Talk:Working terrier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed edits[edit]

It is not clear what user:PBurns3711 objects to in my edit:

  • I removed claims that were not verified - that hunting with terriers is humane, and that the UK red fox population is at a high;
  • and added verifiable information: that hunting with terriers is largely illegal in Britain, how that came to be and what the law says

Perhaps concerns could be discussed here? MikeHobday 07:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hobday has gone all over wikipedia spreading his animal rights advocacy and it is not needed here. This post is about working terriers and not about a specific law in a specific country. As to the question of whether terrier work in humane or whether fox are at historical record populations in the UK, perhaps he should read "Running With the Fox" by David MacDonald, who is the UK best red fox biologist. The book is widely available, and in it MacDonald notes that "If hunting stopped, the same number of foxes, or even more, would be killed by people using other methods such as traps, poison, snares or night-shooting," as most fox that are purposely terminated in the UK are on bird-shoot estates where the fox is in direct competition with the "excess" birds released into the wild. As MacDonald notes, hunters are willing to pay £10 a bird -- fox are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PBurns3711 (talk • contribs)

You do not say how that makes the claims I removed verifiable or the verifiable claims I added inappropriate. Perhaps you could explain? If an activity described is, to a signifcant extent, illegal, then that seems relevant. MikeHobday 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is already a Wiki entry on the U.K. Hunting Act and on Foxh Hunting legiation, and another one here is not needed and redundant. If you want to create a separate Wiki entry on hunting laws all over the world or the hunting debate in the U.K., please feel free to do so -- that seems to be your expertise -- but that is not the topic of this entry nor an area in which you have any expertise. For the record, terrier work is practiced all over the world not just in the U.K., which is exactly why the unpopular and loophole-riddled laws of one small country and its advocates are irrelevant here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PBurns3711 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for removing your more abusive comment.[1]. The article says nothing about this being an international activity beyond the UK and US. I know it takes place in Ireland, but does it go much further. In case it does, I accept that you have a point, and that the UK end should not be quite so prominent. Let me make a few edits, starting by correcting the spelling, adding some {{Fact}} tags for the more dubiouis phrases, and adding a small UK section. Would at least some of that be reasonable to you? MikeHobday 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a simple link to the "Fox hunting legislation" section on Wiki, and that's the end of it. Your characterization of fox hunting as largely illegal in the UK is a lie, as you well know as Public Relations Director for the so-called "League Against Cruel Sports." In fact, terrier work is entirely legal in the U.K. (if regulated the same as everything else from driving to shooting), and continues unabated. I will not even mention the significant numbers of fox that are shot or or snared in the U.K. I am a bit astounded that you seem confused about the difference between mounted hunts and terrier work -- a good sign you know very little about either one. The fact that you do not know that fox is the most widely spread canid in the world, and is worked with terriers in Canada, Australia, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Finland, etc., as well as the U.S. and the U.K. is astounding. No wonder the Hunting Act legislation is such an unworkable mess in the U.K.!

New references[edit]

Thanks for adding these. I plan to remove the 500 vet survey because it relates to an opinion on hunting with hounds, not with terriers and therefore seems irrelevant to this article. MikeHobday 10:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the reference to the Letter from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to the Burns Report on Hunting for a simple reason: You are entirely wrong on every count. Please read the ENTIRE letter at >> http://www.huntfacts.com/veterinary_opinion_on_hunting_.htm and note that is quite explicitly (and in detail) talks about terrier work.

Mike Hobday, you knowledge of working terriers seems as close to zero as your predecessor at the "League Against Cruel Sports" who, upon getting an education, went to the other side (as did two previous Executive Directors/Chairmen. As Former LACS Public Relations director Miles Cooper noted in an interview last year (see : http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/80561.html)

