Talk:Hunting/Archive 3

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Trying for NPOV

My edit was reverted so I thought that I would bring the issues here to discuss so that we may hopefully find a consensus. I've listed them below and discuss afterwards in the subsection.

A. "Photo-safaris were popular even before the advent of ecotourism. The synonym "bloodless hunt" for hunting with the use of film and a still photographic camera was first used by the Polish photographer Włodzimierz Puchalski.(Citation needed)

B. "Hunters often disagree, arguing that hunting is more selective, removing fewer old, sick, or young animals than natural predation.However, according to natural selection, this is killing off the healthy adults of the population is dtrimental to the ecosystem, as it allows weak animals to pass on their traits, thus weakening the whole population,increasing susceptibiltiy to disease, predation and more hunting (Charles Darwin,On The origin OfSpecies,1859<)."

C. Hunters have also contributed heavily to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals, such as the quagga, the Great Auk, Steller's Sea Cow, the thylacine,the bluebuck, the Arabian Oryx,the Caspian and Javan tigers,the Markhor,the Sumatran rhinoceros, the bison, the North American cougar, and many more. All these animals have been hunted to endangerment or extinction.("Red List Overview". IUCN Red List. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved 8 September 2010.)

D. "An example of contribution to endangerment and extinction by hunters is the Great Pennsylvania Circle Hunt, in which hunters formed a 170 kilometre circle and walked inward, killing everything they found. The results were 41 cougars,109 wolves,112 foxes,1 otter,12 wolverines,3 beavers,114 bobcats,10 black bears,2 elk,98 deer,11 bison and 3 fishers.The actual reason for the hunt is not recorded." (Encyclopedia of Animals,September 1,2007)

E. "There are a number of organisations founded by hunters and others founded by those interested in permanently preserving wildlife populations and habitats. Some internationally recognised hunters' conservation organizations are Safari Club International and Ducks Unlimited. Other organizations not founded by hunters include Conservation International, Greenpeace, Worldwide Fund for Nature and Friends of the Earth. These and other organizations aim to permanently preserve wildlife, instead of simply keeping them for future hunting, which distinguishes them from hunter-based organizations such as Safari Club."

Discussion

I felt that A was trivia and not really germane to the article. It has been unsourced since 2008. Since someone replaced it, the onus is on the one restoring it to cite it.

B is highly problematic. The citation doesn't support the argument at all. Darwin didn't talk about disagreements amongst hunters. This is misleading and the argument is probably best pulled out unless a concrete source may be had. Fails verification.

C has a similar problem. The supplied source does not indicate anything about hunting. It is a list of endangered animals but does not address hunting. As such, it fails verifiability. This section needs pulled especially since it is very inaccurate. Hunting may have contributed somewhat to population declines but there is nothing that defines it as a reason for the extermination of all the species listed...there were many contributing factors perhaps the greatest being territorial encroachment.

D is just bizarre. Are we going to start shoehorning in coatrack issues? The event has been introduced to shed a negative light on hunting. It is undue weight given to a one-off hunt and it lacks context. What were the populations of the different animals at the time? It is hard to assess the impact of that hunt. It starts as "An example of contribution to endangerment and extinction by hunters..." This is original research because the source does not draw that conclusion.

E is an NPOV violation as the piece is entirely meant to forward a pov that distinguishes the organizations. It attempts to portray that hunter-founded organizations aren't genuine but that the others are. This is unacceptable.

What do other editors think?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well,B is not about disagreements among hunters. Darwin pointed out that natural mortality occurs mostly among the old,young nad sick animals. Human hunters , however, are rarely satisfied with young ,old or sick animals, and usually kill the most physically impressive adult specimens. As this removes the most healthy animals, it increases animals suception to disease,predation or more hunting(coincidence at the end there-I think not). Thus,the citation does in fact support the arguement.

As for D, well, the section about the Federal Duck Stamp Program and Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Act are have both been "shoehorned" into making hunters look good.The first fails to mention that the money is used to maintain habitats in where hunting is allowed. The second fails to mention that hunters must buy the stamps-it makes it sound like hunters support the stamps totally voluntarily.

