Talk:Fox hunting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

bloodsport

Why is this word in scare quotes? Surely it is a bloodsport, and I don't think its proponants would deny this - whether that is a good thing or not is a matter for debate, but I would not have thought that this term was disputed? Trollderella 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect its proponents might well deny it. MikeHobday 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - can you provide any examples of fox hunting advocates denying that it is a bloodsport? Trollderella 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunting supporters would obviously deny it because the word is a negatively loaded one which attempts to place an over-emphasize on a particular viewpoint towards the sport. In the same way that rugby players object to their sport being called a "bully's game" or names like "mugby" or "thugby". It's kind of like the old freedom-fighter vs. terrorist argument. The word is undoubtedly a derogatory one and so should be handled carefully just like the millions of other cases of derogatory names that exist for all types of things. Canderra 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Bloodsport is derogatory and hence npov. Sander123 09:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not derogatory - it's obviously and factually in that category. Can you back that up with any sources suggesting that this word is inappropriate? Trollderella 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bloodsport" is usually used as a derogatory term for brutal forms of unregulated fighting and animal baiting. It is considered derogatory by one side (the hunters) and is generally only found in anti-hunting literature. The word simply reflects POV, and gives no useful information. "Hunting" already implies the possibility of death for the hunted animal.David A. Flory 06:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any evidence for the idea that it is derogatory? I have only ever seen it used as a factual term to describe sports that involve the spilling of blood. I have seen no evidence to back up the idea that it is derogatory. No dictionary I have ever seen implies that either. Trollderella 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As Canderra pointed out, a term can be lexically accurate and still POV. Hunting groups don't use the term; anti-hunting groups do. Hunters would argue that the term falsely suggests that point of hunting is to shed blood for sport, rather than to test one's riding, see the dogs' breeding and training in action, experience the excitement of the chase and the uncertainty of whether the fox will be caught or get away... Anti-hunting groups would say this is rubbish. It's a matter of POV. David A. Flory 04:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's intended to be derogatory. Don't you remember all the anti-hunting websites in the UK a few years ago which were decorated with dripping blood across the top of each screen (some still are)? The whole point is to emphasize 'blood'. One might as well insist that using 'bloodmeat' instead of 'barbecue' in Australia isn't POV. David A. Flory is correct. Flatterworld 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloodsport isn't derogatory. Its the way such sports are categorised. I disagree hunting already says that; many people go fishing but don't kill the fish. Catching butterflies in nets is a form of hunting even.--Him and a dog 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked it up at http://dictionary.cambridge.org and there is no suggestion it is derogatory. 81.154.181.177 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fox hunting regulation

I have removed this text from the article:

Since the hunting ban was passed in England, many hunts have reported an increase in membership and noted an increase in the number of foxes suspected of being killed as foxes are accidentally killed by dogs while following artificially laid trails [13]. Fox hunting supporters claim around 320,000 people (their highest recorded number) turned up to fox hunts on Boxing Day, 2006 [14].

While such claims are made, there is no evidence cited to suggest that the claims have any basis in fact. This article should be more than a series of claims if it is to be encyclopaedic. MikeHobday 06:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that was an imporant point and it was well cited. They opinion of opponents of fox hunting is encyclopedic as long as it is put in proportion and is properly cited. I npoved the section you disaproved and restored it. Do you like it better now? Sander123 08:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made a separate edit, leaving this text in for now. I am concerned, however, that claims (which have certainly been made) are included without the slightest evidence that the claims are true. Not an easy balance, I admit. MikeHobday 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pest control

I have twice removed this text from the article:

In Australia where foxes were introduced for sport, native animal popluations of a "critical weight range" have been very badly effected by foxes. Some state governments have offered bountys per fox to help with the problem. In Tasmaina, which until 2001 has been fox free, a large reward of $1000 per fox is offered and $50,000 for information of the introduction. Generally foxes are controlled with baits or spotlighted by farmers (where by the eyeshine signature (from the tapetum in the eye) of foxes, body shape and silhouette are used to identify).

