Talk:Hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Past Issues with Article:

• AFD: Not yet.
• Categories:
• Cleanup: Dec2005
• NPOV: 12dec2005-13jan2006
• Templates: 01jan2005
• Globalize: 17Dec2006

When a topic or thread has been successfully resolved, would the thread-starter please remove the thread? Thanks! Rorybowman

Contents 1 Talk Archives and Subpages 2 Current Talk 3 Other Humans? 4 Noble Savage? 5 NPOV Carryover for 2006 6 Game shooting 7 From a hunter 8 Bloodsports template. 9 Economic Subsection? 10 NPOV 11 Polar bear hunting 12 External Links 13 Rule change in US 14 'Depictions in popular culture' section 14.1 Au Contraire 14.2 Diversity 14.3 Response 15 How is hunting viewed 16 Hunting Season 17 Deer hunting 18 Wikipedia:WikiProject Hunting 19 Notes section 20 Globalize? 21 Anti-Hunting link 22 Hunting in the UK 22.1 Semantics 23 More on the intro 24 Hunting v. Shooting 24.1 SHOULD NOT BE MERGED with Trophy Hunting 25 Deleted text

[edit] Talk Archives and Subpages

Archive 1

[edit] Current Talk

Think about re-wording this and subsequent sentences: "In Tanzania it is estimated that safari hunter spends 50-100 times that of the average eco-tourist and at a lower environmental impact." While this may be true, is it necessary; does it create bias?--Modernhiawatha 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Humans?

Is this line really needed in a write up about hunting: "The killing of other humans is most often called homicide, genocide or war." What purpose does that serve? What in the world is meant by "other humans"?

[edit] Noble Savage?

I may be way off base, but isn't the term Noble Savage frowned upon. I understand the context of the usage, but is there a better way to say it?

The 1990 film Dances with Wolves or the 1970 Little Big Man contrast modern hunters with a romantic noble savage, and filmed depictions of hunting by aboriginal cultures like Native Americans tend to be more sympathetic

--Jruffatto 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the term "Noble Savage" is frowned upon - the concept labeled by it is what is frowned upon. I think the term was coined by people critical of the concept, and that's how it's being used here albeit in a slightly subtle way. I read the article text as criticizing those movies because they depict Native Americans as Noble Savages. Toiyabe 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Noble savage is originally the title (translated from French) of a famous book by the French Enlightened philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau; it criticises 'civilised' life in the western culture (of his and doubtlessly our time) by claiming elaborate cultures ruin the natural good disposition of man, which he states to be preserved in primitive societies. Intellectuals still use the term to praise the strong points of 'natural people', even bsides soicial life, such as (alas not always utterly true) better harmony with the natural environment and ecology Fastifex 23:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Carryover for 2006

crisw, if you are still around, do you have some suggested wording? If not, I'd like to work on this and yank the NPOV tag by the end of January, 2006. Rorybowman 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the cleanup and POV flags. Rorybowman 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still around, and will think about wording. 68.6.219.76 04:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)crisw

[edit] Game shooting

This article seems to focus heavily on hunting ground animals. Game shooting of so-called "game birds", especially of grouse and pheasant, is a major, historic sport (and industry) in the UK at least. Should this be included here? --TheGrappler 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From a hunter

Just my two cents as a hunter but I would declare the following

People come to wikipedia to learn, why not allow them to learn about the subject. Approaching from this point of view the term "varmit" is perfectly valid if what a varmit consits of is given respectable explanation.

Pro-hunting? Could it possibly be that hunting is so vigorously fought and degraded by those who are opposed to it, that anything that is not strictly anti-hunting seem pro-hunting?

Hunting has a clear history of lines of succession as far as the sport goes. Over the last couple centuries Americans replaced the English as the predominant sport hunters of the world. As such where sport hunting is discussed American hunting should take at least a small amount of presidence. (SP?)

Any comment about the suggested use of field ordinance or full automatic firearms is a demonstration in idiocy. Any community has its unfortunante population of morons, and yes there are some hunters who take full autos into the field. Such people are the reasons Game Wardens get paid. Not to mention that from a rational point of view, even with a caliber as small as a 9mm use of a fully automatic firearm is expensive. Few people could afford the firearm, afford the tax stamp, afford the cost to sight the rifle, and take it into the field. Such comments seem to be the work of a troll.

