Talk:Hunting/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• 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

Archive 1

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)

It put things in perspective. Greenies etc like to blame the hunters for the extinction of Rhinos or what evers. They dont take into account everything they do. The acts of the average westerner living a western lifestyle kill far more "wild animals" wont even mention the ones they have killed so they can eat meat :). This is due to global warming, deforestation, pollution etc--Big5Hunter 09:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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"? Who was the clown that added this part?, this is about hunting animals, not people.(Trumpy 04:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

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)

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

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)

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.

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

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)

I took the liberty of removing the blood sport tag (added by 64.16.40.18). Not that I'm adamantly opposed to its inclusion, but it should be discussed here before adding it. Zonedar 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss... hunting perfectly fits on the blood sports description. I don't see why people want to make hunting look like some kind of peaceful sport, there are animals being killed and regardless of what hunters think they die suffering, this leads to the question how can the society in one hand create more laws to reduce animal suffering at the slaughterhouse and at the same time and allow hunting, maybe in the end it's just a matter of scale...Strumf (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying that there is nothing to discuss and then going on a diatribe about how cruel it is, certainly does not reflect a NPOV. Template removed. Zonedar (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

POV ? What POV its a fact that animals suffer before dieing, or do you think they all die when they are hit the first time?... Is hunting a sport? Yes. Does Hunting involves blood ? Yes... I don't know how on earth hunting is not a blood sport. In a matter of fact on the blood sport page different ways of hunting are listed there.Strumf (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly POV when you say thing like, "[T]his leads to the question how can the society in one hand create more laws to reduce animal suffering at the slaughterhouse and at the same time and allow hunting[...]. Look, there isn't consensus here or on the

Blood Sports page on including hunting. Until there is a general agreement the template should stay off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonedar (talk • contribs

) 12:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why POV ? the society is creating more laws to reduce animal suffering, it's now against the law to leave your dog in your car on a sunny day, or even the laws on how you should transport your animals from one point to another, or on how they should or shouldn't be killed... as the time goes I can only see even more laws being made. Anyway I'll call it quites it's pretty obvious that nothing that would tarnish the image of hunting would ever get to the article or stay there long enough...Strumf (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article should be in the bloodsport caegaory. If you look at

bloodsport, the derivation is from hunting. It says that the term seems to have shifted meaning, but even by feinition hunting fits.Bob98133 (talk

) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This page has been removed from bloodsport so can we delete this section from page. As it is no longer relivant?--Big5Hunter 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that no credible sources exist for the term anywhere other than wikipedia? Its not a general usage term other than the animal rights agenda, which is not a credible NPOV source for an encyclopedia. Bugguyak (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Does anyone know anything about this? I understand that wealthy Americans pay tens of thousands of dollars to be towed behind a

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)

Polar Bear which I would like to hunt next year. It would look great standing in the foyer of one of my houses :)--Polygamistx4 01:24, 29 September 2007 (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)

Yes I paid alot of money for my Polar Bear far far more than a few thousand. I did how ever insist on a very large male. I have seen alot of vidoes of Polar Bear hunts and thought why bother shooting such a small one. Maybe its the lesser cost or ease to get it? It took 13 days and alot of travelling and scouting by planes. The local community who have the right to hunt so many transfered it to me for cash. I find this stupid but it is legal and allowed by the Canadian Government. Theres alot of things we all think are stupid but havwe to work within these laws :)--Big5Hunter 09:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of

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)

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)

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.

Indeed quite amazing that there's no "criticism to hunting" section, when there's such a huge amount of people against it (regardless of the %)... with out this section this articles sounds quite biased.Strumf (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

This is biased, said the last person above me. OK from a vegans point of view it would be. I fail to see how your input is relevant. (Trumpy 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

From a vegan POV and from the POV of anyone else, I'm not vegan, I'm not against hunting in general but an article that only shows one side of the story is very biased and hence very little encyclopedic.Strumf (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hunting isn't just a sport. Hunting has become a major issue concerning modern politics and perceptions of morality. That fact people have brought this issue up in the talk page attests to its presence. I don't think the page should be a forum showing opposing viewpoints, but I do think that the issue should be mentioned. The "anti-hunting" group doesn't have to be presented, but the controversy does. Even if 76% of Americans support legal hunting, 24% (72 million people) don't...it's not exactly a drop in the bucket. This article is overwhelmingly pro-hunting. I mean, "Some modern hunters see themselves as conservationists" is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. There is a reason endangered species can't be hunted. Some people think they are God, but does that warrant mentioning in an article focusing on God? LostCause 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lost cause you may be. To say that Hunting Conservationist is an oxymoron displays a complete ignorance of the history of the conservation movement. Conservationism was started by what are today called hook-and-bullet conservationists like