Without evidence that this problem is addressed by hunting foxes with pack of hounds in Australia, this cannot be a supporting argument for fox hunting. Perhaps it should be in the spotlighting article instead? MikeHobday 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's factual information, and not divided into silly "for" and "against" parts. The history of fox hunting in Australia has led to spotlighting and is part of the history of fox hunting in Australia. I cannot see why you are so eager to leave out any mention of it. —Pengo 07:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Read the opening sentence of the article. It is about "a form of hunting in which trained dogs pursue Red Foxes". It is not about spotlighting. 2. Read the section which was being editted. Silly or not, it is divided into for and against sections. MikeHobday 07:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I never said it wasn't, and I've already addressed that. 2. Contrasting fox hunting with dogs to the more practical "spotlighting" form of "pest control" is completely relevant to the section, whether you consider it a "for" or an "against" point. 3. You can move a section rather than deleting it if you consider it in the wrong place. 4. Please don't bite the newcomers, such as the original contributor. —Pengo 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added a section on pest control, for the reason that the hunting of foxes with firearms in Australia is referred to as "Fox Hunting", and it is practiced as a sport (by calling foxes in with a fox whistle or spotlighting them). Granted, it doesn't have the attendant pomp and circumstance of English fox hunts, but the reality is that in this part of the world, foxes are hunted with firearms, not dogs, and it is still considered both a sporting pursuit AND a form of pest control. I have, however, deliberately left out references to baiting or poisoning foxes, as it doesn't really qualify as "hunting" (or even "sporting") in the traditional sense of the word. --Commander Zulu 08:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bounties for fox hunting

Hey MikeHobday, I don't understand your rv comment. I suppose we agree that State sponsored fox hunting is in itself a valuable addition to this article. How can we improve the section? Perhaps you object to the pov or the place in the article, maybe lack of cites? Bye, Sander123 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern is this. That the section is about arguments used for hunting foxes with packs of hounds, not about whether foxes are pests. As far as I am aware, the very real problem about foxes in Australia, and the spotlighting etc. that takes place, is not used by anyone as an argument for hunting foxes with hounds. The issue of foxes in Australia is already covered at red fox and could be covered under invasive species or pest control. But this argument is not used (as far as I know) by anyone campaigning for foxes to be hunted with packs of hounds in Australia. What are the main techniques used in Australia for this pest control? MikeHobday 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As i SAID main techniques used in Australia are baits and shooting. and perhaps this bounty, My problem is the confusion of the word fox hunt, MANY MANY austalians who go out to KILL (pest) fox spp would say they are "fox hunting". AS i also said below, there is harldy a tradition of fox hunting in asutralia AT ALL. I had never heard of it, and its not like im out of the loop, duck hunts are a HUGE issue here ever autumn, Fox hunting (else where is reported well. BUt not the hound fox hunt. And as i grew up in fox territoys ( ie the country) i feel i should know. Your revsion seems POV : "indeed that was the cause of the problem!" arn't we suposed to be unbiased, neither good nor bad???? Problem or not. Cilstr 06:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inserting text in a more appropriate place. This article is about "a form of hunting in which trained dogs pursue Red Foxes". not about spotlighting. MikeHobday 07:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the introduction to reflect the addition of the new information. Sander123 09:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Variation: Drag hunting" is mentioned in the artical, you havn't taken it upon your self to remove that but yet, it is a from that which trained dogs DO NOT pursue Red Foxes. I thought the issue would be the of the foxes, and perhaps their welfare and that of the dogs and horses. The whole issue, not some (polical) agenda some have. NOt that i am pro hunt. i am most certainly NOT. (i mostly hate ebing reverted with out disscusion) (3 hours!!). Cilstr 15:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, how many active fox hunt clubs are there in australia? And whom is running the anti campain?? They are being very quiet... (perhaps because foxes(and cats) are eating our natives)Cilstr 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pest control

I recently made an edit to the one sentanace section "pest controll". ONe sentance!- hardly encolpedia worthy.. And yes i am annoyed my addtion was reverted with out a message to me. ( its on my watch list but wikipedia watch list only shows recent edits - not the ones to do with ,me....)

