Camera Companies Making Rifle Scopes Isn't Hypocritical

According to a piece from the Independent that's getting passed around in photography circles, some wildlife photographers are up in arms about the fact that Nikon has a division that produces rifle scopes, among other "sport optic" gear. Selling gear to help people shoot animals (with bullets) is inherently contradictory to the mission of taking photos of them. That's a misguided assumption.

First, the easy stuff: Nikon does make some of the best wildlife photo gear, but it's not the only camera manufacturer to also make scopes, as Zeiss and Leica do too. I also disagree wholeheartedly with some of Nikon's marketing materials, especially with regards to African trophy hunting, which the Independent gathered:

Nikon's marketing literature boasts that the scope is perfect "for those seeking their dangerous game adventure on the dark continent" and is "the proven choice for dangerous big game hunting", adding: "Africa has long been a continent of dreams for hunters around the world."

The rather offensive "dark continent" bit aside, African trophy hunting–which is largely conducted by Americans–has long been poorly managed, and quotas for big game are often poorly regulated and based on sloppy science. Lions are being hunted at higher than sustainable rates, and rhino hunting is still legal in South Africa, which is absolutely asinine during the current poaching crisis.

The US is still debating protecting the African lion under the Endangered Species Act, which would make bringing killed lions home, and pretty much gut the lion trophy hunting industry. That would certainly be beneficial in the short term for lion populations, but as Alexander Songorwa, director of wildlife for the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, wrote in the New York Times, that means the loss of millions of dollars a year that's directed towards conservation efforts in Tanzania.

Now, while Songorwa certainly has a vested interest in continuing to make money off of lion hunting, even Dr. Luke Hunter, the executive vice president of big cat conservation group Panthera, has noted that banning lion hunting could end up removing conservation protections from the cats. I agree with Hunter that lion hunting is distasteful, but as a study he linked to notes, the worst aspects of hunting–namely killing too many individuals, and killing off too many young and healthy males–can be mitigated with stricter controls and a more science-based approach.

In fact, it's something we've seen in the US, which the Independent notes is Nikon's largest market for scope sales. There are certainly examples of poor hunting management–the legalization of wolf hunting is a terrible idea–but as a whole, US hunters consider conserving wild lands and species an important endeavor, regardless of political affiliation, as a recent National Wildlife Foundation poll found.

And they put their money where their mouths are. The list of hunting-oriented conservation groups is pretty long, and when Ducks Unlimited rehabilitates wetlands, including on the oil spill-ravaged Gulf Coast, when Pheasants Forever works to preserve prairies, or or  fights for protection for streams and rivers, the positive effects spill over to all the other species living in that habitat.

That's not to say that hunters, or the groups they support, are perfect conservationists, or that putting a monetary value on species, such as is the case with hunting, is the most ethical way for conservation to work. Personally, I'm not an avid hunter, nor do I have any desire to proselytize for the industry.

But there remains a persistent misconception that hunting as a whole is antithetical to protecting species, which isn't true. I'm willing to bet that a number of wildlife photos in the US are taken on lands that received protection partly or fully due to the funds and lobbying of hunting groups and license revenue. I know for a fact that I've experienced that situation a few times myself.

Of course, plenty of prominent wildlife photographers also do direct conservation work, and killer wildlife photos go a long way towards inspiring the public to protect wild lands. The point is that the two sides don't have to be odds, as there are responsible, enviro-minded individuals in both camps doing serious conservation work. People can hold whatever views they want, but wildlife photographers and responsible hunters accepting that they're working towards the same ends–preserving wild lands and species–is more powerful than yelling on the internet.

Ideally, we could protect far more wild lands than we currently do, and just leave them alone for wild species to do their thing, But aside from roping off species into isolated parks, which isn't a great idea, it's simply not feasible to remove humans from the equation. The key, whether its quail hunting or shark fishing, is to make sure that sport and trade regulations are in place to make sure that quotas are proven to be sustainable with good science.

In some cases, like that of endangered and/or highly-demanded species like polar bears and rhinos, the only sustainable and legally-feasible course of action is to ban hunting altogether. But, no matter what your own personal feelings are, it's misguided to think that hunting can't be used as an effective tool of conservation. Squabbling over optics companies only serves to prevent either side from working towards a mutually beneficial, sustainable solution.

@derektmead