[edit] Bloodsports template.

Bloodsports
Baiting • Bullfighting • Cockfighting • Dog fighting • Falconry • Sport fishing • Fox hunting • Hare coursing • Hunting • Insect fighting • Pigsticking

The pseudonymous User:SirIsaacBrock has placed hunting into the category "blood sports," which seems reasonable, but also inserted a graphic template, which seems less so. While I have no objection to pictures of dead animals, even graphic ones, this seemed a bit over-the-top from an NPOV standpoint. Comments, please? Rorybowman 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Hunting was already in the Category:Bloodsports for sometime. Nothing new here. You think the template is over the top ? Why ? SirIsaacBrock 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Because of the graphic design itself, which uses a bold color and overwhelms other graphic elements on the page. Visually it seems designed to be disruptive (especially given the default Wikipedia blue hyperlinks) and the broader rhetorical point of the term "blood sport" is better incorporated by placing references in the text above. I like to think I would have a similar objection (for NPOV) if it were a screaming-lime "Outdoor Activities" banner which went the entire width of the page. There are a variety of such loaded words in this article, including "harvest," but it seems to me that they should stay, if they are appropriate in context (which is why for NPOV I put "blood sport" in the appropriate section of the article). Does that make sense? A good public-domain picture could accomplish the same illustrative and rhetorical purpose, without being so visually jarring. What do you think? Rorybowman 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, "BloodSport" as in "Blood Red" is why the colour was chosen. I personally have nothing against hunting. It was included in the Category so it was added to the template, nothing more and nothing less. I note that you have started three discussions on the talk on page in one day ! Cordially SirIsaacBrock 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to resolve the NPOV issue here and want to get as much input as possible. "Many hands make light work" and all that. I understand the color association with blood red, but the choice of red itself is a rhetorical point. Since it isn't my business to quibble with a template's design (not subject to NPOV) I won't suggest changes, but I think that less intrusive Wiki categories are a better way to flag articles than more intrusive templates. Templates are usually used as danger flags (at the top of this article) or to show commonality between a series of articles or stubs on a topic (such as sociology, sports, etc). While I generally encourage categories (even marginal ones such as archery or photography by genre here), templates as a rule are designed to be visually disruptive and to distract from article content. Given that this article could attract potentially dozens of templates I would rather "avoid even the beginnings of evil" (to use Thoreau's phrase. Rorybowman 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Blood sport article gives the following definition: A bloodsport is a sport or entertainment that involves pitting one animal against another in a fight. How does that fit with "hunting" and "sport fishing"? BTW - the red template makes the text inside it hard to read.--shtove 19:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to remove the large blood sports tag as POV. The normal blood sports category is enough. The larger tag and the attempt to associate hunting with such things as dog fighting is an attempt to make a political statement that is not appropriate. It may be appropriate for such activities such as dog fighting which are illegal in most places. Hunting is a means of acquiring food. Every meat eating animal in the world hunts and to call it a blood sport is overinclusive. Moreover, those who believe that violations of the Wikipedia policy against POV editing are accpetable to advance a higher purpose such as animal welfare are attacking the wrong page. Hunting is a positive activity from an animal welfare perspective. See Talk: Blood sport.--Counsel 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Subsection?

I am trying to address some of the NPOV concerns with this article and am thinking that perhaps moving all of the economic arguments into a single section would be useful: agricultural claims about crop damage, industry claims about tourism, etcetera. It would obviously be better if those who have economic points to make about hunting (for or against) could do so, since currently they are all mixed up in the geographical sections. I'm trying to work from the top down, teasing things out into separate threads and moving toward more neutral language. If you made an economic point or are familiar with one, please feel free to start an economics subsection and address it there. Thanks! Rorybowman 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference link to the wildlife management section which might be more aptly moved to the economic section, however I believe that much of the value of wildlife, hunting and the like is actually non-economic. Feel free to move the link if needed.Trilobitealive 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I hunt from time to time, and do believe that this article has a pro-hunting bias. The "absurdly inaccurate" phrase and the entire section about whether trophy hunting is justified or not do not seem neutral to me. Maxwahrhaftig 21:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Great article rory.Maybe you could help me tidy up mine on hare coursing as lets just say a couple of anti's are getting annoyed!Ian Davies Friend 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of NPOV that annoys nonhunters: "many people hunt not only to kill but to enjoy the outdoors in a way few ever experience." I will concede that many hunters do not hunt "only to kill," but to describe their experience as "a way few ever experience" implies that hunters have a greater appreciation for wildlife than those of us who go out to observe and photograph wildlife. In my opinion, the opposite is the case, but that of course is equally NPOV. --Sentience 02:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar bear hunting