Conservation_movement#Contributions_by_hunters Read this as well.--Counsel 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that simple, of course. There is plenty of evidence from the shooting industry in the UK that over-release of pheasants damages the biodiversity of the woodlands they are released into. MikeHobday 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am not saying that there have never been problems, but on the whole, the effect of modern sport hunting on the environment is overwhelmingly positive. The mass releases at British shoots is not at all representative of modern hunting. Even there, many of those woodlands might have disappeared if not for shooters who had an interest in maintaining them. Mass releases such as tower releases in the UK are the result of large scale habitat destruction prior to the advent of the conservation movement. The collateral benefits of woodland preservation are legion. Look at the re-discovery of the Ivory-Billed woodpecker in the US. The area in which the remnant population exists was preserved by Ducks Unlimited.--Counsel 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that British shoots are unrepresentative. Yet they are a distinct element of hunting, and should be covered in some way in the article. I would not agree that "Mass releases ... in the UK are the result of large scale habitat destruction prior to the advent of the conservation movement." My view is that they are the result of a commercial industry wanting to enable people to kill 300+ birds a day. That many kills requires lots of release. MikeHobday 09:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a current bit of news on the Hunter-Conservation front [1] Counsel.

I agree with you there as well. It should be covered. It is interesting how the difference in technology has made a difference in the shooting traditions of the two countries. The UK lost its wild places much sooner and to approximate the hunting experience, many turned to raising and shooting birds. This is expensive and so became an entrenched pastime of the wealthy. In urban and suburban areas of the US, as access to wild places became more difficult, again people turned to shooting. However, in our case, the clay pigeon and thrower were available and sports such as sporting clays, skeet, and trap became the preferred method of honing wingshooting skills. Without the necessity of justifying such things as tower shoots as a part of our hunting tradition, hunting here has been able to maintain an ethic which makes it less objectionable and more defensible (at least in my view). This IMO leads to a heathier situation in which groups who advocate | Fair Chase have the support of almost the entire hunting community (which is significant portion of the population here).--Counsel 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange to see, on the "ethics" page of the fairchase website, the sentence "If a way of hunting is under attack in another state, your way is under attack, even if you do not agree with or practice this method." Strange ethical viewpoint! MikeHobday 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two types of conservation at play here. There is the conservation of a pristine, untouched habitat and then there is the conservation of a sustainable hunting ground. A hunter argues hunting is a necessity for keeping certain species in check; a conservationist argues that mankind was the one to break the equilibrium point of the ecosystem in the first place. A hunter prevents a habitat from being turned into condos; a conservationist restores a habitat to its predisturbed state. A hunter protects what an ecosystem can offer him; a conservationist sees what he can offer an ecosystem. It's true that hunters are conservationists, but so were the Confederates who were trying to conserve their way of life. Everyone likes to call their pursuit a noble one, but there are always detractors and their point deserves to be equally acknowledged. It's a fact that hunting is controversial and an encyclopedia should take note of that (but ofcourse, not take sides). Counsel, what was the need to pun my s/n? LostCause 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. This is an encyclopedia. It is not the place for everyone to be "acknowledged". Only cited, encyclopedic information should be here. Just because there are some who do not like the way things are, does not entitle them to have their opinion expressed. Every sentence in any article could be followed by "but some people do not like it this way." This would not be very useful.--Counsel 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No you are wrong, every single article presenting an human action over the environment has a "criticism" section.Strumf (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Sounds unrealistic to me. I think that as more people populate the earth, the environment continues to degrade, and increasingly rare wild populations of animals occur, hunting will lose favor with the average person. As Americans become more environmentally conscious I'd assume their view on hunting will turn sour. We Americans like to ridicule "bunny huggers" though, so maybe that number really is rising. LostCause 20:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Top end predators are needed for balance in the ecosystem (any ecosystem). Hunting is necessary for balance. Read the link above written by the Audoubon Society. Hunters are the people who regularly spend time IN nature, playing a role, not just observing. Their connection is powerful and the role that they have played in saving species like the Wild Turkey through the NWTF or through Quail Unlimited is a significant part of preserving wild animals.--71.32.3.199 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind who has actually taken action to save wild populations when they have been threatened. The cases of the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, Quail Forever, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, this is where the heavy lifting is done. It is hunter-conservation organizations that lobby for increased funding to state Game Departments which monitor and manage wild places. It is hunters who actually go out and do the leg work to make the conservation effort happen. The idea that wild populations are saved by the people who sour on hunting is silly. This is like saying that work on Coral Reefs will be done by vacationers in Florida rather than experienced divers.--Counsel 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The "top end" predator argument is flawed in my opinion. Humans are not an integral link in any of the worlds major ecosystems. Before the population exploded and mankind spread over the world, every single ecosystem was naturally intact and balanced (or it was naturally decaying/dead). Population overruns of certain species only exist due to new circumstances placed on an environment by human factors. Ground squirrel populations exploded because of agriculture. Goat populations exploded on isolated island habitats because they were introduced by early human sailors.