"I think 'cult' is a very accurate description [of LACS] ... The anti-hunt movement was never very big, it was based on a small core group of animal rights people — many of whom never understood what they were doing, or why they were there. I became concerned that we were shoehorning evidence to suit our own political agenda and I think we were misleading people ... There were a lot of people, particularly in the memberships of these organisations [LACS and IFAW], who rely solely on PR departments to tell them what hunting is without actually going out, seeing it and talking to people. Inevitably, there is a massive gap in terms of real understanding — of course you can mount the most fantastic, well-organised, glossy campaign on the basis of ignorance and I think that's basically what we did. We were not entirely honest with people and weren't giving them the whole picture."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PBurns3711 (talk • contribs)

Welfare issues[edit]

I've returned the welfare issue to the lead, and restored the section about legislation in the UK, because these aspects are clearly a major part of the narrative about working terriers. Any article that left them out would be very one-sided. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK information should be in the UK section. The majority of terrierwork does not take place in the UK. All countries have differing rules and laws regarding hunting. If we were to put all of it in the intro it would be unreasonably long.--Counsel 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that, Counsel, but there has to be a mention of the welfare issues in the lead, because they are significant, and for many people the welfare thing is, in fact, the main issue when it comes to this subject. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Intro[edit]

I have left the basics of the welfare issue and a link to the controversy in the intro. As it was written before the intro had a plug for an argument made by one side of the fox hunting issue (which is not what this entry is about anyway). Fox hunting is only a small fraction of working terrier work, and working terrier work in the UK is a fraction of working terrier work. To argue that because a very vocal group in one small country is very much opposed to certain activities is not germane to the introduction of an article which is devoted to describing a class of dogs. As a example take a look at the article on lever action rifles. The group of people opposed to gun ownership is much larger than that opposed to fox hunting. Should this article contain a summary of anti-gun positions? Should it be in the introduction? I am sure that for some the gun control " thing is infact the main issue when it comes to this subject". There is no such information on the Foxhound page which is much more directly related to fox hunting. Why is it so fundamental here?--Counsel 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that terrier work in the course of fox hunting is "fox baiting" is simply wrong.--Counsel 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have correctly argued for an expansion of Foxhound, not a diminution of this article. Grace Note 05:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That it should also be mentioned in other articles, but isn't, is no reason not to mention it here. The material I added is about terrier work, and this article is about working terriers. It is not a question of a "very vocal group" in "one small country" (are you being American-centric?). The welfare issues represent a significant view — either a majority view or a significant-minority one — and must be represented per NPOV. As for calling it "fox baiting," that's what the sources call it. Are you saying fox baiting is something else? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying it should not be included, I am saying it should be placed in a section on that topic. Fox hunting is a small part of terrier work. It is less than 10% of terrierwork in the US. The intro should include things relvent to all terrier work not just a small part. I am not arguing for a US centered article but rather one that is not UK centric. See articl split below--Counsel 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a section in this article? If so, I would tend to agree with you. I would modify your new second sentence in paragraph two to say "Hunting with terriers, like other aspects of fox hunting has created significant controversy in the UK." So why not add the new section instead of just deleting text from the introduction? MikeHobday 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section already. I do not think that I removed anything that was not already covered in the controversy section.--Counsel 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In part, I think. See further comment below. MikeHobday 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it helps, but here "fox baiting" means "laying out baits to poison foxes". I suspect, but I'm not sure, that Counsel thinks that the suggestion of torturing implicit in the use of the parallel term to "bear baiting" is misplaced. But if that's what it's called, that's what it's called. Grace Note 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See [2] for a Scottish Parliamentary committee's references to "fox baiting". MikeHobday 08:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation[edit]

There is already an entry on the Hunting Act of 2004, yet a summary of the entire law has been included here. I am not a British lawyer so I cannot comment whether it is correct, however, it is not necessary. I spend all day reading laws. I happen to like the law, but including a complete discription of the law of England is not appropriate. Are we to include the laws of Virginia, Washington, Pennsylvania, France, etc? Such an article would be unwieldy. I will leave it in for now, but I think it would be better handled with a link to the entry on the law.--Counsel 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article does not talk about a "class of dog" in the sense that a "poodle" is a class of dog. It talks about a use of certain types of dogs. To chase "quarry". This sets a context for these dogs (the matter of fact tone suggests approval of this use of a dog, as does, very much so, that the first requirement for a working dog is that someone should work it!). Describing what the dogs do as "work" is strongly biased to a positive view of it. I do not strongly object to this, although it could be rephrased into a "voice" that took things less for granted.

