Talk:Fox hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dogs Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Subpage:/2006 Rewrite

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Tom Ashcroft (March 5, 2005). "[ Killjoys ban fox hunts in England]". Chalotte Observer.

shizen hausen this page is actually shit so dont look anyfurther:):):)

[edit] 2002-2004 Oldest Talk

Is it true that the Labour manifesto of 1997 pledged to ban fox hunting or merely to allow a free vote of the Commons and, if that called for legislation, to make government time available? Further, is it the Private Member's bill of Mike Foster (MP for Worcester) that is being described here as having been blocked by the House of Lords? Tony Blair claimed in a television interview that that was the case, but in the same interview he claimed to have voted for the bill when he was, in fact, absent from the Commons. I am agnostic on the issue personally, but I would like some reassurance that we have NPOV here. Alan Peakall 12:31 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Did the Scottish Parliament ban all hunting with hounds as the article says or only fox hunting with hounds? In the U.S. we certainly have many different animals hunted with hounds - although which ones varies by state. Rmhermen 20:00 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I thought that the House of Commons voted to ban it last year and the year before as well but that the Lords haven't agreed yet. Rmhermen 17:04 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Fox hunting is not a bloodsport any more than falconry is. A bloodsport is animal fighting in which the animals are artificially constrained or confined (a pit for bear baiting, a ring for cockfighting and bullfighting). It doesn't involve any sort of pest control. Using rat terriers to kill rats in a warehouse is pest control (not bloodsport) even though it involves animals in a confined area. Hunting involves a prey animal and its quarry under open and natural (wild) conditions. The oldest forms of hunting (for man) are hunting with hounds (both scenthounds and sighthounds) and falconry.

Dictionary.com - bloodsport n : sport that involves killing animals (especially hunting)

Merriam-Webster online - Main Entry: blood sport Function: noun

a sport or contest (as hunting or cockfighting) involving bloodshed

I think that mainstream definitions include hunting explicitly. This is not a negative description, it simply stems from the observation that the spilling of blood is involved. Mark Richards 23:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I went through my collection of Websters and even the Unabridged (1983) doesn't even list it. However, I'll accept your other sources and add links to the hunting articles in the Bloodsport articles. I just don't want one form of hunting singled out as if it's somehow 'different'.

Sure - I think this applies to all kinds of hunting. Thanks, Mark Richards 20:37, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm anti-hunting but had hoped this article might give me more information on the pro-hunting arguments relating to pest control, ie:

Why is the fox regarded as a pest (what in its behaviour warrants keeping the numbers down)?
Why is hunting with hounds rather than shooting the preferred method?

--[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Two things - the pictures on this page (both of the hunt and the fox) are poor quality, can we find better ones?

I also seem to remember some documentation or emails have emerged from pro-hunt organisations, suggesting that the arguments of foxes being vermin and needing control in this way are in fact more of a means to retain goodwill for hunting. Does anyone have a memory or reference of this? FT2 12:27, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Anti-hunt organisations argue that fox numbers are primarily controlled by the resources they use, as is typical with any animal population. Many more foxes die on the roads than through hunting. Foxhunting has essentially no effect as a means of pest control. ciphergoth 18:13, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Feel free to correct any mistakes I introduced, but a total revert was certainly uncalled for. I don't want to get into revert wars, so please just re-introduce as many of my changes as you can. ciphergoth 09:36, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

I will restore my changes minus the one part you've called into question. Let's please have a discussion here about any problems with my changes, not a revert war. It is not my goal to introduce POV into the article, but to extend it and make it more useful. ciphergoth 09:41, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

This is quite backwards - ciphergoth2's changes should have been discussed before incorporation into the article. Absolutely no references were provided for the changes. They have no basis in fact, and I thought giving one especially egregious example would be sufficient. It's appalling to see the official government report labeled as 'pro-hunting', but it demonstrates ciphergoth2's extremely strong POV. User:12.73.221.211

That's not the usual wikipedia policy - editors are encouraged not to ask permission first but simply to make their changes and see if someone objects. The objector has normally to state the reasons why the edit is unacceptable. I don't think there is a country mile between the two edits here and perhaps some consensus can be hammered out. The intro paragraph has to be a 'to the point' summary of the article but it's permissible to include some form of 'hook' to draw readers in and so I think we can find space for the arguments for and against hunting. How about "Fox hunting takes place in order to reduce fox numbers, and as a social event. Like all forms of hunting, fox hunting is a bloodsport and is therefore opposed by animal rights activists, some of whom act as hunt saboteurs and actively disrupt hunts." ? Dbiv 01:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure discussion of hunt saboteurs belongs in the first paragraph. I think a separate heading about "Hunts and protests" would be called for, that could cover everything from hunt saboteurs to the record-breaking demonstrations by the Countryside Alliance in London. Apart from that I think your first para is OK. ciphergoth 09:04, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