I agree. There is 1 sentence for the "pest control" argument and 4 against in that section. The fact that a fox will remove its prey after killing it has no standing in this context. The mere act of killing makes it a pest. Ipankonin 08:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

IN summation., 1) one sentance BEGGS to be elaborated on! 2) Further when one mentions "Fox hunting" to an australian- they will talk to you about SPOTLIGHTING and pest control, NOT the hunt with hounds, thus ( as an international encylopedia ) needs to be elaborated on. 3) UNtill i did a quick look up i (as an australian the grew up in the country regions had not ever heard of the so called sport (with hounds) ever occuring in australia. It seems there are about 6 clubs in australia- not a huge deal. I think is vitally important to mention the devestation that foxes do in australia - if you are to lump australia in with the rest of the fox hunting nations. eg "PM - Tasmania's fox hunt begins" :talking about shooting, www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s351581.htm Cilstr 06:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cilstr, I'm sorry if you feel hard done by. But Wikipedia does not insist that changes to people edits are notified via a talk page. Indeed, this would slow down change inordinately. This is why comments in edit summaries tend to be found acceptable. Please rememebr also that, when we edit Wikipedia, we tick a box to indicate our agreement with the statement, 'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.' Thanks for your contributions to our encyclopedia, and I hope that you will continue to edit boldly!. MikeHobday 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fox nicknames....Tod?

From the article....

"The fox, or "Tod," as it is known in the British sport..."

Charley, Charles, Reynard, Red Rover - I've seen and heard these names used, but Tod? Can anyone provide more info on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanW (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

See The_Tale_of_Mr._Tod or The_Fox_and_the_Hound_2 for example. MikeHobday 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Recipes?

I found this english recipe for Fox Pasta. I wonder if we could put it in this listing -as it has to do with fox hunting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/4853388.stm

That's disgusting. That'd be like eating a small dog (or a big rat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.142.218 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The disgusting thing is eating animal flesh at all, imo. -- Librarianofages 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Both dogs and rats are part of the diets of many people around the world. --Michael Johnson 03:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so are human children, it's all the same anyway. -- Librarianofages 04:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that comment is just offensive, unnecessary and untrue. --Michael Johnson 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're being speciesist, it is true that people still eat other people in the 21st century and it's also true that its just as wrong to kill a fox or a dog, or a child. -- Librarianofages 04:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is you that is being speciesist. Why is it any less moral for me to eat a shark than a shark to eat me? --Michael Johnson 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're being silly, how many sharks eat humans as to humans eating sharks? Are we naturally in their territory? no. Furthermore, what do sharks have to do with dogs, foxes and human children? -- Librarianofages 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How many humans eat children? Besides I thought we were talking about speciesm, do sharks matter less than foxes and dogs? And yes plenty of people spend time in sharks territory, and they do get eaten, --Michael Johnson 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about speciesism, sharks matter no more or less than dogs, foxes or humans. Besides, sharks don't eat humans for food, in the instances that sharks have attacked humans, it is as a case of mistaken identity. -- Librarianofages 05:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sharks do eat humans, as do crocodiles, pythons, and large cats. That we have hunted populations to the point of extinction means these events are unusual today, but that is not the point. --Michael Johnson 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's got nothing to do with the fact that humans have murdered many animals, rather it relates to you not understanding why humans get attacked by wild animals. You're bringing up trivial details that are only vaguely related to the concept of speciesism. I'm not going to discuss this any further, if you can't understand that both humans and animals are equal in right to life, then you are a speciesist, and you should get counselling. -- Librarianofages 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I would have to say you have almost no understanding of the predator/prey relationship, and furthermore are clearly unable to defend your philosophical position against even moderate prodding. And I may need counseling, but certainly not for this. --Michael Johnson 08:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Michael - sharks, crocodiles, big cats and snakes are all designed to eat meat. Back when human population was smaller, humans would have been regularly predated by these animals, although humans were in the rather unique situation of then developing to hunt their predator animals. It is neither wrong, nor undesirable, and the human as an omnivore requires meat protein. Owain.davies 07:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