The forest is a good example of this "top end" argument. I read an article that claimed forests need to be thinned out by humans because if they aren't then dangerous, devastating forest fires will occur. But why do most forest fires occur?...because people intervene. Forest fires increased because of efforts to prevent them and the prevalence of careless humans. Ofcourse, forest fires are natural and important to the ecosystem, but generally not at the rate they occur. Unfortunately, fires create ugly forests and safety issues. The answer isn't to thin out the forest by becoming the "top end" predator, but to prevent the human intervention that was causing it in the first place. You don't fix an ecosystem by modifying it, you fix it by rehabilitating it. Humans are relatively new "top end" predators and their effort to balance the ecosystem is what is helping spur on the

Holocene Mass Extinction. Humans aren't the saviours, we are the problem. That's my opinion anways. LostCause

00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said, the fire example is one of the best, nature needs to burn as it creates room for new plants to grow, humans by preventing the fires are in fact hurting the ecosystem, this is why today in some place they make controlled fires in way to mimic the action of natural occurring ones.Strumf (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

California Chukar Season and Bag Limit - Chukars may be taken from the third Saturday in October through the last Sunday in January. The Bag Limit is six per day, and twelve in possession. ChuyDawg (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I added a link to a new

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

• Reindeer hunting in Greenland

--

07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in Hunting and Religion

The discussion about clergy and hunting is very POV to Roman Catholicism. "From early Christian times, hunting, in one form or another has been forbidden to clerics." Perhaps hunting has at times been forbidden to certain clerics, however, as it stands it reads like Christian clergy cannot hunt. The section also suggests that Bishops may forbid hunting -- not in the Lutheran Church, some branches of which have their own ecclesial Bishopric. 74.134.59.45 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rev. Jack Russell.--Counsel 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I'm a Wiki neophyte, so pardon me if this is out of line. But it seems to me that there are more than the average number of vandalism hits on this page. Seems liek at least one a day, on average. I've corrected a few. At what point does one request that the page be lock to edits by non-registered users. I've tried poking around to find out the policy on this, but wasn't succsessful. Zonedar 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Canned Hunting

I think it would be useful to add a section on canned hunts on this page. There are hundreds of operations in the country where animals are hunted in fenced enclosures.

Maybe mention it and link it canned hunting article?--203.192.91.4 14:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Hunting

Hi all. I have become interested recently in creating or helping to create a possible WikiProject covering Hunting, Game animals etc. If anyone is interested, please sign your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Hunting. Cheers Greenfinch100 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Still Hunting

I reverted an edit that described 'still hunting' as sitting waiting for game. I believe that this discussed here before. Still hunting, as I am aware of it is the art of moving very slowly through the field, while looking for game. A web search also confirms this. For example: http://www.cabelas.com/community-inthefield-fieldguides-v02-detail-wt-stillhunt-detail.shtml Zonedar 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hunting helps protects endagered species

Willem Wijnstekers, the Secretary General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), declared that hunting is good for wildlife (even animals on the international endangered species list). This acknowledgement is also illustrative of a trend. For instance, CITES recently opted to allow Uganda to sell 28 leopard tags annually at $50,000 a pop. This should be pointed out and added to the article. http://www.nrapublications.org/tah/Respect.asp . If the greenies who run the CITIES list support hunting. Then who can argue against it? Also Southern White Rhinos have increased from 2000 to over 11000 during a time in which hunting has been legal--Big5Hunter 07:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. Killing endangered species doesn't help them, it causes extinction. I'd like to see you explain how hunting has helped the population of the

Western Black Rhinoceros. Captain Obvious

23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• • LOL at the NRA propaganda, I fail to see how anything the NRA says can be taken to any degree of seriousness, I think they would better starting up a comedy act! --
    Librarianofages
    01:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee DTM142 make up your mind! Do you like CITES or not? Hate to explain to you the odvious stupidity of your comment, but Black Rhinos can not be legally hunted any where! White rhinos have increased from 2000 to over 11,000 during the time they have been legally hunted!--203.192.91.4 13:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Librarianofages it just comes from an NRA site. The comments by Willem Wijnstekers the Boss of CITIES is in favour of hunting certain endangered species. So maybe you should tell him how he is wrong and how CITES have got it wrong? You where the previous boss CITES right? So have some authority better than his?--203.192.91.4 13:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

203.192.91.4; You need to get your facts straight. CITES lifted the ban on hunting Black Rhino a couple of years ago. They allowed RSA and Namibia to take 5 each that year (not sure how many since then). This mainly due to the money that sport hunting can bring to the conservation efforts on the behalf of rhinos. http://in.news.yahoo.com/041004/137/2h3iz.html . Additionally Uganda has also made that first steps to reverse a ~30 year on-hunting game management policy recently. This is mainly due to their looking at the lack of success of conservations efforts in Uganda vs other Sub-Saharan African countries. Zonedar 14:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