The first para ought to make it clear that hunting is highly controversial in some countries (we shouldn't fall victim to making it a UK-specific article though most contributors do seem to be here). I'm fairly open on the issue of whether sabbing ought to be there as it's a relatively minor issue. Dbiv 11:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sabbing deserves a mention but not in the opening para. Actually, I think as a rule of thumb that nothing should go in the opening para that does not see greater discussion in the body of the article, unless the article is a stub. ciphergoth 12:33, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

The miscategorization of the Government's report was simply an error, which I've now fixed - you should feel free to fix such errors yourself where you find them. Not all of my changes require references - moving the breed of dog used in the hunt from the first sentence into the body of the article is just an editorial cleanup to make the summary more useful, for example - but if there are any particular points which you dispute and want a reference on let me know. I'll also try and provide a reference for "finding fallen stock" service - I'm surprised you dispute this, since it's one of the main arguments advanced in favour of the hunt by huntsmen. In future, please edit to correct POV you perceive, but use a finer tool than a total revert. I'd also like to encourage anyone who's getting involved in contentious editing on Wikipedia to create an account. ciphergoth 09:04, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

I think you may have me confused with 12.73.221.211 who has been reverting edits (and I guess has a dynamic IP which was responsible for some previous reverts). Personally I have no strong views on hunting either way. Certainly the disposing of fallen stock is a utilitarian argument for the retention of hunting which has been frequently deployed recently. Hopefully by the end of today, we should know where we stand on the legal situation. Dbiv 11:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right - have deleted a stray colon in my reply so it's clear who I'm replying to - User:12.73.221.211. Actually, as it happens, though I favour a ban, animal welfare issues are pretty low on my political priority list and if it were a choice between a hunting ban and any of the issues dear to my heart (voting reform, freedom of speech, privacy etc) I'd sacrifice the ban in an instant. ciphergoth 12:33, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

I can't believe you still don't know the difference between "disposing of fallen stock" (that means dead farm animals, such as a cow who fell and broke her pelvis and having to be shot, being fed at kennels or incinerated, as EU rules forbid burying carcasses) and tracking down injured animals for humane killing (as in foxes and deer hit by cars but not killed). Those are two separate reasons for using hounds which you totally confused. If you don't know the facts, and can't be bothered to learn them, then I think we would all be better off without your strong POV (although feel free to continue to deny you have one). I'm supposed to watch this page constantly and document everything you feel like adding? Sounds like a pretty silly occupation to me. If you don't want Wikipedia to be respected - go for it. User:12.73.245.201

Can I politely offer you two pieces of advice? 1) Try getting yourself a username and then you can have a watchlist. 2) Meanwhile, get "How to win friends and influence people" out of the library, then read, learn and inwardly digest. Dbiv 19:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of the confusion you refer to in my edits. Though of course I have a POV, like everyone, it's not my intent to introduce POV to the article. If you can find a constructive way to bring the article closer to the NPOV standard I'd see that as a good thing. In fact I think that the article would benefit from a clear exposition of the pro-hunt arguments such as those you reference and I wish you'd add them. If you're going to accuse those you disagree with of ignorance, here on Wikipedia, you should work to correct that ignorance. ciphergoth 09:18, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

The introduction says "Like all forms of hunting, fox hunting is a blood sport," and I disagree. Hunting is not necessarily a "sport" (a competition). Even when/where the sport of fox hunting is banned, eventual hunting of foxes (e.g. to kill off road accident injured animals) takes place. I don't suggest that this article be devoted to such general hunting of foxes -- it correctly describes the sport of fox hunting -- but it shouldn't make false generalizations about hunting. Perhaps just removing the first five words from the cited passage would be the best solution. --LA2 14:23, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

You have a point, but the problem is that if you delete those words, it sounds like you're trying to say that fox hunting is more evil than, say, stag hunting. Blood sport is here meant as a descriptive, not a pejorative. Can we say "Like all forms of sport hunting"? I suggest editing it that way unless someone more sympathetic to the hunt can find a better way to put it. ciphergoth 18:18, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

[edit] Parliamentary Ping-Pong 2004 November

Dbiv

Thanks for your Grammar corrections to the stuff I put in as 170.224.224.155

I've reinstated the 3 Year delays asked for by the Lords. Whilst not widley reported in the press this occured on two seperateoccassions for two seperate reasons. The first occassion regarding the RCVS investigation was backed up in a rather complex form by a second suggestion as to what the Commons should do if they rejected the liscensing at that point. The Speaker got very confused by all of this - and at some point I might write it up.

