’s an eye-opener.
Now I had occasionally thought about the fact that the people who make birdwatchers’ binoculars might well be selling the same or similar to hunters – and to be honest it has never worried me that much.
This report has made me think more about the subject and so I welcome it.
If you are entirely against field sports, which I am not, although I get treated as though I am, then if you have the choice to buy optics from a company which actively supports and promotes those sports and one which doesn’t then you might choose to spend your money (and it is quite a lot of money) with those companies who shun hunting.
And you do have that choice according to the information in this report.
The bad news, for the anti-hunting birder, is that if you have a pair of Swarovskis, Leica or Zeiss binoculars around your neck then you have supported a company that appears quite pro-hunting. You need to sell them off quick and buy a pair of…well you’d better read the report for yourself but the RSPB Viking brand is not a bad place to start although is not the only option.
My guess is that this report won’t influence many birders much – but a few will change their habits. And maybe at the next Bird Fair we’ll see a slight change in enthusiasm for the pro-hunting brands. Maybe…we’ll see.
[registration_form]
I had supposed most birders already knew that. I own Swarovski and Opticron gear.
It won’t make me kill animals and bIrds. These companies sell to many markets. Owning a camera won’t make me a pervert either. It’s not the product, it’s what you use it for. Unfortunately we are not the only group of buyers. If these companies only sold to us, they would go bust. As always Mark, you get some great blogs out. Keep it up.
Many fellow birders would probably be surprised to hear that for the big four binocular manufacturers (Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon) the hunting market is much more significant than the birding market worldwide. This is a theme that I explored in my book ‘Binoculars and People’, which was the first social history of binoculars (Biosphere Publications, 2008). Many innovations in binocular design in the post WWII years, which birders have benefited from, have actually been driven by hunting needs, not birding ones. And perhaps most surprisingly of all, I interviewed the former Head of Sport Optics for one of the top three European manufacturers who was happy to tell me that with without the hugely successful rangefinder model they launched for hunting use, the company would have had to stop producing ALL binoculars for economic reasons! So as birders and naturalists we must accept that one of the reasons we have such outstanding optics to choose from today is because of the ‘importance’ of the hunting industry over many decades. That will certainly be an inconvenient truth for many people, but it is a historical fact. My book has now sold out in print form, but I still have eBook versions available.
I’m in the market for new bins this year and had intended shopping around at Birdfair. But after reading the article it looks like I’ll be buying another pair of Opticrons. So yes it’s influenced me.
Interesting – symptomatic of how the economic value of nature conservation, and of people interested in nature, is routinely ignored by government and business. Whereas hunting is taken seriously as a sport, and industry, and a market.
To be honest I don’t think it’s a case of Swarovski, Leica or Zeiss not recognising or ignoring the value of the nature conservation market. If they could sell twice as many telescopes or pairs of binoculars to bird watchers I am sure they would be happy to do so (and, indeed, they try pretty hard to do so). There is another lucrative market selling gun-sights (and bins and ‘scopes) to hunters and they are just as keen to take their shares of that.
Its not quite as simple as that.
Binoculars will be largely used for stalking – which on the continent means woodland stalking. In a recent review of European woodland conservation edited by Kirby and Watkins it says that there is an increasing shortage of hunters (stalkers) in Europe and that deer and boar numbers are increasing with the potential to damage woodland ecology. That is certainly the case in the UK where woodland deer are, after lack of management, the second biggest threat to both butterflies and birds. We’ve put this environment out of balance by eliminating the large predators and shooting as a conservation management activity is increasingly vital. Its confusion with ‘sport’ is obviously problematical.
I was thinking exactly the same and was going to comment but you have very eloquently beaten me to it.
It isn’t the fact that some of these manufacturers sell optics to hunters (Waitrose probably sells vegetables to hunters but I’m not boycotting Waitrose) – it is the fact that they actively sponsor (i.e. give money to) hunting organisations. In particular, Swarovski sponsors a YOUNG hunters challenge which really upsets me:
http://international-yhec.nra.org/yhec-sponsors.aspx
I have a pair of Swarovski’s and a telescope of theirs. I won’t be getting rid of them (it is a bit late for that – they have my money already). But I won’t be buying any more of their products.
I just downloaded a sample copy of Virtue Signalling (EC139, 2012) which carries an advert containing the words “the cooperative and “trust”. Hilarious.
I own a fine pair of Leica binoculars but Leica didn’t get a penny from me. I bought them (with hardly a scratch on them) 2nd hand for less than half the price of new. There are enough top end 2nd hand binoculars (and telescopes) in mint/near mint condition in circulation to supply anyone who wishes to avoid any connection with hunting for the foreseeable future. So, unless you want to keep up with the Joneses (who are probably off shooting canned Lions anyway), that option is there.
