Talk:Hunting/Archive 1

Conmment

Is "varmint" actually a word? Wouldn't this normally be called "vermin" hunting? I thought "varmint" was a slang/dialect term... -- April 21:08 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed - and I'd avoid 'vermin' as a term too, as it carries a very loaded POV. This article needs a deal of editing. - MPF 00:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "varmint" is listed as a variant of "vermin" in many dictionaries and probably does have roots in slang. In this case, I believe the word better qualifies as jargon rather than slang, since it is a standard term understood by virtually all hunters...at least those in the United States, anyway. I'd let the term stand since the text does give some examples of varmint species. Red Goat 00:34, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Most users of wikipedia aren't American hunters. I'd say change it to vermin, or rodent, or something other than varmint. I'm canadian, and the only place I've ever heard "varmint" was in saturday morning cartoons. SECProto 20:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, we must consider that Wikipedia reaches a world-wide, non-American audience but "varmint hunting" is a term that describes a subset of the hunting sports. I'm unsure of the term's prevalence outside of the U.S. and I'm unaware of any other widely-used substitute term so perhaps it would be useful to include both "varmint" and "vermin" (or "nuisance species") with a short description. Red Goat 22:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yup, thats all I was getting at. If vermin means the same thing as varmint, you can feel free to switch it to vermin if you agree - or saying both names, I'm not a hunter myself, so I don't really know which would be the best way to say it. SECProto 03:42, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

The pictures are pretty small and uninspiring. Anyone agree we should replace them with one of these: punch hunting cartoons?

Introduction

I'm sure most people know what "hunting" is, but the article still needs an introductory paragraph containing a definition. Before 198.234.216.213's vandalism, such a paragraph was in place. Any reason it was removed?

TaintedMustard 09:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No reason I can see. Why don't you put it back in?Johnwhunt 21:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

varmint/wildlife management NOT hunting?

The definition specifically excludes wildlife management as hunting (as a purpose of hunting besides a sporting interest, or as a part of the hunters sporting interest?). Do you truly intend that?

Back to the varmint question: I also cannot speak for people outside of the US, but within the US, varmint tends to include rock chucks, wood chucks and other marmots, prairie dogs, small predators such as foxes, raccoons, coyotes, etc. Varmint does not refer to squirrels, rabbits, hares, etc, though some might include jackrabbits. Vermin (pl) means mice, rats, voles, and can include insects such as cockroaches. In the US, varmints would be considered to be huntable; vermin would not.

DanP

Micro/Macro perspective

I modified the opening paragraph a little bit to explain how hunting fits within a wildlife management scheme. Although "hunting" specifically excludes wildlife management, that does not mean that that state wildlife management agencies can't utilize hunting as the means of culling excess animals. The hunters are hunting for sport or food, but because they're regulated by a state agency, they may be legally limited such that their sport amounts to wildlife management.

~EphraimGlass

Possible Vandalism

In addition to removing references to wildlife management from several sections, which may be appropriate, 81.173.149.249 also listed "handgrenades and machineguns" as new hunting weapons in the section regarding Hunting in the United States. I'm not a very experienced hunter, but as far as I know, grenades and fully automatic weapons are not legal hunting gear.

Legal? No. Fun? Oh, yeah. To clarify, I did not write that part onto the article, but I figured I could at least explain to ya'll the fact that automatic weapons are fun weapons with which to hunt. -Alex.

Just curious but how on earth do you find anything edible after it's been blasted with an automatic weapon or blown up with a handgrenade? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not everything that is hunted is consumed, you know. -Alex.

Then why bother. Sounds boring and it hurts the real hunters. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hunting for sport isn't necessarily an exercise in bloodthirstiness. In my neck of the woods, deer are overpopulated. This means there is more property destruction by deer, more deer strikes on the roads, and generally unhealthy deer due to mal nutrition. Many of the deer you could shoot around here would not yield you very much good meat anyway. So if you don't "get" hunting for the sake of hunting (which it seems you don't), you can at least acknowledge that it has benefits and that it doesn’t 'hurt' real hunters. The same goes for hunting other animals for population control reasons rather then for putting food on the table.

That being said, automatic weapons aren't used for hunting for a number of reasons, but destruction of the meat isn't really one of them.

anyway, the "Why bother" question is as easily asked about case modding, or crocheting, or drag racing, or base jumping or.. or.. or.. well, you get the point. It’s an activity, its a sport, its a skill. People don't go hunting because they are hungry any more. -Rob

Neutrality of this article

I do not think that this article presents the controversial issue of sport hunting in an unbiased manner; it is clearly biased towards the pro-hunting viewpoint. As a few examples, the discussion of fox hunting under "United Kingdom" states, "Some animal rights supporters feel it causes suffering to the fox and is both cruel and unnecessary, but no cruelty evidence was forthcoming when the legislation was drawn up. " and "Some hunting activists have declared their intention to break the law and continue hunting with hounds, and others are 'hunting within the law' and thereby showing the law to be flawed, illogical and unenforcable." which clearly shows that the author is not unbiased on this very controversial issue.

In order to make this article neutral, opinions on hunting either need to be removed, or a true accounting of both sides should be presented. The article should have links to both pro and anti-hunting groups. --crisw 04:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought the paragraph which finishes the foxhunting section was pretty good on this. Of more concern (as I reread) to me is the paragarph beginning "Many Native American hunters claim subsistence hunting rights as a traditional part of their culture." (emphasis mine). Aren't these rights those of sovereign nations guaranteed by treaty? Certainly in the proposed section above I think we do a good job of mentioning "unsporting" techniques as well. Perhaps a link to Don Meredith's series critiquing the concept of "fair chase"? Rorybowman 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is very biased towards sport hunting, and not the hunting of criminals, bandits, and snipers/irregular forces. I've proposed a "hunting strategy" article to cover these topics, but if any additional thoughts welcome. - MPD 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)