Does anyone know anything about this? I understand that wealthy Americans pay tens of thousands of dollars to be towed behind a snowmobile and allowed to shoot a bear The Inuit driver does most of the work. BrainyBabe 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have first hand knowledge (I spoke with a guy who's done this a while back), but certain Inuit/First Nations/Native American groups have rights to harvest a certain quantity of animals such as polar bear and walrus which normal folks do not have the right to harvest. Those groups can then transfer that right to someone else.

For example, say an Inuit nation has the right to harvest one Polar Bear a year. Rather than exercise that right themselves, they can sell that right for a large amount of money to a wealthy dude from Iowa. As part of the agreement, that dude often is required to hire several members of the nation as guides and assistants. This process generates money for that nation and employment for members of that nation. In those far northern areas, money and employment from sources other than the federal government is hard to come by.

Hunting Polar Bears and other large game from far northern areas is not typically very sporting by its very nature, regardless of whether it is practiced by natives or safari hunters. The safari hunters who do it generally do it for novelty or because they are checking animals off a list. Toiyabe 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Right on, bro. Plus polar bears are in enough trouble as it is. Because of Global warming, they are slowly starving to death. I don't have anything against hunting for food as long as it is fair. It is not fair at all to animals on corporate farms, because they don't have any chance to survive at all and they are treated horribly all their lives. Shannon 08:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rule change in US

Here in Virginia, new for the 2006 season, the law has changed so you no longer have to tag your animals. (simply punch out a piece of paper from your license) If this is true all over the US, it should be changed, since it clearly states that you must tag your animals, in the article. The Editor 2 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In Minnesota you still have to tag deer; I don't know about small game. Each state regulates hunting individually. thx1138 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Depictions in popular culture' section

This section fails to denote the negative light in which contemporary society holds legitimate hunters, actually, it starts out with an oldschool citation that really doesn't reflect popular culture at all, but more modern historical cultural views. In modern / contemporary society, us hunters are definitely shown in a negative light and I'd go further to say that most people oppose hunting or killing of animals without questioning the purposive reasoning behind it. To not reflect this in the article may leave it open to an NPOV flag. 211.30.71.59 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Au Contraire

The preceding comment is simply false. The reality is that more than 65% of persons polled in the United States report favorable attitudes towards fishing and hunting, and approximately 50% report favorable attitudes towards hunting alone. The bald statement that "modern/contemporary society" opposes hunting or killing of animals "without questioning the purposive reasoning behnind it" is not only contrary to Wikipedea NPOV policies, is complete bullshit as well. More to the point, contemporary hunting is one of the few ways that individuals in "contemporary society" can retain any realistic connection with the food chain and their own position in it. It's no wonder that the first generation in Western civilization to have been fully isolated from the process of food production also is the first generation in Western civilization to suddenly adopt a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle. Hunting is our last link to reality in this area. Elcajonfarms 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Elcajonfarms, by this statement you're giving up objectivity, which Wikipedia stands for. What's up with those numbers - 65% and 50%? Isn't it your hunter's fancy? Where did you get them from? You should have a proof of link to social researches, at least. That way I can say 95.6% oppose hunting! By the way, the article is biased. It should have the section "criticism of hunting" or somewhat to render not only hunters opinions but also new tendencies in hunting consideration.

[edit] Diversity

The preceding comment is simply biased. I am a lifestyle vegan, and can assure you that I am well aware of my place on the food chain. As for food pruduction, we are very educated as to the process of meat production, which is exactly why we object. We happen to be willing to re-think norms. We also value our health.