CITES

CITES should be mentioned in the article. As techinically you can only import African Elephant/Cape Buffalo and can not import the other 3 (As they are in CITES App 1). This somtimes effects legally taken trophys being transported to countries who have restrictions on importations.Not all countries signed the treaty. Not all countries that signed the treaty enforce all or any of the restrictions of the treaty. So what do people think? People who know what they are talking about! Not biased anti hunting thanks!-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.91.4 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. CITES allows export of all of the Big Five (Very limited in the case of Black Rhino). I've got a leopard that was imported into the U.S. very legally and easily from Zimbabwe. Now whether individual countries allow the import of these trophies is another issue. For example CITES allows cheetah to be hunted in RSA and Namibia, but the U.S. FWS does not allow the importation. I believe that the article should touch on this subject. Zonedar 14:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The the latest doc from CITES and it does not list such exclusions (I have heard about the new allowance of 50 Leopards in Zambia). App 1 animals which includes 3 of the 5 (excluding African Elephant- from certain areas/Cape Buffalo) are not ment to be imported by any signers to the agreement. Guess they allow limited kills of certain animals in certain country/area but fail to list all these details in their own document. I assume any animals killed with the approval of CITES would be excluded from the CITES import bans EG African Elephants. Maybe they hide reality from the greenies as to not upset them? So what does a Black Rhino cost? I have not hunted one in a very long time.--203.192.91.4 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link that lists Export Quotas for Export quotas for specimens of species included in the CITES Appendices for 2007:

http://www.cites.org/common/quotas/2007/ExportQuotas2007.pdf  

Zonedar 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The list does not include Black Rhino. Since its direct from there site it shows they dont even keep their own information up to date. Its only been 3 years since they allowed Black Rhino hunts again.--203.192.91.4 12:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bag limits

Recently,

non-NPOV. Surely, if this information about bag limits is internationally "frequent" and notable, it can be found somewhere other than in an essay self-published by an anti-hunting group with obvious biases. I maintain that an anti-hunting organisation that pays for and hosts an essay on their website does not meet the requirements set forth in Wikipedia:Reliable sources as both an extremist source and as a self-published source. Comments? — Dave (Talk

) 03:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the new phrasing implies that large bags are "frequent" - it looks clear that the word applies to a different clause, but am happy to change the wording to make this clear. As I said,[2] I do not suggest that very large bags are frequent and international, just that they are frquent in one culture. This seems relevant and notable to me, in the context of a section about bag limits. I took your point about the source, and hence added a second. Happy to discuss. MikeHobday (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I massaged the wording to show that what you are objecting to is the shooting of artificially propagated captively reared birds. I also, again, removed the link to your anti-hunting website. I was not able to find one reliable source that even mentions that document and, as I said, a

not an appropriate place to advertise propaganda pieces published on your website, for a variety of reasons which I can detail if required. — Dave (Talk

) 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into an unnecessary debate, there is one point I need to clarify. I am not "opposing", I am adding relevant and cited information. If you accept the second source, I am happy to drop the first. MikeHobday (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

External links and spam

Since there has been recent reverts to the external link section to remove spam and there is currently only one external link (it too could be considered a spam link), I propose either putting in some organizational links (.org) or removing the entire section completely. Actually there are two external link sections. Why is that? Bugguyak (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

American South?

Why are all the books Hunting in the American South? This gives the impression that hunting only takes place in the American South. This section needs work!Bob98133 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Topics needed

• Hunting in the dark

As a highly regulated activity in North America (without being too US centric) hunting after dark or using a light for most species is illegal, but I welcome examples from other countries outside of the US and Canada.Bugguyak (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hunting after dark for frogs is generally allowed in the US. It typically involves using a gig or .22 cal pistol, a strong light, and a long-handled net. No license is required when hunting frogs on one's own land, in most states. Yaf (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem with this being included, but refrences would be needed. Obviously, one can't shoot frogs at night in New York City or anywhere else where discharging firearms is illegal, so generalizations won't work. Bob98133 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hunting after dark" is not necessarily "shooting after dark". Spotlighting combined with shooting indeed is illegal in much of the US, if applied to certain valuable game animals in certain places and/or at certain times, but that's a very narrow subset of hunting in the dark. --Una Smith (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Equipment used: shot, bullet, arrow, dart, spear, net, bolo, rope, trap (various)

...etc. And may I suggest a navigation template to help readers find all the relevant articles? --Una Smith (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the point of the "categories" links at the bottom of the page. Did you mean some other template? Bob98133 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had in mind a navbox, either at the bottom or along the side. Categories tend to include many articles related to concepts; navboxes are good for taking the reader to articles about those concepts. --Una Smith (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Print Sources on Hunting

Do none of these sources have ISBN numbers? If these books are not readily available they should be removed or their unavailability noted. If they are available, their ISBN numbers should be noted. Bob98133 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Predator movies

Anyone else think that a little link to the Predator movies would be acceptable? Given that the aliens in the series are hunters, and they use almost all of the techniques of hunting.. Just a thought. - NemFX (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not me. Bob98133 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This has come up before, this article is about hunting animals. Try science fiction. Bugguyak (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Humans are

animals. ScienceApe (talk

) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

American hunting tradition

I reverted this edit becasue it touched on something of interest but really didn't say much, and needed correcting anyhow. It could be talking about the Colonial style of hunting, or the style of hunting in the US, that allows anyone to hunt, not just priviledged classes. American takes in much more territory than the US. Since hunting has been added to many state constitutions as a right, this too is probably notable for this section. The two, properly referenced, would be a userful addition to the article. Bob98133 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The American hunting tradition that allows all to hunt, not just priviledged classes as you say, is notable and well known in certain quarters. Perhaps someone can do this properly, if I am not supplying enough in the way of footnotes and links. I found it somewhat difficult to say "united states" since it began with the colonies.