It then bounced off the commons, came back to the Lords, who then - asked for 3 years or none at all citing this as electioneering and nothing more - I'll need to cite Hansard for specifics, which is why I have not gone into further detail in the main post.

Next day it hit the Commons and the Lords, before the Speaker invoked the Parliament Act.

Hasty

I've had a look through the Hansard and corrected it again. Basically the 'suggested amendment' could only be debated once and once rejected, stayed rejected; the Government then tried to put it the delay on the face of the Bill, came away with egg on its face when 31st July 2007 was rejected but Peter Bradley's amendment for 31st July 2006 was passed. The Lords rejected that too. Parliamentary procedure is very complex on this and there were some mistakes made - see the Lords Hansard on 18th November where it seems that a 'double disagreement' had accidentally been arrived at, and Peter Bradley 'moving' his amendment which could actually only be moved by a Minister. Dbiv 16:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no, no ,no :-)

You're sounding rather negative these days.

Last thing first, Bradley was "speaking to" not "moving" his ammendment - which I think is what you refer to, he made an accident of speach, no more.

He thought he was moving it. Dbiv 17:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first time the Commons Suggested Ammendment went to the Lords it was rejected and the Lords attached a 3 year RCVS delay to their ammended bill. They may have at the same time attached a suggested ammendment to the banning bill as well, they were certainly talking about doing this, but I am unsure whether they did in the end.

amendment has two ms in it, not three. The Commons 'suggested amendment' could only be debated once, and once rejected in the Lords it was rejected for good. No other 'suggested amendments' were made. The amendments to the Bill were a different procedure entirely. Dbiv 17:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When it went back to the Commons the Commons rejected the Lords ammendments to the main bill, got in a compolete flap about proceedure and opted again for the same 18 month suggested ammendment (this should never be described as part of the main bil, it runs parrallel with it) rather than Mr Michael's (ever so) "reasonable" 2007? option this was only put forward for purposes of spin IMHO.

Your grammar has me confused. Perhaps I can set it out chronologically.

15th September: Commons passes identical banning bill to 2003. Also passes 'suggested amendment' under Parliament Act procedure.

12th October: Lords Second Reading.

26th-28th October: Lords Committee Stage - amendments made.

11th November: Lords Report Stage - more amendments made. Includes Donoughue amendment (delay until December 2007 with RCVS report).

15th November: Lords Third Reading - final amendment. Bill returned to the Commons.

16th November: Commons consideration of Lords Amendments. Disagree with all Lords amendments.

17th November: Lords consideration of Commons Amendments and reasons. Do not insist on Donoughue amendment. Mancroft amendment in lieu (unconditional delay until December 2007) passed. 'Suggested amendment' then rejected.

18th November, 2 PM: Commons consideration of Lords Amendments. Insist on disagreement. Government amendment in lieu for delay until July 2007 defeated; Bradley amendment in lieu for delay until July 2006 passed.

18th November, 6 PM: Lords consideration of Commons Amendments. Insist on disagreements and reject Bradley amendment in lieu.

18th November, 9 PM: Commons Speaker announces implementation of Parliament Act procedure for Royal Assent.

The article is in full compliance with this summary. The 'suggested amendment' was only voted on once in each House, and when the Commons tried it again, it was as an amendment to the Bill: the Lords would have had to accept all the other amendments for that to work. Dbiv 17:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Back to the Lords next day, the Lords insisted on their previous ammendments to the main bill, and insisted on a three year delay purportedly for different reasons - whether this was put forward as a seperate suggested ammendment as well as a normal ammendment I will have to check.

I did and it wasn't. Dbiv 17:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As regards the very last day I will hve to check hansard on this too.

I've not made changes at this point, but I think they need to be made.

There is a difficult position here. I think anyone watching proceedures from either side of the argument, who was up to speed with what was going on would know that a) The Lords were taking the piss as regards their 3 year dealy, and (b) so was alun michael with his 2007? delay half way between 18 months and 3 years. Now the NPOV would perhaps be to say that both were nonsense, but the Lords were portraying their delay as "to enable people to come to terms with things" whilst possibly effectively forcing a three month delay by their actions. The government were trying to ensure the ban got through any future legal challenges by appearing "reasonable" and "going the extra mile" to help people have time to adapt.