comment What? you're telling me you live in the stone age?... 21st century buddy. While wild animals may pose a passing threat to modern human animals, they are no great danger and in fact it is the wild animals who are actually now in danger from humans. My philosophical position is fine, however, I don't have time to be constantly arguing with everyone over simple facts. As to Owain. you're wrong, humans neither need or particuarly benefit from the consumption of animal protein, you'll find that plant protein is superior for a number of reasons, while I won't go into specifics, suffice to say that you can decrease the chances of getting numerous different types of cancer and life threatening disease by abstaining from the consumption of meat. Perhaps you would benefit from doing some proper reading on the health, environmental and social benefits of a vegan lifestyle. -- Librarianofages 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprising well read on the supposed benefits (much of it back-rationalisation for a moral choice) and negative implications, and it is very hard to be a healthy vegan without supplements. As for philosophical positions, i can't think of a less defensible position than suggesting that the 95% of people in world who eat meat need counselling! Owain.davies 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed many rational arguments against hunting animals, cruelty to animals, and on the base of environmental sustainability or health against eating meat. These arguments particularly apply to first-world city residents, but are not universally applicable. OTOH you claim a moral prohibition against killing any animal, defining it as speciesism, ie assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species. This is a universal dictum, and should not need the support of evidence of the health, environmental and social benefits of a vegan lifestyle. Indeed by arguing that there are rational reasons to change diet you are showing that Humans have characteristics that allow them to make rational choices, and that separates them from other animals, and that it is therefore illogical to assign all animals the "same rights". This is clearly shown by the fact that all other species exhibit speciesism. Thus my question why is it all right for a shark to eat me and not for me to eat a shark? Or to put it another way, why can a lion eat an antelope but not a Massi tribesman? (and no Massi tribesmen no longer live in the stone age). And if the Massi, why not me? Claims that "we know better" may well be true, but show we are indeed different. You are entitled to your philosophical position. You are not entitled to accuse complete strangers of being murderers, cannibals, and of needing counseling. --Michael Johnson 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not very hard to be a healthy vegan without supplements these days (10, 20 years ago, you would have a point), most people I know manage fine. I don't need to defend my position, I just suggested to him that if his problem is that he can't get around the fact that murdering others is wrong then he should seek counseling: this was because I was running out of time to discuss, not because of any lack of substance in my argument. If you eat the flesh of another, are you not as good as a murderer? While you might want to continue this little discussion, I don't have time, look at it this way. In the instances where sharks attack humans, again, it is a case of mistaken identity, they generally mistake humans for seals. OTOH, While Massi society has not yet evolved enough to no longer need meat it is not a relevant argument to make as to the validity of eating meat, and no, it is not Okay for a Massi Tribesman to kill any other animal. Thank you for your time, I'm off on a field trip. -- Librarianofages 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So lions are as good as murderers? Enjoy your field trip. --Michael Johnson 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, look at this Franknstein's monster i've created from a single comment! Quite entertaining. Liberarian has some merit to his argument (I guess). However, the whole "eating fleash" statments just sound real ignorant, because your not eating the skin of an animal, but its muscle tissue. Also, Massi don't need to "evolve". Their no more monkey-esqe then some middle-class white vegan. Also, you use the team "kill any other animal. I didn't know you could be an anti-specist & a racist at the same time! Fasinating...