Carlw4514 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hunting in Russia

I noticed that the Hunting in Russia was just a "Main article: Hunting in Russia" statment, I have added a snipit that I think is relevent from Hunting in Russia. But I feal it lack enouf info and should be emblished. Overmind 900 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In the section on Christianity and Judaism

It said "It is important to note that the Bible places no such restrictions on any Christian; however, the animal must be properly drained of blood before consuming it." This comes from Old Testament dietary laws, which most of Christianity believes is no longer required. I have editted this section because it is about as accurate as saying "Christians do not eat pork" - this is true for those minority Christians that observe kosher dietary laws, but not for Christianity in general. If anyone wishes to put the remarks about blood in with the parts about Judaism, be my guest. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Conservation Category

This a quick note to explain my reverting of an edit by user:Alan_Liefting. I asked him on his talk page prior to my reverting it, to explain his reasoning. My question was deleted. If I somehow offended or breached protocol by asking on his talk page, I apologize. But I would like to have a discussion about why he feels that hunting should not be included in the Conservation category. Zonedar (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not deleted your question. I moved it to the bottom of my talk page for consistency. My answer is at

conservation. Poaching, which is illegal hunting, currently categorised under environmental issues, is an article that should be in a conservation subcat. Culling, a process that involves hunting, would have a closer link to conservation in certain cases. -- Alan Liefting (talk

) - 21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought that it had been deleted. I appologize. I think that needs to be discussed. To say that 'Hunting is generally considered the opposite of conservation' is a POV. It could easily be countered with such things as

Duck Stamps (also on the conservation page), Hunting license funds and fees that go directly to conservation efforts, the CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe, hunting reserves in various countries around the world, etc. Zonedar (talk

) 00:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that I said that hunting is "generally" the opposite of conservation. Some minor aspects of hunting are directly related to conservation but hunting as a whole is not. The section on hunting on the conservation page is contested. I feel that too much space is given to the hunting fraternity in the article instead of being devoted to other areas. My POV is based on a lot of research and I feel that my stance taken here is NPOV. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the hunting section is in contention on the conservation page is irrelevant to it's inclusion in the conservation category. To say that, "[You] feel that too much space is given to the hunting fraternity in the article instead of being devoted to other areas" certainly indicates a POV on that issue. That leads me to believe that your edits were intended to expand that issue to the category and possibly the hunting page itself.

Personally can't think that it can be argued that hunting (and sport fishing) is not inexorably linked to the history of the conservation movement and it's present continuation given the conservation origins and amounts of money hunting generates and uses for conservation yearly. From the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation's 2007 report [3] :

"Hunters and anglers have historically been — and continue to be — the largest contributors to government wildlife conservation programs. Through excise taxes and license revenues, they have contributed more than $10 billion dollars to conservation, and annually provide more than 80% of the funding for most state fish and wildlife agencies."

$10 billion dollars for just this part of the United States conservation funding isn't "minor" and according to the report is the largest contributor.

That being said, As the hunting page attracts strong opinion I'd like to keep it out of other contentious discussions on other pages. Zonedar (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see the argument for hunting not being included in conservation since it does seem a little odd to conserve a species in order to hunt it, however, Zonedar's quotes about hunters and anglers supporting programs considered to be conservation appear correct, and conservation is one of the stated purposes of hunting, so I think it should be included. Some recent studies have indicated that sport hunting of some species may cause conservation problems by killing off the strongest specimens, but that could be considered separately in a Criticism or Controversy section. Bob98133 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In the world we have now, it's completely wrong to say "hunting is generally the opposite of conservation", and it really isn't the least bit "odd to conserve a species in order to hunt it". The most critical thing for the future of any form of hunting is the conservation of the species concerned. Perhaps if we go back to what we could call "frontier days" around the world, then there would be a good deal of truth in the idea that "hunting was generally the opposite of conservation", but the world has moved on. Xn4 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether hunting is the opposite of conservation or whether it is odd to call hunting conservation, but rather how to improve this article. For the sake of this article, hunting should be in the conservation category, which I thought we'd agreed to; and which sounds like your objective. Bob98133 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary hunting is "Chasing and killing animals for sport or to get food". Conservation is the protection of plants and animals from the effects of human activity. Granted, there is a conservation ethic amongst some of the the hunting fraternity but this is not a reason to have it included in the conservation category. A mention on the conservation page is sufficient. There must be boundaries set for categories (and lists) so that the number of items does not become excessive, and this in fact this happens rather often. That boundary is subjective but in the case of categories it can be set to a max of 200 articles for ease of navigation using the categories. If hunting was included in the conservation category there would be any number of other articles that could also be placed in it. The category would then lose its value as a navigational tool since the articles in the category would be of quite disparate topics. I would happy to have a Conservation aspects of hunting article in the conservation category.

With regard to Zonedars comments:

• the $10 billion figure is the POV of a hunting advocacy group and is not put in context with how much conservation biologists and conservationists (including volunteer time)
• to say that the hunting is inexorably linked to conservation ignores the efforts of the conservation movement over the past 100 years
• WP:NPOV
  states "...neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately...". All my research indicates that conservation biologists and conservationists deserve a larger hearing in the conservation article than the hunting fraternity.