So how do we put all that in and appear neutral! Anyone got any guidance?

[edit] Controversy - Layout change

By Splitting the controversy section into three parts, I think we will see the arguments come onto the site. Certainly I can fill in some of the parts, and I'm sure we will see others comming to fill the others in :-)

Hasty

Everyone argues that their position is supported by the evidence. To say that one group's position is "based on evidence alone" is pretty much to say "here are the good guys, everyone else is a nutter". The information about the former chair of the League Against Cruel Sports also sat very oddly; it would read better if they were named and given them their proper title in the Parliamentary Middle Way Group. ciphergoth 09:28, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

That seems sensible, I have knocked the civil liberties bit out of teh Middle Way Group as well, since I have never heard of them using that argument - although pro-hunt do. I think the LACS reference will become relevant when I fill in a bit more about them. They make a large play on that background, and teh LACS will certainly be mentioned in the anti-hunt part. --Hasty 11:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They do argue on those grounds: "The Middle Way Group is a coalition of people who approach the hunting issue from different perspectives. Some are primarily concerned with animal welfare. Others focus on civil liberties." [1] "The Middle Way approach takes into account rights and responsibilities, personal liberties and animal welfare and seeks to find the correct balance." [2] - could you restore that bit please? Ta! ciphergoth 12:12, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

wilco Will also have a tink about discussing the differences between Middle Way Group options from the Government total ban on some sports liscense others "middle way" --Hasty 14:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have done stuff in the pro/anti sections, but let me know if you see any problems. I must say, after the unpleasantless I traded with the ATT user from Chicago (12.73.whatever) who reverted even my moving the breeds of foxhound from the first sentence into the body on the grounds that I was "introducing POV", cooperating with you on this article has been a examplary experience in learning how people with different POVs on a controversial topic can work together to create a good Wikipedia article. Thanks again! --ciphergoth 02:09, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

coo, ty Ciphergoth. --Hasty 17:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Over in /2006 Rewrite I propose a specific STRUCTURAL change:

Animals

Procedure

Roles

Costume

History

Controversy

Opposing

Animal Cruelty

Class Issues

Supporting

Tradition

Economics

Personal Choice

Legislative (briefly touched on here with link to separate Fox hunting (legislation) article

References

[edit] Controversy: NPOV 2004

I can't quite see how to keep POV out of the Pro and Anti hunt sections - although I am trying, and look forward to the help of others to reduce this.

I suggest that we might initially let some POV remain in these two sections, and introduce a NPOV section at the end if needed. However, it may be that the NPOV occurs naturally as pro and anti edit each others points.--Hasty 20:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with that - it seems to me like we're keeping the POV situation well under control.

I think the thing about class sits oddly in the "pro/anti hunt arguments" thing, because "hunters are all a bunch of upper class oiks" isn't really an argument anyone can seriously make in favour of a ban, and so I think it's a little unfair to the anti-hunt side to have it there under the "anti-hunt arguments". It might make more sense to have a separate section entitled "Hunt and class issues" which merges together the discussions in the pro and anti bits. I'm currently optimistic that we could agree on such a section :-) Tell you what, I'll have a go at the sort of thing I have in mind and if you hate it we'll try something else. ciphergoth 14:46, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

I can't possibly let you get away with that unchallenged :-)

I agree it sits oddly, and feel free to drop it into another section to see how it looks, but it is undeniably there, this article by George Monbiot keeps getting mentioned in the anti-hunt forums, and forums like urban75 are unashamedly more anti-hunt due to the perceived class issues rather than the welfare ones.

In the mean time another one of my grammatically poor updates is now online.... --Hasty 01:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This section is ridiculously biased in favor of the pro-hunting lobby. The pro section is written as though it were undisputed fact rather than opinion, and the Anti section seems merely to be an extension of the pro section - the author explains the position of the anti-hunting and then simply goes on to explain why they are wrong with quotes for far-from-neutral Daily Telegraph to back up the assertions. A really poor effort at neutrality. --Axon 11:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the thread titled Controversy: NPOV directly above your posting. Regards, --Hasty 21:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the talk, but it doesn't really seem tackle the bias in this article. I prefer to highlight bias and rely on the original author to modify as appropriate, which is a far less confrontational way. This:

Some of the hostility towards fox hunting stems from public perception of fox hunters as typifying a disliked aspect of the upper classes.