As for E, the organizations are distinguished,if only in the fact that some were founded by hunters. Perhaps the part that actually distinguishes them could be removed? Before this change,however, only hunter-based organizations were mentioned,in order to deliberately make it seem like hunters were the only people who ever do any conservation work or know anything about it. In fact, the whole section was structured to make it seem like hunting(shooting and killing animals) was conservation(keeping animals alive for future generations.Rwenonah (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As for C,that reference was a little lacking. I added a few other refernces to ensure verifiability. It is quite verifiable now,I should think.Rwenonah (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

B is inaccurate largely because it is a straw man argument. The statement "Hunters often disagree, arguing that hunting is more selective, removing fewer old, sick, or young animals than natural predation." does not look like any argument that any hunter has ever carried...it doesn't make sense. As it is uncited, who are the supposed hunters making that argument? The secondary statement about Darwin isn't really germane here and doesn't support the part that I'm pointing out.

If I understand your response about D correctly, you are wanting to offset what you feel are things that shed a positive light on hunting with things that shed a negative light on hunting. While I would like to see a balanced and neutral article, I'm not sure that is the right way to achieve it.

Your take on E is interesting. You've drawn the conclusion "...in order to deliberately make it seem like hunters were the only people who ever do any conservation work or know anything about it". I doubt that was the motivation of the one who wrote it. Rather, I think that they may have been simply listing something related to hunting and probably never felt inclined to talk about other conservation organizations because they don't have anything to do with the article subject.

I think C would need more prose to relate how hunting played a part. Each one of those animals have a different history with many different contributing factors such that the blanket statement is misleading. Each history is subjective.

Part A wasn't addressed. Are we in agreement to remove?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes,remove it.Rwenonah (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There are definitely improvements that could be made.If the first sentence could be removed,there would be no need for the Darwin bit.

I agree about the balanced and neutral article. But as I've undergone some nasty incidents involving removing material in the past, I erred on the side of caution and added material to balance it.

Perhaps E was just An honest mistake but I feel that the other conservation organizations do deserve mention.

As for C, this is true for some of the mentioned species, but others such as the Arabian oryx and markhor were eliminated solely by hunting,as they live in environmnets rarely frequented by humans(desert and mountains)except for certain specific purposes and were thriving before human arrival.Rwenonah (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like we are in agreement about removing A & B. My concern is the first sentence as well. :)

With C, would it suffice to have a well-sourced summary statement that carries the point without listing each species?

Concerning D, it seems awkward to have a section on this within the article but as a subject of its own I would encourage you to start the article which could be linked to this one which would allow for more expansion and fair treatment of an interesting subject. I found only a little bit on it when looking yesterday. If you do start the article let me know and I'll redouble my efforts to find sources as well as try to find editors that may have access to more information about it.

With E, I think that this could be edited down to a simple statement or two that some conservation organizations founded by hunters exist without implying exclusion of other organizations or their efforts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds good.Rwenonah (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this paragraph:"Hunters established game parks in Medieval Europe, such as the New Forest, with often violent punishments for poaching.[citation needed]In modern times, hunters have founded some of the most significant (and controversial) wildlife conservation organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited.[citation needed]Hunters in industrialized nations generally comply with bag limits to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.[citation needed] 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."can be changed too,or gain some citations.Rwenonah (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is good; we can work with this. One key that will make a strong paragraph will be the citations. Coincidentally, I have been trying to find a good source for making the summary statement for C but I've run into the quandary that every serious academic treatise on the subject that I have found actually widens the topic to include those other contributing factors toward extinction. The editorial problem that presents is that it begins to stray away from this particular article subject by going off on a tangent. Maybe someone has an idea how we may work through this better. I'll check back in a couple of days.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled A, B & E so far. I pulled E because after rewriting, it wasn't worth having as a section and as a sentence, it didn't fit anywhere. :) I still think that D is best done as its own article.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice job.Rwenonah (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

bad link syntax

I'm not sure what happened, but roughly 20 links in this article had invalid syntax causing them to not be parsed. Links looked like "[[./example|example]]" and the correction was just to remove the "./" prefix. I wish I knew where that came from! Strange. draeath (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I might be paranoid, but I think this might be it. draeath (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Conservation edits POV?