-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite some figures then. If those figures end up making the contributions that I cited, in context, seem insignificant then, no problem. You have thus far not provided any data as to why the hunting page should not be included in the conservation category, other than a POV.

Again this discussion not about the conservation page. It's about whether the hunting page should be included in the conservation category. If you feel that the hunting section on the conservation page takes up too much space, please discuss if there. Don't bring it here. Zonedar (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what sort of figures you want me to cite. Do I find out the cost of all of the

conservation organizations and the dollar value of all the time given by conservation volunteers? It is intuative - conservation is about conserving species and hunting is about shooting them (on the whole). Also, note that the discussion here is also applicable to the articles themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk

) - 06:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan, I think that you're making the mistake of assuming hunters want the destruction of their prey species. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hunters want to want to 'conserve' both the species and habitat for multiple reasons. Most of them parallel to those of the broader conservation community. Preserving habitat for themselves and future generations, spiritual connections to the 'natural world', etc. They also want to be able to continue to hunt. Hunters have been involved with the preservation and recovery of many species. From white and black rhino to pronghorns. It may seem logically inconsistent to you, but this is a fact.

If you'd like something other than an "advocacy group" then just do a search for 'sport hunting' at cites.org (the web site for the UN's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/cites?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22sport+hunting%22&start=10&sa=N Here you'll see page after page of documents referring to the conservation aspects of hunting on the preservation of species.

In regards to the monies spent, I'm just saying if you can show how those spent by the sport hunting and fishing community is somehow insignificant compared to the broader 'conservation community', please do so. So far all you've done is express opinion.

This all being said, I'm going to quit the back-and-forth on this subject.Zonedar (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not "making the mistake of assuming hunters want the destruction of their prey species". I don't think I ever suggested that. I am aware that there is a conservation ethic amongst some of the hunting fraternity (which is why I said in the initial reply on my talk page that "Hunting is generally the opposite of conservation" - emphasis added here). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

deerr poaching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.188.58 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunting is absolutely, definitely related to conservation. There are a handful of communities in the United States where game animals such as deer and boars are overpopulated to the point where they’re a nuisance to people (e.g. often rummaging through people’s gardens and garbage).

What can also happen is that as we eliminate the larger predators from an area (e.g. bobcats, wolves, bears), the populations of the wild animals they preyed on (e.g. deer) can grow out of control, damaging to the environment (e.g. by overgrazing) and even to the point where they can no longer sustain themselves.

Hunting quotas here serve to ‘maintain the balance of nature’.

So there you have it: ‘hunting for conservation’.

On the flipside, there are organizations that are more like ‘conservation for hunting’…

TALK

), 06:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a relationship between hunting and conservation, since the latter is so frequently employed to justify the former. Whether or not this is a positive relationship, that is that hunting supports conservation, may be more open to debate. A couple of media items that I have seen in the last few years indicate that hunting may lead to more conservation problems than it might solve by imbalancing wild populations and encouraging increased populations in areas which may lead to conflicts. It is far too simple to claim that conflicts exist and killing the animals solves these conflicts. In any event, as has been discussed, conservation is generally agreed to be a function of hunting. New research or studies may undermine this, and can be added as they appear, but for the moment the relationship exists. Bob98133 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

"Hunting advocates claim that hunting can be a necessary component[1] of modern wildlife management, for example to help maintain a population of healthy animals within an environment's ecological carrying capacity when natural checks such as predators are absent." is POV it uses the word claim instead of state or say which is more NPOV 70.150.94.194 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

has anybody researched "paper hunt"? which is a famours game in the 19centry. Please tell what's is and how to play it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.91.98.57 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

please sent the answer to [email protected]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.91.98.57 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tools, not Weapons

The difference between a tool and a weapon is it's intended purpose, with weapons being relegated to actions again other humans. No one refers to a rod-n-reel as a "weapon." It's a tool used for fishing. Even the harpoons used to hunt whales are not called "weapons." They're called by their proper name: harpoons. I've hunted with bow and arrow, shotgun, rifle, and pistol, and not once have I ever heard of them being referred to as a weapon in the confines of their intended purpose with respect to hunting. Guns used in local law enforcement are primarily intended as a deterrent, by their mere presence, and they're refered to as "weapons" because of their intended target: Man. Extraordinary precautions are taken, however, to avoid ever having to draw those weapons, much less use them, and the vast majority of career law enforcement members never fire their weapons outside of the practice range. A rifle used for hunting is referred to as a "rifle." In the context of hunting, a variety of guns are referred to as "guns" or "firearms." According to the science of anthropology, the correct term used to describe instruments used for hunting is "tools." 19:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I reverted this edit, since the wiki article for weapons defines them as being used for hunting. While your explanation makes sense, you would need some solid references to make this change. Simply saying "According to the science of anthropology..." does not make it so. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind it isn't good form to use another wiki article to define what a weapon is or isn't, according to

original research. Narthring (talk • contribs

) 22:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hunting with dogs - images

Can someone fix the images for hunting with dogs? They are too big, in the wrong place. There are also too many images jammed together. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sport Hunting