Is totally POV and not really acceptable in an unbiased description of the postition of the anti-hunting lobby. --Axon 11:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually I wrote that and I'm broadly anti-hunting. I'm surprised anyone disagrees with it. I'd say anti-hunting activists are motivated entirely by animal welfare concerns, but the support they enjoy from the general public is at least in part because of what I wrote, you must surely agree? ciphergoth 19:55, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

It is not about whether I agree or not - that is moot - others would disagree with the above characterisation. I think the pro-hunting section gives plenty of room to the argument that the anti-hunting lobby are class-motivated and the anti-section should, for the sake of balance, focus on arguments made by the anti-hunting lobby. --Axon 23:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That said, I agree that there are problems with this section and I haven't had time to do anything about it. I didn't write all the stuff quoting the Daily Telegraph. At the moment I think this should be collected into one section rather than broken out into pro/anti sections, because it has nothing to do with the substantive arguments on the issue. I want a section that says something like (massively paraphrased) "Each side of the hunt debate has accused the other of being motivated entirely by class issues" and mention the "Pure prejudice" campaign and the Bradley article as examples, then say that each side say that this is not their own motivation. I'd like to say something to indicate that there's a bit of truth in each but it's nothing like the whole truth, but I think that would be too POV. Anything you can do to improve this article would be appreciated - it sounds like you could beef up the anti-hunt side, something I haven't had time to do. ciphergoth 11:32, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Looking at options for making the article more NPOV - Each sub argument seems to have a proposer, an opposer and an NPOV e.g. (Anti proposition) Hunting is Cruel and evidence supporting, (Pro response) No it isn't and evidence supporting, (NPOV) It may be and here is the undisputed evidence. I would like to try chabging layout of the controversy section to this form and see how it looks. To clarify - Rather than there being headings of "Pro Arguments", "Anti-Arguments" and "NPOV" with sub-headings of Class / Cruelty / Utility etc. There will be there will Headings of Class / Cruelty / Welfare etc, and sub headings of Pro / Anti / NPOV under each. Anyone object / comments?

Secondly, since the page has not had any significant new material put in for a while, and this revision will be cosmetic, does anyone mind if I remove the currently being reviewed box at the same time or should it stay in?

H --Hasty 16:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Scotland: Flushing to Guns

", does not make it clear whether it would be legal to allow the dog to kill a fox that had only been injured by a shotgun."

I pulled this sentance, because I have a hunch that the law does clearly state, but I have not read a copy of the act, has anyone else? I think this may have been what the recent court case was about.

Advice needed.

In fact the law is clear. It is illegal in Scotland to use dogs to chase or deliberately kill a fox. See the Act at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2002/20020006.htm. There are very limited exemptions. Section 2(2) exempts killing in the course of a legal activity (so not "in the course of" chasing a fox). Mike Hobday

[edit] NPOV

"To say you wish to allow the fox population to expand in an uncontrolled way is effectively to say you wish to see foxes' prey species hunted to death by foxes, and that you wish to condemn a large number of foxes to extended suffering." -- Is that really a NPOV?

[edit] 2005 Misconceptions about fox huntings

I would like to point out to some people who really don't know anything about the hunt.

1: The dogs bite the fox from the back of the neck killing it. Then they tear it up to pieces. 2: The hunt kills weak foxs (for example the sick or the old) who are more likely to look for easy prey (farm animals). The smart foxes survive the hunt and would aassociate the area with danger and stay away. 3: Thousands of dogs have to be put down beacuse they been breed specifically to hunt foxes and they can't be retrained. 4: Farmers will have to use snares and traps to kill foxes who are near the farm. This is a painful and slow death. 5: Shooting a fox with gun isn't practical beacuse the shooter can stay hunt the fox 24/7 and it's to effective. There is little chance the fox will survive the encounter. A fox who survives a fox hunt will know not to go to the area beacuse of the danger involved.

And before you accuse me of being biast you should know this. What ever you may think of Fox hunting at the end of the day a fox is a predator. He will try to kill farm animals. Weak animals will usually look for easy prey and it is them who are in the farms. Get rid of them and you will have a healthy species.

And no the fox isn't teared apart alive. The hounds have been traiend to bite the neck of the fox first to kill it. Then they will tear it up to peices. Furious Stormrage

1. Yes, it killed foxes. This = bad.

2. See above.

3. Regretable, but unfortunately necessary. But i'm intrigued - you people didn't seem to care much about killing foxes, why care about the dogs?