Any way, aslong as people are still paying attention to this article, let me just add that this article should probably mention the crulty not only endured by fox but also the dogs that kill them. After all, training an animal to kill something thats not a usual part of there diet (an probably shares a few chromazoams with) must be mentally damageing to the dogs. And the physical strain they must endure to catch the quarry. I reminds me of the roman ampitheater were they would pit animal against animal, or victorian britain, were they pit a pack of dogs against bear or some other large animal. It all seems very primitive & reminds of the Fox and the hound, which was a sad story... 69.250.142.218 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - You might want to research this a bit rather than vague plaintive views on 'it must be mentally damaging'. More or less any domestic dog will act aggressively towards a fox, it is an instinct, and hunt hounds are just encouraged in this natural behaviour. Owain.davies 06:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You really ought to see some real hunting dogs (I have personal experience hunting quail with pointers), and how unbelievably excited they get when they realize they are going hunting. You can't blame hunters for getting irritated when their activities are threatened by folks who rely on Disney flicks as primary sources and speculate that animals worry about sharing genetic material with their prey. David A. Flory 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I must apologise if you thought that I was being racist, there was no intention there at all. I was talking about the way that they live, not the people themselves, please excuse me! -- Librarianofages 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I also took that comment as being racist, but declined to post the same as I thought you were on a field trip. Maybe a little more consideration of the difference between evolution and culture. There is no evidence that evolution has anything to do with a tiny minority view of not eating animals or their by-products. Owain.davies 06:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I speak in the sense that their society is unable to eliminate animal products from their diet due to their hunter-gatherer culture. I did not mean the people themselves, I would also include Inuits, and other indigenous tribes around the world. -- Librarianofages 12:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the logical outcome of eliminating "speciesism" would be extinction. One cannot live without taking space and resources that other living things need to survive. Even a vegan diet requires the obliteration of entire wild populations to make barren, monocultural deserts, where any living thing that would threaten the cash crop is ruthlessly exterminated.David A. Flory 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No thats not true at all, seeing that a vegan diet uses less land than that of a diet which includes meat, as well as water, animal feed (which could be fed to humans), also vegan farmers do not eliminate so called "pests" as they are also sentient. -- Librarianofages 12:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) My Anglo-Saxon culture procludes me from following a vegan diet, as it would lead to social ostrocisation and would necessitate me indulging in ecologically unsound practices, such as the use of imported soya (often GM) and the shipment of foodstuffs further than necessary to satisfy my selfish nutritional needs. Therefore, I would like to claim the same exemption as a Massi or Inuit.

(2) there aren't very many vegan farmers! The vast majority of vegan marked produce only takes ingredients in to account, not production methods (and having spent most of my working life working of food industry product development, i know this to be true), therefore you are contributing the the death of millions of insects every year. Even organic production does not totally preclude the use of all pesticide and pest control methods.

(3) the monoculture statement is true, as the commerical scale production of plants, as it stands at the moment, generally relies on methods such as hedgerow clearance, irrigation and mechanisation. Having said that, if you would like to provide the entire western world with an allotment and a few spare hours a week, i'm sure they'd be happy to help out

Owain.davies 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Hunting

Hi all. I have become interested recently in creating or helping to create a possible WikiProject covering Hunting, Shooting, Game animals etc. If anyone is interested, please sign your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Hunting. Cheers Greenfinch100 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article title

In order to help bring together some disparate threads in this article, and reduce confusion, i propose changing the article name to "Hunting with hounds" or some similar title, which would enable the expansion of the sections on beagle and stag packs whilst keeping them in a sensible place. We could then create a separate "Fox hunting (shooting)" article to discuss the use of fox hunting in Australia along with lamping etc. and "Fox hunting" itself would become a DAB redirect page.

Most of all, it would allow the arguments (less POV!) on all the related hunting with hounds sports to be laid out in one place without repetition, and move this article towards GA or even FA status.

Any thoughts on this?

Owain.davies 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Fox Hunting" is the activity's common name; I've never heard it referred to as "Hunting with Hounds" outside the works of Kipling et al. There'd be a significant amount of confusion if the article was split, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 10:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as per Commander Zulu, there's no problem referring to the separate existing articles beagling and deer hunting. MikeHobday 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. In which case it just needs tidying up as it goes off on tangents about coursing, stag hunting etc. Owain.davies —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree It's absurd to have a section on various quarry animals, as well as a section on drag-hunting, yet have the title 'Fox hunting'. You can always have a redirect entry for Fox hunting (redirecting to 'Hunting with hounds' or more accurately, 'Hunting with scenthounds' as there's also hunting with sighthounds), but it shouldn't be the actual encyclopedia title. I think much of the problem is that MikeHobday is focused on English-style (originally French-style) hunting, and there are no coyotes or bears (or any other predator larger than a fox) in England. This is simply not true in the rest of the world where foxhounds are used for hunting animals other than foxes. There is also the confusion of hunting foxes using other means in other parts of the world, such as lamping. imo that's why this article wanders about so much and strays so far off topic. Flatterworld 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment And don't forget to include basset packs with the rest of the scenthounds. Flatterworld 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