The fact that you are critical of a "matter of fact" tone indicates that you seek an article which only condemns terrier work. This is simply not an option. "Matter of fact" is precisely the tone that is demanded by the priciple of NPOV. If you are seeking a shrill condemnation write a blog. Changing the name of the activity to suit your political view is also not an option. It is most commonly called terrier work. We are here to describe...preferably matter-of-factly.--Counsel 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, many readers will not automatically realise that one is talking about dogs that could be used in fox hunting, yet this is primarily what they are used for at least in the UK. The article largely discusses terrier work in the UK, framing its history in terms of enclosure, which is not an issue in the States or elsewhere, because enclosure practices differed in other places. So the intro should note this, and having done so, making note in some detail why it is controversial (not just that it is) serves to balance out a piece that is far too sympathetic to one POV.

Third, the article on the Hunting Act is not specific on this issue, and it's appropriate to give it in some detail (if it is appropriate to go into as much detail about terrier work in the UK, which the article does). You should either slash the article to its generic elements and put the slashings into an article on Working terriers in the United Kingdom or accept that given the form of the discussion, a focus on UK responses is appropriate. Grace Note 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population increases[edit]

I've removed the claim about the fox population having increased in the UK, because this source says otherwise. David McDonald's book was published in 1987, and so is out of date; also, there was no page number so it'd be hard to check exactly what he said. I also removed the claim about all species hunted by terriers having increased, because the first source didn't say it, and the second two links went to a personal website, terrierman.com. We're not allowed to use those as sources unless the owner of the site has some widely acknowledged expertise, preferably professional. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split[edit]

I think that the suggestion that an article on working terriers in the UK be created is not a bad one. This would allow for a general article on what a working terrier is and then one that could discuss issues in a country specific venue as there are loads of country specific issues. This might not solve the problem however, as I am sure that LACS and others concerned for the welfare of foxes are not only concerned about those foxes that drop their H's. Surely there would be concern for american foxes even if there is not a similarly active social/political movement. This would also make the lenghty exposition of laws in that particular jurisdiction more appropriate.

Baiting[edit]

Read the article on animal baiting. I have not contributed to that one. Baiting is an activitiy were the animal is chained or confined by people and the set upon by dogs, usually for gambling purposes. This activity is distinguishable. Dog fighting is similarly not included here. While a law may address both, this article is not aimed at any particular law, it is about hunting not fighting or baiting. Ideally, a hunting terrier will have no contact with the quarry, but will bolt the animal or stop the animal in a sette and bay allowing the terrierman to dig to the animal.

(Suppose a Patterdale Terrier, capable - so that article says - of "dispatching" a fox, and being "hard of nails", is entered into a fox earth with only one entrance. Is the ensuing fight any different from baiting? Not all terrier work is fox baiting, but some is, and it has a clear history and literature. MikeHobday 19:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps. Maybe my definition is too legalistic, but there is an element of intent. If the said Paterdale is entered with the intent of fighting the fox to death, and the fox were confined for that purpose, then yes we probably have baiting. If the same dog were entered with the intent of hunting him out, I think not. It certainly does not make much difference for the poor fox. It seems unlikely that someone would bait foxes in this way, however. Part of baiting is getting to watch and a fight at the end of a tunnel is not going to be visible.--Counsel 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it never happened - but look at para 70 of [3]. If there is only one entrance, and the terrier is "hard", then fighting may be inevitable if not intentional. MikeHobday 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the activity described there is clearly baiting. The law may deal with both. I also agree that hunting can be done so irresponsibly that it is tantamount to baiting even if it does not conform to a given definition of baiting. Just because the activity can be done wrongly does not implicate all of the activity. People often drive while intoxicated and kill others. This does not make all driving bad. Now there are those who would say that all hunting is bad, but I am saying that not all activities involving terriers are baiting. This article is about those activities which are hunting.--Counsel 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but I am not sure. Arguably, the article is about "A working terrier is a terrier that goes to ground in a natural earth against formidable quarry". That would encompass the subset of terrier work called fox baiting. MikeHobday 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the first paragraph to make clear that the article does not seek to legitimize baiting or fighting and changed the second paragraph as you suggested.--Counsel 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be worked[edit]