4. Yes, this too should be banned. It won't, but it should be.

5. See above.

And as for " at the end of the day"? the end of the day already came and went. And in the "end of the day", fox hunting was banned. --86.135.87.145 00:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 A complete edit of the controversy section

Is it fair to say that a complete heavy edit is required on the "Controversy over hunting" section. I volunteer but ask for some help, anyone?

Ummm. Who are you? I'm trying to address the NPOV issue over on hunting and suspect that some of the same strategies may be relevant. I have an appropriately checkered past and am from outside of the UK, so don't have any particular axe to grind. Rorybowman 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say everything after the "Further reading" heading (which is itself erroneous) needs a thoroughgoing rewrite from the bottom up. It reads absolutely nothing like an encyclopaedia entry. David | Talk 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bravely rushing in where angels fear to tread I am creating a subpage /2006 Rewrite to try and address some of these issues. At this point I think it would be most useful to look at the larger STRUCTURE of the article and to begin considering a separate article on Fox hunting (legislation) or somesuch. - Rorybowman 08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a general interest in the subject and am concerned that people often can't find the correct information they require. Is it fair to say that to obtain an NPOV first the UK legislative part needs to be moved to its own article - it could be linked from the fox hunting article - as my friend above suggests. Also I agree: It doens't resemble an encyclopedia article because, i think, it has been hijacked by either side of the argument. Does the article even need the level of detail into the issues that it currently has? Ashley 22:02, 4 January 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Fox hunting legislation entry created. Please populate.

I have created the article fox hunting legislation to provide a place to more cleanly and distinctly place these issues. I am hoping that this will help to make the article more general and less explicitly focussed on UK politics. Breaking things out by nation, year or a specific piece of legislation will also allow more specificity. Since I am not familiar with these subject areas, fox hunting legislation is very skeletal. I'll leave it to subject matter experts to do a good job in migrating these over so that this article can address the issue of fox hunting more generally. As always, feedback is encouraged. Cheers! - Rorybowman 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rory, I've become almost a "nerd" on the legislation stuff in the the UK. I will start migrating the information out from Fox Hunting over to your new article. Also, I'm not sure that Fox Hunting is regulated in EVERY country that is occurs in - as your paragraph suggests? Ashley 11:00, 7 January 2006 (GMT)

Outside of the third world I'm not aware of any country where hunting is completely deregulated, if regulation is only related to treatment of domestic animals, trespassing or firearm useage. I'm not sure how to prove a negative, but am hoping that Wikipedians will at least be familiar with their own countries. In the US fox hunting is such an amazingly small part of hunting generally that in some states there are not laws which treat it separately, but only general laws which define a species as "game" or "non-game animals." To be honest, I'm not even sure what countries it occurs in with any regularity. Generally regulation follows interest, and outside of the UK not a lot of people are interested (save as part of general legal or animal welfare issues). If some countries end up being empty, we can delete those later, but since political entities are the divisions by which laws are made, it seemed a logical place to start. Thanks for your help with this! Rorybowman 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox hunting in the US?

I've looked in vain for any treatment of fox hunting in the USA, which is often done by hunt clubs on large acreages of land, fenced with foxproof fences and stocked with foxes, which are run by hounds. Hiding spots are provided - generally pipes that are large enough for foxes but too small for the dogs. Foxes are rarely killed; they seemingly regard it as a game, where they usually run the dogs for a long time before taking cover. Some foxes never take cover. Hunters also rarely follow the dogs. They usually remain at the clubhouse and listen to the progress of the "hunt." Pollinator 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For more info for fox hunting in the US please go to <http://www.mfha.org/code.htm> or <http://www.kimbertonhunt.org/faq.html#WhatIsFoxhunting>

I'm sorry, but your info on fox hunting in the U.S. is incorrect. Although it is done on large spaces of land, they are not fenced in. The hunt club must be granted permission to hunt on the landowner's land. Also they are certianly not "stocked with foxes", that is against the rules. Some days the hounds never catch a scent. You are correct that in America the foxes are rarely killed. This is because our purpouse is only to chase the fox. However, your claim that "Hunters also rarely follow the dogs. They usually remain at the clubhouse and listen to the progress of the 'hunt.'" is very incorrect. The Huntmaster always follows and directs the hounds. Stray hounds are gathered by the Whipper-In's. Those that are not staff follow the huntmaster. In conclusion, the hounds are always accomipianied and hunting is never done in a fenced in area "stocked with foxes". The fox is rearely killed, and once under ground or treed it is "acounted for": and left. The hunt then ends or tries to find a new fox. In America it is somestime called Fox Chasing. The two websites mentioned above are very informational.