That being said, this topic should certainly discuss the fact that many disagree with hunting. Even if your statistics are accurate, an extremely large group of people are completely without representation. The entire topic seems to be biased. One visits this site for a well-rounded examination of a topic, and this site is anything but well-rounded in reference to hunting. I actually find it odd considering that Wikipedia is normally very balanced. A section needs to be added to at least address the extremely large minority, which is rapidly growing, that are in complete opposition to hunting.

[edit] Response

I do not share the opinion that those who choose not to eat meat or not to hunt are fools. However, this article should explain what hunting is, not why it is good or why it is bad. Whether or not a group of people are "represented" is an issue related to advocacy. This is not supposed to be advocacy. It must surely be the case that reading an article describing something you believe to be repelent, without any reference to it's repellent nature is difficult, but that is what NPOV is about. This article should not be an apology for hunting nor should it be a critique. It should explain dispassionately what hunting is.--Counsel 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is hunting viewed

For those interested in the actual numbers here is an interesting link. Recent poll shows 78% of Americans approve of hunting and that the numbers are increasing.--~~~~ http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/sports/115974151938960.xml?oregonian?spo&coll=7

[edit] Hunting Season

I think someone should include the typical times for different hunting seasons; bow, shotgun etc.

[edit] Deer hunting

I thought that there might be interested here in adding to the Deer hunting article, which is in need of refinement. -- Jreferee 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Hunting

There is a need to start a Wikipedia:WikiProject Hunting. There are over 400 uses of hunting for which only a Wikipedia:WikiProject Hunting could help structure. If you are interested in participating in a WikiProject Hunting, please post on my talk page. If there is enough interest, I'll get the ball rolling.-- Jreferee 17:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes section

I added a Notes section, because I believe that there are some types of references which need to be footnotes instead of just stuck into the article and not better explained. I noticed also there are a large number of other contributor's links which need to be looked at to see if they'd be better suited for footnote format. Trilobitealive 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalize?

This article is a lot less ethnocentric and regiocentric than is needed to remove the globalize tag. I'm deleting the tag and would appreciate anyone who re-adds it to explain their logic please. Sorry, forgot to sign this one. Somebody needs to make signatures automatic here.Trilobitealive 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Hunting link

I added a link to a new Anti-Hunting article I'm stubbing out. If anyone wants to help put it together it need to be expanded. I want to build it to the point where the user can easily trace the history of the anti-hunting movement, deconstruct its goals and objectives and understand the unintended consequences of its expansion (such as the recent increase in the British fox destruction in backlash against the new law ending traditional fox hunting). HA! Remembered to sign this time!Trilobitealive 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting in the UK

I agree that adding more and more politicized discussion to this article is inappropriate. This is a section about hunting per se and not about the political motivations and struggles of the various parties in england. There is a link to the politics of fox hunting, which seems sufficient to direct advocates on both sides to go and discuss the matter fully. It is better to remove such POV matter despite its use of the purest, most innocent language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC). (Forgot to sign again)Trilobitealive 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

With three paragraphs about hunting in the UK, and one of these rightly about fox hunting, it seems to me that balanced coverage requires mention of its controversy and (briefly) the grounds for such controversy. I think it would be a breach of neutrality to present the activity as if this was not the position. Unless others disagree, I will reinsert appropriate text. MikeHobday 11:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration of not just reverting it Mike.

My proposition is that it might be more appropriate to expand discussion of the controversies about both fox and hare hunting into the sentence related to the hunting act of 2004 into its own paragraph, move it to the end of the section where it is more likely to be read as an intact whole rather than an interruption of the flow.

I'd rather you leave my first paragraph alone if you can tolerate it, as I am hoping to come back and add commentary about medieval hunting and its cultural significance.

