Talk:Hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cyber hunting[edit]

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)

Conservation Category[edit]

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 User talk:Alan Liefting#Deletion of Conservation category from Hunting. As a stated in my talk page reply hunting is generally the opposite of 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 Pittman-Robertson (which is on the Conservation page, BTW) taxes, 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 [1] :
"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 biology research, the costs of running 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’… Ducks Unlimited, for example. — NRen2k5(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[edit]

"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 lan-xc@hotmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.91.98.57 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tools, not Weapons[edit]

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 WP:CIRCULAR. I also think the explanation makes sense, but it does need solid references instead of original research. Narthring (talkcontribs) 22:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sport Hunting[edit]

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)

Hunting with dogs - images[edit]

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)

File:Deer-1-.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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 --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions and reversions[edit]

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 verifiable - which means that any reader should be able to check that the statement made has already been published in a reliable source. So, if you feel the need to add a controversial statement, you must provide an incline citation to where the facts there have already been published elsewhere. See this page for the basics on adding inline citations. Wikipedia's aim is being an encyclopedia, not a soapbox - it's not the place for any of us to air our personal views. Pesky (talkstalk!) 19:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservation edits POV?[edit]

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)

Possible rewriteing?[edit]

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[edit]

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 Izaak Walton League, 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 disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You also are attempting to supply references which aren't 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 People for Ethical Treatment of Animals or any of the assorted Humane Societies would agree with your narrow definition of a conservationist. There are different points of view and they should all be represented on the page. Oh, and as to grammar the collective group in question is population of the United States, the ones who elect the government in control of the national park system in question. As I am not included in that group, it is not mine or ours in reference to the other 6,900,000,000 people in existence presently. --Rwenonah (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying for NPOV[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Sentence needs to be separated into smaller sentences[edit]

>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)

crucial component[edit]

>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)

Deer example in lede[edit]

@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)

"Scouting"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Species section[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I came across a moron who claimed that hunting never plunged a spear into a prey, so it seems important to include survival hunting for teaching[edit]

Ancient survival hunting vs leisure hunting

As farming & herding started, ancient era's survival hunting trying to feed the entire tribe disappeared. Leisure hunting is different from the ancient hunting like how fishing with a fishing rod is different from the actual fishing done by the fishers at seas. For fishing, both survival version (life occupation) & leisure version (hobby) are going on today. For hunting, only the leisure version exists today as the ancient survival version was dropped after farming & herding got started.

The main difference is that leisure hunting uses only bow or gun (other than multi-purposed hunting knife) whilst ancient survival hunting used any weapon including melee weapons which were used both for throwing & for melee usage such as slashing & plunging. Melee weapons were used in survival hunting even after bows were invented (in fact, up to the bronze age). [1]

Quoting from BBC on professor Trenton Holliday, "professor Trenton Holliday can identify a clue in the BBC Neanderthal - he was much stronger on the right side than on the left, and his right forearm was particularly powerful, demonstrating a very powerful grip. To see how this muscle development might have related to hunting, Professor Steve Churchill, from Duke University, US, carried out another experiment. By fitting a metal pole with stress sensors, he could determine what force each arm was delivering when the pole was thrust into a pad. It turns out that this action could explain the muscle development identified in the skeleton. So Neanderthal was an ambush hunter; waiting in a forest for his prey to stray close, and then attacking with a thrusting spear. Neanderthal was possibly the most carnivorous form of human ever to have lived." [2]

References

Wildlife management - Numerous unproven claims[edit]

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[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Factual inaccuracies, value-laden statements, and innuendos[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

"Further reading" section[edit]

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)