I believe that your concern that the artice states that dogs "should be worked" is misplaced. I believe that this was written as means of distinguishing working terriers from pet or show dogs. The arguement is often made that a Border Terrier is not a "working terrier" by virtue of being of that breed. It only a working terrier should it be worked. I agree that it could be written more skillfully to avoid the appearance of advocacy.

The article on the Australian Cattle Dog makes the point that these dogs, being highly intelligent, require continual mental stimulation or they will develop problems. IMHO, the "should be worked" sentence is made here in the same context. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Class of Dog[edit]

I submit that this article is about a class of dogs in the sense that Draft horse is an article about a class of horse. That article states that a draft horse "is a large horse bred for hard, heavy tasks such as ploughing and farm labour". I have little doubt that in today's mechanized world many would be opposed to forcing a horse to perform hard labor. Why do we not see similar polemics in the intro to that article. The article certainly makes it sound as though breeding horses for this purpose is a good thing. The article on axes states the following "Stone axes are quite efficient tools; using one, it takes about 10 minutes to fell a hardwood ash tree of 10 cm diameter, one to two hours for an ash of 30 cm diameter." I know that many would consider felling a hardwood tree to be a bad thing. Given the fact that deforestation threatens the lives of millions of people, it is clearly a more important issue than a hunting ban. If things continue as they are, London may be underwater, yet we do not preface the entry on axes with such information. We cannot add sections on every activity which is opposed by some which states "some people don't like this". I do think that given the space in current political discourse allocated to welfare issues in hunting, some reference is appropriate, but the introduction is not the place.

Just as the intro to lever action rifles does not contain a gun control warning or the intro to axe does not contain a deforestation warning, the issues related to animal welfare should be in a section on animal welfare not the introduction--Counsel 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "polemic". There is notice that it is a controversial use of a dog. If you know of controversy over the use of draught horses, please extend that article. Again, you have successfully argued that other articles are lacking, not that this one requires slimming down. Grace Note 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the article should be shortened. I am saying that only a general overview should be in the introduction.--Counsel 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is there is a general overview. You seem to want to write a fluff piece for the practice. Clearly, I don't want that. Nor do I want an introduction that is wholly anti the practice, which would reflect my views. I'm happy that the matter of fact tone is kept so long as we strongly feature the opposition in the opening section. Removing it gives the impression that we are ignorant of the opposition; diminishing it gives the impression that we just don't care that this is what makes working terriers prominent in the day-to-day discourse. Again, I have to point out to you that this article is not about terriers qua terriers but as terriers qua hunting implements. The correct comparison is not with an axe, but with a specific logging technique, which would certainly contain criticisms in its introductory section. Grace Note 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Animal welfare issues[edit]

To my mind, the key remaining problem with the article is the separation of the statement "over 500 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons agree that it is a humane way to reduce fox numbers" from the discussion of the welfare issue in the controversy section. Not sure how to address this, but these issues are linked. MikeHobday 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrier work is legal in the UK[edit]

Terrier work is entirely legal in the UK and in Scotland. See the law,

"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt." (s1) The exemptions are quite limited and can be viewed at our article on the act or in the schedules attached to the act. Grace Note 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for first paragraph[edit]

Do we have any reliable sources for the following claims? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terriers that rat or bush rabbits or work wild game in brush piles or barns are not working terriers, but "sporting terriers" — a term that encompasses a wide variety of work not done underground. A terrier is considered a working terrier only when it disappears underground and out of sight, and when it is dug to by someone with a shovel, or when the quarry is allowed to bolt free or to a net. A terrier is not a working terrier if it is working only artificial earths, such as those used at American earthdog trials.