While fox pens are obviously outside of your ken, that doesn't make them "incorrect." As editor of a newspaper that has done stories on fox pens, I find your attitude rather amusing. I will add material as I have time. Pollinator 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I apologize. I thought your information implied that hunting in fox pens was the American equivalent to the English hunting on horseback, since the main Article was on fox hunting on horseback. I did not want people to get the wrong idea, so I wrote the above information, not realizing that there were two different types of Fox hunting in the US. Afterwards I became very curious as to where you got your info (I wanted to do a little research, but had nothing to go on). What I now understand is that there are two types of Fox hunting in the US. The one that you described, hunting with fox pens, focuses largely on the hounds and the hunting dogs?. The one I described, fox chasing, more closely resembles the English hunt because there are horses and there is alot of focus on tradition. Maybe there could be a Fox Chase article and a Fox Pen article one Day. Sorry and Thanks -ep

[edit] Major Cutting 2006-01-12

I have brought over most of the 2006 rewrite and commented out what I couldn't find an elegant way to fold in. The current article is WAY long at 32K without removing these commented sections, but to make it easier to find them and incorporate them into the new structure I have left them for now. I'll probably come back at the end of the calendar month to excise them completely, so if you love a section, please migrate it up and over into the new modular controversy area. As much as possible, I've tried to boil each argument down to its essence and reference the relevant off-site arguments as footnotes. This seems much tidier than just quoting huge swaths of text. Rorybowman 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the re-write - what i've read seems ok? User:Ashley Tanton 15:36, January 15 2006

[edit] Animals subsection

The article reads "hunting dogs are more properly referred to as hounds." This is manifestly wrong: what about terriers, retrievers, pointers, and setters? I'm not really sure how to rephrase this. –Joke 20:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Slightly reworded to include reference to hunting dogs article, which details gun dogs, etcetera. - Rorybowman 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Noticed a few unregistered IP users this weekend who decided that the separate "Animals" section was silly, since the entire world is obviously run by humans and anything mentioned on a web site must be primarily about humans, so I thought I would note that the animals section is in this article for a clear reason, given that animal welfare is the primary POV issue that this subject must address. The current set of subheadings is designed to address the various POV and technical aspects of the subject matter while remaining encyclopedic. If you have a major revision or quarrel with this structure, the appropriate place to address it is here, in the talk page. If you register, your views will be taken more seriously. - Rorybowman 14:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blooding

Did some searching on evidence for blooding; to my surprise, only anti-hunt websites mention it. The only other reference I could find was the Inquiry which says in a footnote that it's largely died out. I thought there were pictures in the media a few years ago of William or Harry getting blooded? Can anyone help provide verifiable information for this paragraph? Thanks! — ciphergoth 08:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Times had a picture of a blooding only about a couple of years ago - I'll try and get a reference for that. Of course, it's all a bit moot now because a picture of a blooding from today would be an instant conviction, at least in the UK... — ciphergoth 15:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

One hunter claims to have been blooded in 2004 - see http://www.hounds.org.uk/forums/index.php?s=db6627cdb948826ecc1683b9f441140f&showtopic=689&hl=blooding&st=0. That said, it is not thought to be widespread. MikeHobday 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class issues

I wonder if the Peter Bradley comment should be included. His quote, in the Telegraph article, is "the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war. But it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round." As such, this is not an example of fox hunting being opposed for class reasons. MikeHobday 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I know Peter Bradley and was his Labour Party branch chair for a while. In full context his meaning is quite clear - it is that the fight over whether to ban fox-hunting was class war in the sense that the pro-hunting lobby believed that their cause should triumph because of their class position and irrespective of the views of Parliament. It was therefore a statement about the constitutional process to ban hunting rather than the motivation for promoting a ban. David | Talk 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any support for the inclusion of this element of the article, I have removed the text below from the article. For information, the Peter Bradley article is at [3] and the Telegraph's new story, which seems to reverse the meaning of the article is at [4]

The Telegraph once quoted Peter Bradley MP under the headline "Government finally admits: hunt ban is part of the class struggle."

