Which are the most ethical sports optics brands?

Sport optics’, such as binoculars, spotting scopes and monoculars, are used by many wildlife watchers. They are also essential pieces of equipment for conservationists, hunters and military personnel.

It is therefore no surprise that 90% of the optics companies covered in our latest report continue to have links to hunting and 69% have links to the military and the arms industry.

In addition most don’t appear to be proactively addressing their own environmental and climate impacts despite appealing to wildlife watchers and conservationists on both sides of the hunting debate.

Shifts away from sports hunting?

While its true that ties between the companies and the hunting community remain close its interesting that many seem to be feeling the pressure of increased public scrutiny since the publication of the last ‘Shooting Wildlife?’ report. 75% of the companies we researched  have removed some photos, website sections or text references to hunting from their marketing work, and the number of companies explicitly referencing ‘big-game’ or trophy hunting have fallen by 2% since the last report (from 43% (2016) to 40% (2018) to 38%).

For example, fewer pictures of trophy animals were found on Leupold’s website and Nikon had removed references to trophy hunting from much of its website and social media profiles, and ended its sponsorship of all but one of its corporate partners with links to sports hunting. Bresser no longer mentioned trophy hunting in the text on its website. (although the profiles of its pro-staff still featured pictures of recently killed trophies such as deer heads and turkey tail fans).

This could be an important shift, considering evidence that these kinds of hunting can pose a risk to animal populations.

Three companies (Carson, Fujinon and Nikon) have also quietly withdrawn from the riflescopes business, suggesting that the industry feels there is less public support for its involvement in sports hunting.

The question is whether these changes are a genuine move towards ‘wildlife-friendly’ optics brands, or if they are mostly a cosmetic marketing exercise. None of them had stopped marketing to hunters completely.

Hunting - the debates

If hunting is well regulated and managed under the guidance of ecologists, it can provide revenue for conservation projects while helping to manage animal populations in a ‘sustainable’ way.

However, the reality can be far from this. Poor or corrupt management can have disastrous affects on ecosystems, and can in some cases lead to population decline and extinction. For example a review of 176 studies found that bird and mammal populations across the tropics had declined by 58% and 83% respectively as a result of hunting.

Even a quota system (where the number of animals killed is restricted) can have unforeseen impacts. For example, if fewer animals are hunted, it can result in those of a larger body or antler size being selected as trophies. This often means killing the strongest males in an area, potentially distorting mating patterns and reversing the natural evolution of a species, where natural predators often kill the weak, old and young. The implications are both short and potentially very long-term, from altering population dynamics to the transference of genes.

In addition, hunting animals for sport or recreation is increasingly opposed in the UK and by broader Western society (particularly amongst urban dwellers), especially when it is considered ‘unnecessary’ or cruel.

This was perhaps symbolically highlighted by ‘Cecilgate’ – the global (predominantly US and Europe) outrage, social media response and campaigning that followed the trophy shooting of a ‘celebrity’ Zimbabwean lion in 2015 by American dentist and tourist, Walter Palmer.

Nonetheless, the complex relation between hunting and conservation plays a role in ongoing support for hunting by optics companies: 90% of the companies reviewed in this report marketed at least some products for hunting and 69% continue to have strong links to hunting, by selling riflescopes and/or marketing products for sports hunting.

Environmental impacts

Unfortunately optics companies’ approaches to managing their own environmental and climate impacts often fall short of those required to meet the science-based targets agreed in Paris in 2015.

83% of companies reviewed in the Shooting Wildlife III report were considered to have poor environmental and carbon management and reporting, either because they had no sustainability reporting at all (52%) or because they reported in very general terms, without publishing environmental reduction targets and concrete plans to lower greenhouse gas emissions (31%).

Of the five companies with reasonable environment reporting (Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Ricoh and Zeiss), four were considered to have good carbon management and reporting and reasonable environmental reporting – publishing climate change mitigation strategies that were in line with international agreements such as the Paris Agreement.

All four were Japanese electronics companies, and so it’s likely that they did well because of Japan’s mandatory greenhouse gas accounting and reporting system and its support for developing science-based decarbonisation targets.

Cruelty free optics

Information from all three Shooting Wildlife? Reports has now been consolidated into a new website: crueltyfreeoptics.co.uk

The website supports existing and potential optics users in exploring the issues surrounding the sports optics industry whilst offering advice for buyers based on their own ethical views. This includes looking in more detail at some challenging subjects that include trophy hunting, animal rights, illegal practices within the shooting industry (such as bird of prey persecution), military links and the pro-gun movement, and environmental credentials.