Does not including fighting, baiting?[edit]

How can anyone claim, as a previous version of this article did, that "[t]errier work ... does not include dog fighting or animal baiting," when it clearly does include that, according to the sources? This article has to reflect what reliable sources say about the issue and that includes animal protection groups. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing[edit]

Parts of this are written in a slightly unencyclopedic tone, but I actually like it — particularly: " ... [L]arger dogs ... are more likely to find themselves jammed in a den pipe, face to face with the quarry, and unable to move forward or backward. Nothing good can come from such a situation." Indeed not! :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

The place to put controversy is not in the introduction, and in this case, the text added was factually wrong on several fronts. I have left in a brief section on the "controversy" in the UK, but the law as quoted was simply wrong and demonstrably so.

As to the differences between a sporting terrier and a working terrier, this is spelled out quite clearly by both Jocelyn Lucas and Brian Plummer and these are well-understood terms in the working terrier community the world over. I would also recommend these two authors to anyone who wants to know what terrier work is -- and it not. -- PBurns3711

Dude, you don't even bother to address the issues on this talkpage. I'm going to be reinserting that section and I urge you not to take it out again. The place to put the controversy is absolutely in the opening section, as I discuss at length above. The law as quoted is the law as it is spelled out in the Act. You might not like it but it is the law. This article is not written for "the working terrier community [sic] the world over", but for laypeople, some of whom are not sympathetic with the POV you are pushing here. If you feel there are factual faults, place them here. If you simply remove the text, you are liable to run into trouble. Grace Note 13:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBurns, criticism must be reflected in the lead when it's as substantial as this. Please don't remove it again. Also, could you please provide a source for your claim about vets' groups? You linked to the homepage of a website but it doesn't say anything about the working terrier. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A focused article[edit]

I have read the discussion section completely, and the opposition to SlimVirgin's edits GraceNotes's edit are pretty well spelled out by Counsel. As he/she notes, there is already a section on Wiki on The Hunting Act, fox hunting, etc. and most terrier work is not done in the U.K. The fact that neither writer seems to know what "baiting" is suggests a basic lack of knowledge about the topic addressed here, and the "Dude" reference suggests a very young age. What seems to be going on here is a "revert war" sparked by a very young and not very well-informed person who knows nothing about terriers or terrier work. 

   SlimVirgin and GraceNotes should be aware of the three-revert rule on Wiki to avoid being blocked. [4]
66.208.50.14PBurns3711

General Overview[edit]

Here is the rub: The longer introduction contains a general overview of the animal welfare argument. This is not an article about the controversy. The introduction should be a general overview of Working Terriers. The longer introduction that you favor does not state that there is a controversy, it provides portions of the arguments for and against. This is incomplete AND overinclusive for an introduction. The introduction as written before, which was put together by persons on both sides of the issue and discussed on this page states clearly that there is a controversy, provides a link, and makes clear what the "Controversy in the UK" Section will be about. I am going replace the longer "arguement outline" introduction with the shorter "Controversy link" introduction that was discussed here because it is the introduction that was put together through discussion. I do, however, appreciate your discussing it here and I have added a clause stating that the controversy is over animal welfare as this was not clear before. I think that your argument that this is a page as much about a technique as it is about a class of dog is persuasive. I propose a few compromise ideas.

  • Perhaps moving the controversy section up on the article so that it does not seem to be an after-thought.
  • A How-to type article could be created that would allow for much of the technique information to be moved allowing this article to remain as a description of the class of dogs only. This would allow a greater exposition of the challenges to terrier "work" there. This is the essence of my opposition to laying out the portions of the arguments in the introduction. If we include a portion of the argument in the introduction, who is to say which portions are to be included. New editors will find the page and add those portions that they believe to be most important and the introduction will expand. The introduction should only state that there is a controversy and direct the reader to a full explanation.--Counsel 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be absurd to have an article about a subject regarded by reliable sources as controversial, without mentioning that controversy in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (my emphasis) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you have a source for this: "Terrier work includes legal activities such as hunting and tracking. It does not include dog fighting or animal baiting." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And legal where? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Questions for Answers[edit]