I have a question. Is trophy hunting and sport hunting the same thing? Revan ltrl (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• As a hunter from a family of hunters, I would be curious to know what exactally you consider to be a sport hunter and what exactally you consider to be a trophy hunter. We do not strictly need to hunt for sustenance, but we plan on meat from the animals we hunt making up a significant portion of our diet each year. It is much healthier than the vast majority of the meat you buy at the supermarket, and we find it to be more tasteful as well. We never shoot anything we don't plan on eating, and we never shoot anything unless we have a very high degree of confidence that we will be making a clean, fast kill. To us, these are both paramount points of hunting ethics. Yet we both enjoy hunting as well, and in my case I would do very little of it if I didn't. Or I'd choose to hunt in different places using different methods that are less enjoyable but have a higher probability of success. So do we qualify as sport hunters? I certainly would not consider us to be trophy hunters. But how about a person who, for example, passes up any animal he does not consider a trophy, but is also very diligent about eating and fully utilizing anything he kills? I would consider such a person (and can personally testify that they exist) to be a trophy hunter, though they would be likely to be highly insulted because of the connotations that the term comes attached to. To answer your question, that largely depends upon your definition of a "trophy hunter" and a "sport hunter," though for most reasonable definitions I would say no, they are not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.222.252 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Deer-1-.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Deer-1-.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk ) 08:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions and reversions

I do appreciate that the subject of hunting is always going to be one which is controversial and likely to flare up into arguments. It's vital that everyone remembers not to push a particular point of view, no matter how passionately they feel about any subject at all (not just hunting); it's important that Wikipedia articles are written from a

neutral point of view

. This means that readers should not be able to tell, either from what we say or from how we say it "which side the writer is on", if you will.

It's also important that not only should the subject be presented neutrally, but that statements which are likely to be challenged (and ideally all statements unless they are as universally recognised as, for example, two plus two equals four), should be

soapbox - it's not the place for any of us to air our personal views. Pesky (talk …stalk!

) 19:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible rewriteing?

There are a few parts of the article that i belive should be rewritten.

First of all I would like to see a new definition of hunting, as I belive the current one to be a bit - well "weak". On the same note, I would like to point out that, based on my experience, the distinction between hunting and trapping is non exsistiant in atlast parts of northeren Europe. And are be viewed as the same activity but with different tools.

I think the "intro part" of the article should be trimed a bit, and that parts concering "huntining for plants or mushrooms", fishing and hunting metaphores in language should be cut.

I find the national traditions to be split between current practises and traditions. And belive it should be rewritten and perhaps renamed. - I also miss a bit on hunting in West Africa. Though this would far too fast be about bushmeat. - As well as perhaps hunting in central europe.

I find the section on methods to be a bit. Well, mixed quality. With quite a few points, as far as i can see, not hunting methods or extreamly marginal.

Also but not least I belive that there should be a criticism or 'sociatal views' section, since this is a fairly controversial topic.

Would love any feedback or thoughts. - Thank you --Nethill (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One weakness is that the article seem to be heavily focused on human hunting of other animals, where as the vast majority of hunting is done by non-human animals towards other non-human animals. Really human hunting should be its own article or a sub-section of the "Hunting" article. Olyus (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I belive that predation by other animals should not be included in this article, and that it is covered quite nicely here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation

Nethill (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservation

I really think that the Conservation section should be significantly changed . The main part of it presently reads :"Hunters have been driving forces throughout history in the movement to ensure long-term sustainability of natural resources and wildlife habitats. Hunters established game parks in Medieval Europe, such as the New Forest, with often violent punishments for poaching. In modern times, hunters have founded some of the most significant wildlife conservation organisations, such as Ducks Unlimited. Hunters in industrialised nations generally comply with bag limits to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations. Many contribute actively to preserving and protecting wildlife habitats internationally, knowing from experience that uncontrolled hunting can result in population crashes, such as in the US in the 19th century when common wild species that had been staple foods—most famously the passenger pigeon—were unexpectedly hunted to extinction.

Hunters have at times worked closely with local and federal governments to enact legislation to protect wildlife habitats. For example, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters successfully lobbied to prevent cuts in funding for the Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program by fifty percent."

To me, this seems to be skipping one simple point : Hunting is not conservation. Killing animals is not conserving them - it is eliminating them. In addition , it is totally uncited. If someone has the citations for this ,great , but otherwise I think it should be removed from the page. --

Rwenonah (talk

) 21:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No one replied, so I went aheadand made some changes. If you have any objections, tell me before you revert me, please. --

Rwenonah (talk

) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No. You are

soapboxing and attempting to push your line of thinking which is very errant.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

14:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is true , please tell me exactly how killing animals for recreation is conserving them. Also, I'd like to know who and what says all these things about how hunters are such great conservationists and the death of animals is actually keeping them for the future. --

Rwenonah (talk

) 14:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go read about

Teddy Roosevelt and find some sources. Your view is distorted and uninformed which is why you shouldn't be editing this article and pushing your personal viewpoints.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

13:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I read( and I quote) :Roosevelt and his companions killed or trapped more than 11,397 animals, from insects and moles to hippopotamuses and elephants. These included 512 big game animals, including six rare white rhinos. The expedition consumed 262 of the animals. Tons of salted animals and their skins were shipped to Washington; the quantity was so large that it took years to mount them all, and the Smithsonian shared many duplicate animals with other museums. Regarding the large number of animals taken, Roosevelt said, "I can be condemned only if the existence of the National Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, and all similar zoological institutions are to be condemned." This is not conservation or the act of a conservationist. At the risk of sounding cliched, I would say that: your view is distorted and uninformed which is why you shouldn't be editing this article and pushing your personal viewpoints.There are multiple faces and multiple viewpoints to any article, and I think that all of these should be represented in the hunting article. In addition, you still have not given any actual sources which support the pro-hunting views expressed on the page. If you could show me some of those, that would be great. In the meantime, please leave my edits alone and tell me before you revert me again.--

Rwenonah (talk

) 14:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. You will need to gain

consensus here on the talk page for your edits. Roosevelt was also responsible for securing and starting our national parks which help preserve millions of acres as a conservation effort. Your attempts to cherry pick facts but leave others out won't work.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

15:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither will yours. Stop avoiding the main issue here:the lack of citations for the pro-hunting bit of the conservation section. Please show them to me. In addition, I checked the archives and no consensus was made to make the conservation section so pro-hunting. And more to your point, as is shown above, Roosevelt killed thousands of animals for the purpose of "specimens" and was criticized for it -in the early 1900s an era in which they were very unconcerned about the death of animals.Hardly the action of ( or reaction to) a conservationist. But this isn't about him. please leave my edits alone ( and don't assume I'm American either -its not my national parks).--

Rwenonah (talk

) 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't assume you were American...in fact, your ignorance about conservationism somewhat reveals it. I have already made my point that millions of acres of land were preserved by a hunter. Within a section on conservationism is not the place to try to effectuate a critique unless it were directly related to some failure about conservation (cited).

Exactly what are you asking to be cited? You have added uncited material which was removed and then you counter with asking to be shown cites for (?) the general view within the section? Ha. Sounds like you just

don't like hunters and want to push your advocacy.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►

11:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds more to me like you like hunters (Berean Hunter) although Hunter is a common last name so I could be mistaken. If you don't mind the uncited material in the section and want me to leave it alone, please leave my uncited material alone as well. Oh, and generally the word "our" in reference to a government institution(such as a national park) means that the person who it is directed to is a resident of that country, unless someone irrevocably changed the rules of grammar overnight.

I am asking for citations for the following part of the page :"Hunters have been driving forces throughout history in the movement to ensure long-term sustainability of natural resources and wildlife habitats. Hunters established game parks in Medieval Europe, such as the New Forest, with often violent punishments for poaching. In modern times, hunters have founded some of the most significant wildlife conservation organisations, such as Ducks Unlimited. Hunters in industrialised nations generally comply with bag limits to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations. Many contribute actively to preserving and protecting wildlife habitats internationally, knowing from experience that uncontrolled hunting can result in population crashes, such as in the US in the 19th century when common wild species that had been staple foods—most famously the passenger pigeon—were unexpectedly hunted to extinction.

Hunters have at times worked closely with local and federal governments to enact legislation to protect wildlife habitats. For example, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters successfully lobbied to prevent cuts in funding for the Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program by fifty percent." If you want it to remain on the page , leave my edits alone because they are no more uncited or point-pushing then this, which according to you deserves a place on the page.--

Rwenonah (talk

) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Cites are needed for any material, and it is an ongoing process, however the primary burden is on the editor making a given change. However, it appears to me that you have a specific agenda in mind, judging by your statement: "Hunting is not conservation. Killing animals is not conserving them - it is eliminating them." I doubt that the

Nature Conservancy or Ducks Unlimited would agree with your very narrow definition of a "conservation organization," nor that you personally consider them as such, since they all permit hunting and fishing on their lands or promote hunting and fishing in general. However, all have made substantial contributions to protected lands and wildlife habitat in the United States. You appear to be taking an extreme stance. While the article can certainly be impproved, it will not be improved by changing it into an anti-hunting piece, nor will it be improved by disallowing conservation organizations that do not fit with your point of view. You do appear to be soapboxing here. Acroterion (talk)

21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, pleasebekind.com is not a useful or neutral citation. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No Rwenonah, I established sentence one ("Hunters have been driving forces throughout history in the movement to ensure long-term sustainability of natural resources and wildlife habitats.") with a reference which is ample for this discussion. Your tactic that your uncited material must remain or the rest must come down won't work. That is

reliable sources

. Your comments on my talk page lead me to believe that for WP purposes, you don't know the differences.

As for grammar, I was speaking correctly. Our National Parks were largely brought about by hunter/conservationists. I identify it as ours because it is the property of a collective group.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not mean my comment about "the rest must come down" as a threat. I was simply pointing out that the other section is no more uncited or point-of-view-pushing then mine and that thus I see no reason why mine should not remain on the page if the other is up to your standards. As to Acroterion's comments, I doubt that

Rwenonah (talk

) 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)