Congratulations to Owain.davies for merging the pro and anti sections so well. As I said above, this was a mess before. I have started to copy-edit, removing some arguments which are frankly irrelevant, but would welcome others to help address and improve this section. Hopefully, we can soon remove the POV tag from the article. MikeHobday 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had to change back of couple of things you put in, as i'm trying very hard to make this in line with WP:NPOV and the use of words like 'dramatic' doesn't serve to create a balanced view. Similarly, using words like 'most activists' is misleading and can probably never by proven. This article needs loads of word to comply with WP:V, but it's taking time, as i'm trying to find neutral sources (not easy on this particular debate). Owain.davies 20:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I asumed you (or someone) would not agree with everything, and am happy to collaborate to the sme ends. MikeHobday 07:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - the only way to 'fix' contentious articles like this is input from multiple people to remove the biased words (whether intentional or not). Look forward to working with you Owain.davies 17:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

Give the large amount of citations now added (although more are needed, admittedly) and the removal of large amounts of POV material, does anyone still feel that the article needs the large tag at the top regarding neutrality and factual accuracy? Personally, i feel we are about at the stage where it can be removed, and any last wrinkles ironed out with citations, with remaining contentious claims (if any???) removed. Owain.davies 12:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been tremendously impressed with the improvements to this article in the past year. I have a special interest in the Fox and Fox Hunting from my own research projects, and I would feel comfortable recommending this article as a introduction to the subject. David A. Flory 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. With an issue this controversial, doubtless the tag may be needed at some point in the future, but not now. MikeHobday 21:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as an agreement to take the tag off. That said, please help by adding relevant citations to the remainder of the article, and i reckon we could have an FA candidate. Owain.davies 06:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hunt staff and attire

I'm assuming these sections are accurate for the US. Because they're not for the UK: Masters are not staff, whippers-in are often voluntary; There is no such thing as members invited/not invited to wear colours. MikeHobday (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not strictly true, Mike. Masters are usually included in the 'hunt staff', whether paid or not, and it is very much the case that members must be invited to wear colours, and it would be frowned upon to simply turn up in pinques, so the distinction clearly exists, whether you couch it with a term or not. Owain.davies (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the suggestion that Masters are usually defined as staff? I accept that only certain people can wear coloured jackets, but my point (perhaps badly explained) is that the terminology is certainly not international. I tend to think that section headings should not be geographically-centric. MikeHobday (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In regard to dress code titles, I'm not sure it matters, as the term is self explanatory. There are two clear dress codes, one by invitation only. The invitation dress code is the right to wear hunt colours. This makes sound logical argument, and it is cited, so I'm not sure what your issue is with it. Also, what would you change it to? Pinques isn't appropriate for all hunts. As for the MFH, he is in charge of the staff, kennels etc. and again, to be the 'boss', you need to be part of the 'company'. If you want to be really pedantic, we could change the title to 'staff and honorary positions', but i feel it loses cadence. Owain.davies (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than this article, I can find one single google reference to the phrase "members invited to wear colours." Apologies for assuming you had used a US centric phrase - clearly you made it up yourself. Re: Masters as staff, I think you make my point for me. Someone in charge of the staff is not staff. MikeHobday (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be in one of your less constructive moods today. What is it you'd like it changed to? As for masters, you seem to have a strange definition of staff to my mind, but again, what would you like it changed to. Owain.davies (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong mood? You may be right; certainly my skills of introspection seem off. I'll take your tip, and pack up for the night. Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Back in a positive mood! My definition of "staff" relates to employees, which hunt masters rarely are. I will have a go at writing, am sure you will look it over. MikeHobday (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncited information

I think it is a generally bad idea to put uncited, potentially controversial information in to an article this contentious, even with the cop out of a fact tag. If you believe it can be cited, then provide the reference, otherwise the article will end up as a mass of POV again. Owain.davies (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Place for this photo in article?