I agree with others that birders and naturalists can threaten to boycott these brands, if they want to try and exert pressure on the optical companies to end their ‘sponsorship’ of the hunting fraternity. But the problem with this is that without the millions of hunters, stalkers etc. out there buying binoculars on both sides of the Atlantic, these same companies may not in fact be in the business of producing the top notch models that non-hunters lust after (as my example above suggested). It’s a conundrum, but equally it’s also a debate worth having if you care about how companies use your hard-earned cash.
I’m also looking to upgrade my ancient and cheap binoculars. However, as I don’t lust after top end kit, I shall be happy to look at Ethical Consumer and hopefully support a company which does not sponsor any hunting groups.
Thanks for the topic, Mark – and everyone else for useful info.
I agree with your point Brin but I would argue that for, a significant period at least, little further production is actually needed. Top end manufacturers have a business model (in a way similar to car manufacturers) based on producing new models practically every year, new models that have fractional improvements over the previous ones at best. I don’t think there have been much in the way of significant improvements in functionality in at least a decade, and I’m not sure that there can be, at least in terms of traditional designs; would anyone really be able to tell the difference if Zeiss managed to increase their light transmission from 95% to 96%? So 2nd hand really is an option even when looking for top quality, and increased quality from other brands means that buying new from the top end of the market is increasingly little more than paying a premium for a particular name alone.
I think my binoculars may have been made by someone pro-hunting, it is a little hard to make out in the translation from Russian though. I don’t worry too much, the case says lovingly reminds me it was made in CCCP. I suspect they might no longer be in business. My back up pair were made by that fine firm of “Look it’s under fifteen quid missus, wot more do you want” (actually, something called Sakkura). I’m sure it also has gone out of business, and come back into business under a different name, and out of business, and back in under…. etc. But they were under fifteen quid, so what more do I want?
I’m not sure what that say about me, other than I like to buy cheap.
Have people never wondered why they are called “spotting Scopes”? It wasn’t coined because of bird-spotting, you know.
Many things which are used for “friendly” purposes have quite sinister origins but it shouldn’t stop you from using them In the same way that steps for getting onto your high horse had their origins in battle it hasn’t prevented people from using them for purer purposes, it would seem.
There is fair argument Alf that the post-war birding boom would never have happened without all the army surplus binoculars that became available after 1945. Still there is no need for me to support hunting, even indirectly, with my purchases so I don’t.
Plug for RSPB optics. I wanted a small pair to carry in a pocket at all times while out working, so looked at a RSPB 8×20 HD. The demonstrator suggested it looked as good as one of the leicable makes so we did a blind test handing each other the bins, no names no bias. I have the RSPB ones.
Flying is a major contributor to climate change
Israel has a poor human rights record with respect to the Palestinian Issue
Neither has stopped birders visiting there or taking unnecessary flights for short holidays in the topics
Both are more important in my opinion that attempting to make people feel guilty about their optics.
Over the last 25 years I’ve worked for, with or been associated with three brands – Leica, Minox and latterly Swarovski. All produce products which cross the markets. And yes indeed, this is a complex area. Relatively few companies actually make their own products, and those brands sourcing their products from the far east optic factories are sourcing from companies supplying all the other markets too, including the hunting market. Many OEM products are badged up for several different brands across different markets, so the same model of binocular could be branded as a birding product here in the UK and branded as a hunting product in the US. The OEM brands in the UK/Europe birding market are however unlikely to be selling or promoting themselves within the hunting market as most of the own-brand manufacturers do, but a couple do cross markets.
But then, as has already been pointed out, the hunting market is much larger than the birding market for many manufacturers. So without them would we have the products we have in our market? Could they exist from birding/wildlife markets alone? Some definitely couldn’t. And birders have had a huge input into optics in recent decades – I personally sat on Leica’s optics innovation team for 20 years, and Swarovski, Zeiss and others have consulted within our market.
We all turn a blind eye to things we don’t like or don’t want to admit to – carbon footprint, visiting countries with political issues (e.g poor human rights, poor animal rights), eating meat on a wildlife safari sourced from the neighbouring hunting lodge, using a product which is sold in to the hunting market. We all make these choices everyday. By doing any of these are you condoning the issue with which you object? Do your wider actions in bird/wildlife conservation make up for them? Surely it all comes down to personal choice and conscience.
Steve – thanks. Very well put. But you make the critical point, I feel, at the end – what is the balance, good and bad, of our actions overall?
The more we know, the more we can make good choices – or brush them under the carpet of our conscience.
Many thanks again for your comment.
Yes, I’m an unethical consumer. In my innocence I bought a pair of Swarovski binoculars last year. I wanted to go bird watching in my retirement. I now realise my mistake in condemning thousands of animals to their slaughter by crazed American hunters who probably support Donald Trump for President. For this, I apologise.
Bruce – thank you for your comment and welcome!
Yes, it’s tricky isn’t it? Enjoy your birding.