Talk:Bowhunting - Wikipedia

"For others, hunting represents a humane way of controlling animal numbers, ensuring continuing financial interest in the maintenance of healthy wild populations and habitat, and bringing urbanized humans to understand the natural world. [2] [3] [4] Few defenders are found for the practice of canned hunting, in which little skill is required because the animals are closely fenced in."

I think that these passage makes sense in the article about "hunting" in general, not in the article about "bowhunting".--194.65.151.249 13:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200 yards?

[edit]

The begginning of the article says that a rifle hunter may take shots exceeding 200 yards. this is not true. even rifle hunters will rarely take shots exceeding 60 or so yards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.201.76 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read the text carefully. It says "a rifle hunter may take shots" over 200 yards. That simply means that it is legal and possible to do, not that it is done routinely. If it said that a rifle hunter must be within 200 yards of the target, you would be correct. Bob98133 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proper or typical or max or any type of distance for bow hunting is a touchy subject. We really should find some citation, I find uncited distances suspect. 97.83.104.146 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention… involved. What type of tackle is the bowhunter using (e.g. primitive, trad, compound)? How powerful is it (e.g. 50 lb, 80 lb)? What's his skill level with his tackle (can he barely hit a pie plate consistently at 20 yards, or an he group on a dime at that same range?)? What's he hunting (e.g. deer, turkey, bear)? How's he hunting it (e.g. stalking, blinds, treestand)? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting in the UK (Scotland)

[edit]

I have removed the statement that Scotland has been considering the reintroduction of bowhunting to control deer since 2003 because it is unreferenced and I can find no official confirmation of this. In addition I personally asked someone from the Deer Commission from Scotland who could shed no light on wether it was true or not. If you know of where this info comes from then feel free to put the statement back and put an appropriate reference with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbuck ram (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I removed the text relating to the "Wildlife and Countryside Act 1963", since no such Act exists, the actual WCA is 1981, unfortunately I am unaware if the previous author actually meant the WCA at all or a different act that was passed in 1963, hence I have temporarily left a somewhat uninformative substitute. If anyone has the details of when bowhunting was specifically banned in the UK (assuming of course that the details about Victorian re-introduction are correct) then please include them with a reference if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbuck ram (talk • contribs) 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand info

[edit]

Editor Pikznbailz - thanks for adding the info about NZ, but it is far too much info. Read WP:UNDUE. By adding all this info the article becomes unbalanced. Also, how much of the info is essential? If you say that "many" countries do something (like ban exploding heads), it is not sufficient to only cite that this is the etiquette in New Zealand. Ban is very specific, as is many. If an editor adds material, he should also supply references that specifically support he new info. Sorry to keep reverting your edits, so I wanted to explain why. Bob98133 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bowhunting ... a normal use of archery in every culture that had bows."

[edit]

Well, it seems that at least one of two additional conditions would have to be met: (1) Said culture permits consumption of the flesh of animals killed by bow hunting. (2) Said culture permits hunting for purposes other than obtaining food (e.g., sport). But what about Judaism? The Jews certainly had bows since ancient times, as evidenced by even a cursory reading of the Old Testament. But "normative" halakhic Judaism obviously precludes (1), and, quite arguably, also (2), so Jewish culture just might be an exception, then, to the "in every culture" generalization with which the article begins. Except, that is, in the very earliest, pre-halakhic period; see Gen. 27:3, for example, where the patriarch Isaac commands his son Esau to bring him venison slain by "quiver and bow". // If someone more knowledgeable can shed some light on this issue, please do. // Toddcs (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current version says "has been a normal use" not "is". The article later points out areas where bowhunting is no longer practiced, even though the culture still has bows... 214.4.238.180 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited source number 16

[edit]

This is a biased source coming from an animals rights group study. Needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.105.11 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil (lion)

[edit]

This one bowhunt is perhaps more famous than any other in the last 100 years. It'd be worthwhile to add more info about actual bowhunts, like largest animals dropped or greatest ranges or famous participants. But this material is relevant because of its notability. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable but you keep trying to shoehorn in this factoid where it doesn't fit. I reverted it from the legal section because it doesn't belong there. Since no laws have changed and he's been cleared, I don't see how that applies. Since no particular hunts are discussed in the article and it is kept as a general article on the subject, it seems logical to not start adding them because of recentism and that we aren't the news.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to the IP, but I agree entirely with Berean Hunter. I wouldn't think that adding records etc would be appropriate either. As for participants, I'd leave them out too, maybe with an exception for Howard Hill due to his notability in developing bowhunting. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "shoe-horning" is the problem then we can create a new section - "notable modern bowhunts and hunters" or something to that effect. It could include the Cecil hunt and Hill's accomplishments. Ted Nugent is well-known as a bowhunter. I don't think "recentism" applies since I don't think there have been any bowhunts in the last 100 years that are more famous. If there are then we should add them too. The Cecil hunt didn't just happen. It was months ago, so we can easily summarize it. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:D1E0:22A:AF88:F346 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the entire concept, and Howard Hill strikes me as the only modern bowhunter even remotely notable enough to be worth mentioning, but feel free to draft your suggested changes here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big-game hunting#Famous big-game hunters