Have you tried this site instead? Totnesmartin 14:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights versus animal welfare

Following Mike's reversion of a change from animal welfare to animal rights as he felt it is pejorative. I have read both Wikipedia pages (and before commenting, i would suggest anyone else does the same) and feel that the original edit was justified by the full descriptions in both articles. My understanding is that animal rights focuses on the concept of 'civil rights' of all animals, such as humans enjoy (such as freedom from being hunted, whereas animal welfare focuses on looking after animals who are under the care of humans. Based on this, an argument about the mistreatment of hounds would be animal welfare, whereas the hunting of foxes is clearly animal rights. I appreciate there may be overlap, but the very well sourced animal rights article makes no mention of pejorative usage, and i have to say i've never considered it to be such. Therefore I have changed back animal welfare to animal rights in the first instance. I would suggest that this is the only sensible option barring substantive changes to the two contribtary articles. Owain.davies 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that is absolute rubbish. Animal rights focues on the rights of animals (eg not to be killed). Animal welfare focusses on cruelty (defined as unnecessary suffering). There is no restriction in animal wlefare to "kept animals". Arising from the distinction, animal welfare supporters accept necessary suffering and, in some circumstances, killing. For example, many animal wlefare supporters eat meat, wear leather etc. The opposition to fox hutning is not that it kills, but that it is cruel: that is causes suffering and that suich suffering is unnecessary. Hence animal welfare, being also the broader term, is appropriate. MikeHobday 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my understanding from reading the two articles, if you disagree then i think a good starting place would be for you to edit those articles to be more in line. Also on wikipedia, there is a ring template - Template:alib which covers most the major topics and appears on a number of pages, headed up as animal rights. In either case, i think that both terms apply here, and consequently have put both of them on the page with equal weight, and people can visit wither wikilink to find out more if they wish. Owain.davies 09:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to edit other articles! Still, Wikipedia does not classify itself as a reliable source! OK, I accept that both terms apply, but not with equal weight. The predominant organised criticism of fox hunting comes from organisations like the RSPCA, IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports, none of which are animal rights groups. MikeHobday 09:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The RSPCA, IFAW and LACS are very much animal rights groups, whether or not they find that label helpful to their aims. owain davis is correct, and Mike is being quite rude in labeling his explanation 'rubbish'. Bullying will not not tolerated in Wikipedia. Flatterworld 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"The RSPCA, IFAW and LACS are very much animal rights groups". Is this your opinion, or do you have a verifiable source for it? MikeHobday 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that these organizations are not strictly speaking animal rights groups (i.e. they do not explicitly endorse "animal rights"). However, they resemble explicitly pro-AR groups in their emphasis on the "sentience" and "suffering" of individual animals and their strong focus on regulating human behavior towards individual animals, rather than habitat management and species welfare. I think that the current heading of "animal welfare and animal rights" is a good one, because the two orientations seem to be mixed among the groups that oppose fox hunting. A fox hunter may say that fox hunting is very good for the welfare of foxes in an area, as fox hunters protect nursing vixens and fox habitat, and save weak or sick foxes from a slow death in the wild. The counterargument from groups like the RSPCA emphasises that fox hunting is cruel to the individual fox being hunted. The implied argument is that one must respect the fox's individual interest in not being hunted.David A. Flory 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I fear that you juxtapose animal rights and conservation, as if there is no intellectual space in between. Are those arguing for good treatment of farmed animals (against veal crates, for example) or those who supported the UK's Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 which banned the kicking (for football) of hedgehogs automatically animal rights because they are focussing on individual animals? Why can an animal welfare supporter not be concerned about cruelty to individual animals? MikeHobday 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that there is a continuum of positions within the animal welfare/rights field, and it is difficult to draw a line where one stops and the other begins. However at the extremes it is easy to draw a distinction - animal welfare starts with a concern with "unnecessary" cruelty to animals, while animal rights ends with all animals having rights to "life, liberty & happiness" similar to that of humans. But all these are primarily concerned with the individual animals, a concern for the fate of a species represents an interest in conservation. While many people with an interest in animal welfare and rights also have an interest in conservation, and visa versa, animal welfare and rights positions can and often do conflict with conservation. --Michael Johnson 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Burns Inquiry issues