Before I revert changes and possibly get into an edit war, I thought I'd run it by the editors. Are the latest edits to the Conservation section by Rwenonah considered POV? Zonedar (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think my edits are POV. I just htought that there should be some references to organizations that are not hunting organizations, because, technically, those are not conservation organizations. The Oxford dictionary definition of hunting is: to pursue and kill a wild animal for sport or food.The definition of conservation is :preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment and of wildlife. Killing wildlife is totally the opposite of protecting, preserving or restoring them. This makes hunting the opposite of conservation. In addition, preserving wildlife to be killed in the future is not conservation. Ducks Unlimited promotes the continuation of waterfowl hunting-not conservation. Money from the Pittman-Robertson act is used to set up shooting ranges and train new hunters. Conservation?No.And so, I put some non-hunter founded organizations on the page. I'd liked to have changed more but I left it at that.

Sorry, but what you said is completely unscientific and is not backed by the scientific conservation research community. Sy9045 (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyber hunting

Perhaps Cyber hunting may be mentioned in the article and perhaps the article can be made. See this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.168.41 (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article currently begins, "Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping any living organism..." Living organisms includes plants and fungi, better described under Foraging, but doesn't apply to Cybernetics. I am also dubious on the certain inclusion of trapping. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentence needs to be separated into smaller sentences

>While it is undisputed that early humans were hunters, the importance of this for the emergence of the Homo genus from the earlier Australopithecines, including the production of stone tools and eventually the control of fire, are emphasised in the hunting hypothesis and de-emphasised in scenarios that stress omnivory and social interaction, including mating behaviour, as essential in the emergence of human behavioural modernity. With the establishment of language, culture, and religion, hunting became a theme of stories and myths, as well as rituals such as dance and animal sacrifice.

This sentence, which is all one paragraph, needs to be broken up into several smaller sentences by someone who knows the subject material. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Deer example in lede

@Dmol The deer example in the lede, in favor of hunting, omits the important context. The sources state that the deer population's explosion in the first place is due to hunting of their natural predators, wolves and coyotes. If the argument stacks up, a better example would be needed. Smk65536 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

crucial component

>Hunting was a crucial component of hunter-gatherer societies ....

And still is, yes? I think this should be rewritten with a link to modern hunter/gather societies. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Modern hunter/gatherer societies? You sure they even exist? Even if they do it's going to be a tiny minority, and would not be as relevant as historical societies. Source needed. Smk65536 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Scouting"

By changing the contents of the "scouting" section to include more comprehensive content, I feel users will understand "scouting" more easily.

Original: Scouting includes a variety of tasks and techniques for finding animals to hunt.

Edit: Scouting for game is typically done prior to a hunt and will ensure the desired species are in a chosen area. Looking for animal sign such as tracks, scat, etc… and utilizing “trail cameras” are commonly used tactics while scouting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largecnc (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Species section

Request for comment: Recommend that species section be eliminated or the species listed be removed as none are hunted species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BE9:AC90:BC34:42B2:4D9B:EFFC (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Split request

I think the countries and regions in the article should be placed in a new article titled "hunting by country"--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wildlife management - Numerous unproven claims

The different as yet unproven claims in the Hunting#Wildlife_management section should either be backed with sources, changed or removed. Until a acceptable version is available, a "refimprove section"-template should be placed in the section.

tos 2A02:810D:580:1900:F801:E4E3:61D4:C16A (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714141728/http://www.ewca.gov.et/sites/default/files/Lindsey%20et%20al%20%202006%20Potential%20of%20trophy%20hunting%20to%20create%20incentives%20for%20wildlifeconservationin%20Africa.pdf to http://www.ewca.gov.et/sites/default/files/Lindsey%20et%20al%20%202006%20Potential%20of%20trophy%20hunting%20to%20create%20incentives%20for%20wildlifeconservationin%20Africa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies, value-laden statements, and innuendos

17:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)174.30.180.123 (talk)I just stumbled onto this page and was shocked at all the factual inaccuracies, value-laden statements, and innuendos have not been challenged and fixed a long time ago. This is an important topic and I hate to think school kids (or anyone else) are getting information about hunting in North America from this source. Many parts are obviously written by someone who knows nothing about hunting, but is unhesitating in posing as an authority. I will have to establish an account and contribute rather than just complain about it. Surprising much of this language has stood uncorrected for years.

Jim Heffelfinger

"Further reading" section

The current list is heavily biased towards American publications, particularly about the Southern United States, as if hunting exists only in America. It should be trimmed down. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)