SlimVirgin you seem to know very little about terrier work, which is fine, but the proper way to learn is not to delete text while spray-painting a section with anti-hunting, animal rights rhetoric heavily centered on the UK debates about fox hunting or the Hunting Act, all of which are deeply coverered on other Wiki entries. As noted earlier, most terrier work does not occur in the UK, and terrier work is legal in most countries where it is practiced, including in the UK. - PBurns3711

You don't answer any of my questions. Could you address the following, please?
  • You need to provide a source for terrier work "does not include dog fighting or animal baiting," because it does according to some sources.
  • You also need a source for your claim about vets' groups supporting it.
  • You can't say something is "legal" without saying where, and it is permitted in the UK only in certain circumstances.
  • You need a source for "Terriers that rat or bush rabbits or work wild game in brush piles or barns are not working terriers, but "sporting terriers" — a term that encompasses a wide variety of work not done underground. A terrier is considered a working terrier only when it disappears underground and out of sight, and when it is dug to by someone with a shovel, or when the quarry is allowed to bolt free or to a net. A terrier is not a working terrier if it is working only artificial earths, such as those used at American earthdog trials."
SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More on Intro[edit]

Information such as "The British National Working Terrier Federation denies that underground fighting is an issue, arguing that the terrier's role is to locate, bark, and flush out the hunted animals, not attack them" is not general overview of terrier work. It is completely in-the-weeds detail and is not appropriate in the introduction. It should be in the controversy section. Perhaps if this were a UK specific article. What the British National Working Terrier Federation has to say makes no difference in 90% of the world. I am not going to pull it immediatly to avoid a further revert war, but I am interested to hear what other editors have to say. I am alone here?--Counsel 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about:
The British National Working Terrier Federation says that the terrier's role is to locate, bark, and flush out the hunted animals, an activity known as "terrier work," not to attack them. However, terriers are known to fight or hold foxes and badgers when the animals are underground. For this reason, terrier work has been condemned by animal welfare organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports. Hunting below ground with terriers is largely illegal in Britain under the Hunting Act 2004.
With references obviously. MikeHobday 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this go in the introduction or in the UK section?--Counsel 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to use this language to cover what the activity is, but I now see that is in the first paragraph, although not too clearly worded. Hence revised suggestion (taking point above about WP:LEAD):
A working terrier is a terrier that goes to ground in a natural earth (as opposed to the artificial earths used at American earthdog trials) against formidable quarry such as foxes or badgers. Terriers that rat or bush rabbits or work wild game in brush piles or barns are not working terriers, but "sporting terriers" — a term that encompasses a wide variety of work not done underground.
In terrier work, the terrier is intended to locate its quarry and either bark and bolt it free or to a net or to hold it so that it can be dug down to and killed. Animal welfare organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports criticise the activity, arguing that mental or physical suffering can be caused. Hunting below ground with terriers is largely illegal in Britain under the Hunting Act 2004.
MikeHobday 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine by me. Counsel, can I ask you please to address the issue of WP:LEAD, namely: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies ..." Do you accept that the introduction to this article should describe the topic's notable controversies? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking again. We have been moving rapidly from one argument to the next and not everything gets answered. I read the section on the lead. I think that stating that a controversy exists with respect to this activity based upon concern over animal welfare, is capable of standing on its own. It makes clear that there is disagreement and what those opposed to the activity dislike. The article should be an overview of working terriers not an overview of the controversy in one country. When the intro goes further and selects specific arguments from the public discourse in one country, it does not stand on its own as it only includes portions of the arguments for and against. Once you take the step toward outlining specific arguments significantly more must be included to make the presentation complete. This complete presentation should take place in a section devoted to the controversy. If this were an article about the controversy, then a summary of the various positions might be necessary, but not here.--Counsel 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're arguing against having a lot of detail. That's a matter of taste in lead writing. But WP:LEAD says the notable controversies should be "described," not just mentioned in passing, so we do need some detail. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counsel makes an interesting point. I have looked for references to terrier work outside the UK. There is plenty in Ireland [5] and terrier work is certainly outside the Humane Society's policy statement [6] although the latter does not mention terrier work specifically. Why is this? Terrier work is a pretty secretive activity in the UK, even hunt followers are not meant to hang around and watch. Is it more secretive elsewhere? Is it less common? Have terrie rmen elsewhere found an uncontentious way to use their dogs? Or has Britain moved further "forwards" in animal welfare legislation whereas animal welfare groups in other countries are still fighting earlier battles on (say) cock fighting, bullfighting and canned hunting? On the other hand, foxes are foxes and terriers are terriers wherever they live. If the concern is legitimate, then it is universally applicable. MikeHobday 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I alluded to above about concern for foxes who drop their H's. Terriermen are able to hunt with significantly less controversy in areas outside of the UK. This brings us back, somewhat to the class struggle issue. The terriers and foxes are the same, I submit that the difference is the Terriermen. In the UK, most of the objection has been aimed at large hunts conducted by wealthy aristocrats trotting after large packs of hounds in neatly brushed red jackets. They make a juicy target. In the US, for instance, Terriermen tend to work farm areas out of an old truck allowing farms to remain poison free. I do not think that the majority (or even a significant minority) of Wikipedia users who are looking for information on how working Jack Russels are hunted is planning to join a mounted hunt. As such, it is my position that the introduction should state that there are concerns over animal welfare. This permits the reader to jump to the controversy section and read in more detail. Because the controversies are framed differently given the different social settings it may be appropriate to create sections on each country. I may be wrong, but I will be surprised if anyone is able to find a protested terrier hunt in the United States.--Counsel 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)::[reply]
We've discussed this at Anti-hunting, but this of all forms of hunting could not be a class struggle, unless it wa sthe middle classes attacking the working class! Terrier work in the UK comes broadly in three categories. Probably the smallest, although the most visible, is the "pest control" element of organised hunts. Secondly, gamekeepers (see article) use terriers to maintain numbers of released pheasants and for related purposes. Thirdly, terriers are used "independently" for sport or for pest control. There are no organised "terrier hunts" in the UK to protest against. MikeHobday 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. One of the problems here is that those opposed to hunting have been ensuring that this article aims at those activities which they find most objectionable. Hence the removal of the information stating that this article does not deal with baiting and dog fighting. Those who are most intent upon seeing the arguments against hunting with terriers spelled out in the introduction seem to be doing so in the context of it being a part of Fox hunting. Am I wrong that this is the form of hunting that has produced the greatest animosity in the UK. The vast majority of terrier work in the US involves ground hogs, raccoons, and opossums. The introduction here seems to make ti sound as though terrierwork involves primarily the hunting of Fox and Badger.--Counsel 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that part of the intro is wrong. I will amend roughly as proposed above to start with. As for your question, I am far from sure that fox hunting is more reviled than hare coursing (another working class sport) or stag hunting, but it is the most common form of organised hunting and thus the highest profile. MikeHobday 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your other point, I'm not familiar with what happens when a terrier confronts a ground hog, raccoon or opossum below ground. Part of the welfare problem with terriers hunting foxes is that both are pretty equally matched, leading to potential confrontation (if the fox always bolted, there would be no need to dig to it). I note that racoons are pretty heavy and wonder how they would deal with a terrier if trapped by one. The fact that digging seems common both sides of the Atlantic suggests that all quarry are held in what must be a pretty stressful position for some time (two hours is not unusual to dig a fox earth and foxes trapped in (disused) badger setts can lead to a dig of six hours or more). MikeHobday 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to make it sound as though US hunting would be less objectionable, only that the selection seemed aimed at the most inflamatory issues.--Counsel 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that intro will work. I added "or capture".--Counsel 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counsel, I don't know who your anti-hunting remarks were aimed at, but I can assure you I have no particular interest in fox hunting. My concern is that there is substantial controversy surrounding this subject, and it must therefore be described in the intro. That much of the criticism comes from the UK and was made in the context of fox baiting is irrelevant. The objection is simply that animals are sent down holes to trap, frighten, and attack other animals, sometimes as part of so-called "pest control," and sometimes for what's laughably regarded as "sport." The class aspect is irrelevant and wrong-headed. One of the uses of working terriers in the UK is to flush out badgers from their setts so that morons can stage a fight between the badger and the dog, hardly a pastime, I hope, of the aristocracy, although nothing would surprise me. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually take a look at the portion of the Burns Report on the Anti-hunting page. The issue of class is not irrelevant, though in the context of terrier work outside of fox hunting, its role may be less.--Counsel 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morons[edit]