Fox hunting#Controversy

Lion hunting#Controversy (includes longer mention of Cecil)

White hunter#Notable white hunters

Modern competitive archery#Archery with humans as targets, or very near the target

Ice fishing#Dangers

Fly fishing#History

Tiger poaching in India#Sansar Chand

Buffalo jump#Historical sites

Wolf hunting#Notable wolf hunters

These article all have material that's similar in some way to the proposed material. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:D1E0:22A:AF88:F346 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable bowhunters:

And others. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:D1E0:22A:AF88:F346 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could possibly be persuaded that it's worth including Saxton Pope as well. In a brief section on the development of bowhunting in modern society, rather than a trivia list. What do others think. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria are you suggesting for inclusion? When articles have a list of "notables", whether residents or alumni or whathaveyou, the criteria is usually the presence of an article. Not everyone on the list above is known primarily as a bowhunter, so I can see excluding those for whom it's a hobby. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:95D5:9D18:77A3:D788 (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would include the very small number of people who have made major contributions to modern bowhunting. I'd leave out every known pre-modern nomad (they would all, up to and including Quanah Parker, have bowhunted, but we can't include all of them nor every other pre-modern figure who did likewise), and I would also leave out, as trivial to the story of bowhunting, the great majority of your list. At this stage I would suggest that the Fred Bear article doesn't contain enough reliably-sourced information to establish him as a major influence on modern bowhunting.

I'm well aware that other trivia lists exist, but we need a good encyclopedic article and such lists generally don't contribute. Do you fancy drafting a brief section on the development of modern bowhunting, including at least Howard Hill and Saxton Pope, possibly mentioning Ishi too? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of notable modern (American) bowhunters: "Bowhunters Hall of Fame". Any objective criteria is acceptable, so long as it includes the most famous bowhunt of the past 100 years. (Have to take the bad with the good.) While you're working up the history section I'll add the list. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:B0B2:219D:96FD:144E (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have to take the bad with the good, and we are here not to include anything that anyone else thinks is notable, we are here to write good encyclopedic articles. If you can get consensus to include a link to this list, or indeed to include the list itself, well and good. If not, and I have yet to be convinced, it doesn't belong here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"we are here not to include anything that anyone else thinks is notable". That's balderdash. You only want to include good news? That's a violation of NPOV. Please explain why an internationally famous, albeit failed bowhunt does not merit any mention in the article on bowhunting? What objective standard are you using to exclude the hunt of Cecil? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4DAA:92D8:EA25:BEDF (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit worried about that from the onset of discussion and hence my use of the term "shoehorn". You don't really care what else happens just so long as you get the blurb on Cecil in there somewhere. That's advocacy and like Richard says, we don't have to take it. We do things by consensus. I don't think it belongs either.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? How are you deciding what belongs or doesn't belong? Given that you have "hunter" in your username, perhaps you're not the best person to make accusations of advocacy in an article about hunting. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4DAA:92D8:EA25:BEDF (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood your comment above: "(Have to take the bad with the good.)" If so I apologize, but we are definitely here to write a good encyclopedic article, not a bad one. Per Berean Hunter, we are not here to indulge in recentism or attempts at reporting the news. Please, gain consensus here before inserting this sort of thing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has affected hunting regulations in Zimbabwe. In yet another effort at compromise, I've added a section on bowhunting in Zimbabwe which puts the matter into appropriate context. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4DAA:92D8:EA25:BEDF (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit, and thanks also to User:Govindaharihari. This latest suggestion from the IP (it would be good to register, it makes conversations a lot easier) seems much more encyclopedic and I'd be inclined to accept it. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who deleted the material hasn't given any explanation. If there's no further objections I'll restore it. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there ave been no further objections, I will restore the latest compromise version. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:ED6D:9D06:362C:5C7E (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing material - history and broadheads

[edit]

I copied some material from the main Archery article to cover the history of modern bowhunting. Please improve. I also added a few lines on the use of broadhead arrowheads to the equipment section. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:505:381A:3BDA:6A87 (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC

You can't copy content without creating copyright problems Govindaharihari (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia:

When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages.

In the edit summary I provided a link back to the original article.[1] This material was deleted inappropriately because it is compliant with WP policy. Furthermore, you deleted material which hadn't been copied. This is sloppy reverting. I am going to restore the edit. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bowhunting. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080119034446/http://www.nzbowhunters.co.nz:80/index.htm to http://www.nzbowhunters.co.nz/index.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Reference nuber 11 is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.245.130 (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bowhunting. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bowhunting. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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) 04:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Field Ecology and Conservation Technology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 5 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wmcca083 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wmcca083 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]