MikeHobday 12:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We all know that the ban on Hunting has nothing to do with animal welfare whatsoever. Whoever denies that is living on a seperate planet. One of my edits to this effect on this article has just been reversed by MikeHobday. Try this article [5]. Which again blatently shows Labour MPs reason for banning the activity. Maybe the RSPCA could just about get away with explaining that they want it banned because its cruel (disputed), anyone else has clear political motivations. I have seen first hand the effect of snares, shooting and other forms of control - all of which Labour MPs have no interest in, and this are far worse. So lets not blind ourselves and reverse edits which are not my own articles but those of national recognised press - whether we agree with their content/meaning/intent or whether they have been 'turned around' or not. --TFoxton 20:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to your view. But the quotation from Peter Bradley's own writing above indicates that the Telegraph article is misleading. Incidently, if Labour MPs have no interest in snares, I am not sure why 150 signed this [6]? MikeHobday 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Have they taken any action on snares? Leislation wise? No. --TFoxton 21:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox-digging

Hello, I think the article could use a paragraph on the capturing of the fox from the wild, similar to Badger-digging. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal choice

I've removed this whole section from the article:

====Personal Choice====

Some legal and philosophical perspectives can be made in support of this activity. To whit: So long as an activity is legal, it should be allowed. Also: For a majority of people to impose their will on a minority is wrong, be it from racial distaste, religious discrimination or any other lifestyle choice, such as fox hunting.

I think there should be a section presenting the argument on libertarian grounds, but this is completely incoherent and needs to be redone from scratch. "So long as it's legal, it should be legal"? Things don't become moral or immoral when they're made legal or illegal - the law is supposed to follow morality, not shape it. "For a majority of people to impose their will on a minority is wrong" - this is an argument that there should be no laws of any kind, not just in regard to animal cruelty but on any other issue. If this is the argument being made it should be explicit.

I've had a go at replacing it, but it'll need work, and really someone should cite notable instances of the argument being made. — ciphergoth 08:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal cruelty comparison

Odd that I write a section in favour of hunting since I dislike it intensely. As it happens, I dislike the hypocrisy surrounding the ban even more. The cruelty argument against hunting does not stand up to scrutiny. More odd is the fact that the hunting lobby did such a rotten job of pointing out the truth: that the alternatives to hunting manage to be even worse. I have noticed that when talking with opponents of hunting, they often cannot remain calm and cannot rationally compare one cruelty with another. 86.129.162.104 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has edited this to mention broken necks which is not the point: A broken neck is instant but not certain to happen. A fox might be torn apart by the dogs but even so, this is much quicker than dying of gangrene after being shot. By putting it near the original version, I have removed any POV and any disputed facts. (Same contributor) --86.129.160.200 10:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this section is opinion and not fact. I disagreee:

it is a fact that animals that are shot can take days to die while those being torn limb from limb by dogs cannot
it is a fact that healthier animals evade predators more easily than less healthy animals eg by running faster or for longer. The only way hunting could not discriminate in favour of healthy foxes would be if the success rate neared 100% (which it doesn't)
it is a fact that a bias by predators towards taking the less-fit individuals is the one of the mechanisms of Darwinian natural selection

As far as I can see, all the points in this section are obviously true once they have been pointed out. 86.129.164.228 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are obviously true or obviously false, the source cited is the opinion of a academic philosopher [7] rather than biological science. MikeHobday 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting arguments

Maybe it's just that I disagree with them, but the supporting arguments section seems to have become a bit disjointed. I don't think I'm the best person to start to tidy them up - so does anyone else fancy a try? MikeHobday 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I edited a sentence on bloodhounds and hunting the clean boot, to link to appropriate articles, but now I wonder why that sentence was in Foxhunting afterall?

Where the quarry is not fox and the joy of the sport is hound work and the "chase", and not shooting or trophy hunting, then perhaps a linkable Venery wiki is appropriate? Sanft 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried moving this up the article for now. MikeHobday 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

i think it is completely wrong and it should be againts the law in all countries

[edit] Immorality of killing animals

A significant portion of the anti-hunting people were arguing against hunting on the basis of killing any animal being wrong, presumably part of the whole 'meat is murder' movement. I don't think I can bring myself to write anything about it though because it seems so retarded to me that I'm not sure i could clearly make its case on a level more than "lolz animalz r teh cute no kill them murdererz"... prehaps someone who agrees with the all animal deaths are a bad thing POV could add something? 81.152.196.46 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Jainism. Trollderella 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bloodsport

Why is this word in scare quotes? Surely it is a bloodsport, and I don't think its proponants would deny this - whether that is a good thing or not is a matter for debate, but I would not have thought that this term was disputed? Trollderella 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect its proponents might well deny it. MikeHobday 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - can you provide any examples of fox hunting advocates denying that it is a bloodsport? Trollderella 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/x/Talk%7EFox_hunting_f9e9.html"

Categories: Unassessed Dogs articles | Unknown-importance Dogs articles | Articles referenced by the press