The idea that those engaged in terrier hunting are morons is part of the problem. This is simply not a dispute between those who are interested in animal welfare and those who could'nt care less. You might be suprised how much effort hunters who have contributed to this page have spent in public campaigning for more ethical treatment of hunted animals. The idea that this is an activity involving only troglodites who do it only for the purpose of watching an animal fight is such a gross oversimplification that it hardly bears responding to, but this seems to be fueling some of the disagreement over how this entry should be layed out.

Are you seriously arguing that people who disturb badger setts in order to obtain a badger to fight with a dog are engaged in legitimate activity? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is baiting . Not hunting.--Counsel 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entry of the terrier into the sett, the digging, the removal of the badger or the subsequent fight? Or all four? Not sure you can source that distinction reliably. MikeHobday 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you want to call it, Counsel, it's one of the ways working terriers are used. If you read my use of the word "moron" above, it was in the sentence: "One of the uses of working terriers in the UK is to flush out badgers from their setts so that morons can stage a fight between the badger and the dog ..." If you're going to quote me, you must do it accurately; not that that means I think the other uses aren't moronic, mind you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that many who hold the view above assume that if left unmolested by the hunter, the quarry involved would merrily live out his days and pass quietly in some "natural" way. The truth is that animals in the wild die particularly unpleasant deaths as a rule. They will either die slowly of starvation and sickness, be killed by a predator when they become weak, or run over by a motorist out for a drive. In none of these cases is the animal likely to be dealt the relatively quick death that the hunter or hounds deal out unless it is luckily struck perfectly by the car. Alternative to hunting animals for population control are the use of traps and poison. Neither of these discriminates between young and old or those with young. A hunter, once the quarry is discovered, often has the option of killing or relocating a problem animal or leaving a mother with young. It is very much an issue of focus on the individual or focus on the population.

I do not think that those opposed to hunting are morons, I just think that some of the assumptions upon which there arguements are based may be flawed. The situation for a bayed animal in a stop end sette is likely stessful, but the selective process of hunting places less stress on the population. In the Eastern United States, the number of deer struck by vehicles often varies year to year almost perfectly in step with the number of hunting tags filled. I think that hunters, who tend to select older males who have seen the majority of their reprocutive life, are a better check on this population that the randomness of car bumpers with the resulting injury to people and property. What I am saying is that those maintaining pro-hunting positions are not doing out of a lack of concern for animal welfare, but rather a different interpretation of it. Those who assume that there is no consideration given to the quarry are missing part of the argument.

We are not going to settle this here, but I felt compelled to respond at least in part.--Counsel 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the place for this kind of argument. The only point that matters here is that substantial numbers of reliable sources strongly disagree with you, and you are trying to stop their viewpoints being described in the introduction. That isn't acceptable, because we're here to publish what reliable sources say. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awful, awful lead paragraph[edit]

As of 16 February 2008, the lead sentences read:

A working terrier is a terrier that goes to ground in a natural earth against formidable quarry (as opposed to the artificial earths used at American earthdog trials). Terriers that rat or bush rabbits or work wild game in brush piles or barns are not working terriers, but "sporting terriers" — a term that encompasses a wide variety of work not done underground.

"Goes to ground," "formidable quarry," "earthdog trials?" I have no idea what any of these terms refer to. What does it mean to "rat" or to "bush" or to "work wild game?" We need a lot more context and wikilinks; remember that our articles should be geared toward the general audience. WP:SOFIXIT? I'd rewrite it myself, but I know nothing about dogs and don't know where to start.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I added definitions, better? Hafwyn (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size clarification[edit]

Clarify that the chest width (span or circumference) not the height is what defines the working terrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafwyn (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Working_terrier&oldid=1206077184"