As you can probably guess from some of my other article edits I'm interested in historical and social evolution; I consider English hunting history and its disputes as being an echo of broader social evolution questions rather than a primary dispute. If you want to pursue discussion on this you can contact me on my talk page.Trilobitealive

Mike, I read your last edit. I'm happy that we can find middle ground and apologise publicly for any excessive boldness on my part. I like your editing style though we don't agree in some areas.Trilobitealive 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semantics

The word harvest is correct US terminology for the act of legally killing wild game. But in the spirit of trying to get a compromise with those who speak British I'm going to change the latest disputed word in the intro from harm to take, which might be understandable to non-Americans.Trilobitealive 15:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Take in this context is a synonym for harvest. Harm is something else. In varmint hunting, one intends to harm (i.e. kill) the varmint, but the varmint is often not harvested. Varmints are commonly left to rot. On the other hand, killing but not havesting game animals is highly illegal in the US at least.

[edit] More on the intro

The intro appears to make the argument that varmint hunting is not hunting, but most US hunters would disagree with that. Toiyabe 16:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a specific reference to varmints in the introduction. (I am aware of discussion outside wikipedia about whether to call actions taken to harvest animals under a depredation permit hunting or merely animal control, likewise the harvest of urban deer by government agencies.) Part of your concern is addressed in the second paragraph of the section on US hunting. Trilobitealive 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment makes less sense since you split it in half. I am refering to the first sentence of the second paragraph:

"By definition, hunting strictly speaking, excludes the killing -though similar techniques may be used- of individual protected animals, such as bears which have become dangerous to humans, as well as the killing of non-game animals, domestic animals, or vermin as a means of pest control."

That definition specifically excludes several activities which are commonly considered hunting, such as varmint hunting. You have reinforced that by switching "harm" to "take" in the third paragraph. That makes the article self-consistent at least, but I don't agree with it. Toiyabe 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That sentence does seem to be long and mis-understandable. I looked at it but left it alone as it didn't appear to me to be too POV. How would you rebuild it to make it more clear? (If I were editing for form I might put a period after the word humans and change around the next sentence to read something like Pest control is not considered hunting; varmint hunting may use similar means but to the end of taking the pests as game rather than direct remediation of depredation.) My 2 centavosTrilobitealive 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting v. Shooting

The varmint hunting discussion above raises and interesting point. Not all activities for which one purchases a hunting license are truly hunting. Hunting involves questing for, calling, or otherwise outwitting the quarry. Sports in which the shooter only positions himself to kill the animal is shooting. The point is best illustrated when comparing duck hunting and dove shooting. Duck hunting involves the use of decoys, calls, and significant efforts in camouflage. Dove shooting does not. The difference is not qualitative; one is not better than the other. I am a hunter and I particularly enjoy dove shoots, but I know the difference between shooting and hunting. Shooting can certainly be sportsmanlike. Doves fly at a very high rate of speed, varmints are often shot at great distances requiring particular skill in marksmanship. These activites are distinguishable from driven shoots or canned hunts. Shooting varmints such as prairie dogs is far superior to the use of poison and traps which have the potential to kill ferrets and raptors. Varmint shooting, like dove shooting, is not properly described as hunting. That said, varmint shooting, and shooting in general, should be covered in this article to provide comprehensive understanding. The difference is often unrecognized and the participants in shooting and hunting are often largely the same.--Counsel 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. The difference between duck hunting and dove shooting, as you describe it, is clear. But they are many greyer areas in between. MikeHobday 18:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is why both should me included in the article. If drawn on a venn diagram they would have areas of overlap.--Counsel 20:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SHOULD NOT BE MERGED with Trophy Hunting

Trophy hunting is very specialized, many a times even as large a fee as US$60000 is charged as Trophy fees for hunting an exotic animal in exotic lands or on hunting ranches, some of it is used and plouged back into conservation of Endangered species, there is a very important wildlife conservation aspect to trophy hunting, some of the money goes back to countries and very poor communities who then have an incentive to save these and other highly endangered species and their original habitatAtulsnischal 09:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted text

I have removed the text:

10% of which is supposed to go back to India to preserve it and its habitat in its true home range where it is close to extinction. It is a USA Government policy now that 10% of trophy fees for Hunting an exotic species found on Hunting Ranches in USA should be sent back for the preservation of that species and its original habitat in its true home range / country.^{[citation needed]}

as per WP:V MikeHobday 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)