I tend to agree with the suggestion, made somewhere recently, that the Burns Inquiry should have a separate section. I probably think we need to revisit the order of sections of the article at the moment, not least because we are currently referencing the inquiry before it has been explained, which does not make sense. Finally, in the light of this source, [1], referencing a Guardian article which I cannot find (perhaps Guardian archives do not go back to 2000?), I think that the references to the status of individual Burns Inquiry memebrs is overblown to the point of POV. MikeHobday (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your own organisation's viewpoint is hardly a reliable source. You have placed much emphasis on the Burns Inquiry as a correct and verifiable source, so the opinion of its chairman and other leading member, neither with a particular political bias (hence their choice for the panel) seems highly relevant. It is no secret that official government policy and these members of the inquiry board (both very senior government advisors), along with the lords favoured the 'middle way' option, and were outvoted by the house of commons and subsequent use of the parliament act. There is a lot more I could put in here which would verge on POV (e.g. the first instance of use of the parliament act against the wish of the prime minister), but I have refrained from doing so. I think you need to accept that it was not a clear cut decision by the politicians, but it did in the end go against hunting, with no sign of a change in the near future, and avoid trying to write the history in a rosy light.

I'm not sure the Burns Inquiry warrants its own section in this article, but I would support it having its own article, with a main article or see also tag on the page.

Done, as you can see, at Burns Inquiry. Do have a look and see how you can improve it. MikeHobday (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, there is no problem with using the article as a reference before it is mentioned. The first mention of the inquiry I can see in the in the Current Status#UK section, where it mentions that there was an offical inquiry, chaired by Lord Burns. The #1 Reference is supportive of other facts, so not in conflict IMHO.

Regards OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just on the ad hominem point, the League is not "my" organisation, and I am no longer an employee. If I have cited it as a source, other than in express terms of giving its opinions or discussing its actions, I hope you will review the appropriateness of that.

Back to the main point, I have never thought that political background is the key issue with respect to a politician's views of hunting as an animal welfare issue, and hence I disagree with your suggestion that individual's political background is the key indicator of potential bias. Lord Soulsby, of course, is a Conservative politician[2] but that is less relevant than the concerns raised at [3]. My point is that it is hardly greatly significant, under the circumstances, that Lord Soulsby supported hunting. Even were it so, to solely refer to him as an eminent vet (which he certainly is) and not as someone who had undertaken work for the hunting movement (or in your terms, as a Conservative politician) seems POV. My suggestion is that the Soulsby reference is removed from the article. MikeHobday (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I only say 'your' organisation, as its the first line of your user page "Mike Hobday undertakes work for the League against Cruel Sport", so not really an assumption as much as you telling the world. In either case I take your point about political views not being the be all of voting patterns (Ann Widecombe being a good example), but it is a reasonably good predictor, as is social class (and the two being fairly intertwined). I am happy to use a wording which mentions the views of several of the panel, with the emphasis on Lord Burns, but i'm not convinced that mentioning that members of the independent panel were not in favour of a ban is POV. I would rather keep it in, with an opposing sentence of those panel members who came out in favour of an outright ban. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I reveal potential COI interests (in this case consultancy) should not detract from the fact that my views are my own, and should be criticised as such. On Burns/Soulsby, my understanding is that no other member has commented, so my preferences would be (1) list Burns only and (2) list bioth but with teh Guardian caveat to Soulsby. MikeHobday (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy with option 2, although it definitely needs the primary source. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

FA application

It is my intention to soon list this article for consideration as a featured article, as I believe it meets the criteria quite well. Does anyone have any comments on the page before I list it. Sadly, it seems that Peer Review is largely ignored now, so I think it will have to go straight to FA.

Comments welcome. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree this is a good idea. Whether article passes or fails (and I incline towards support), this will improve it. MikeHobday (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for a FAC review. Apparently, it has not been nominated for a GA review. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't have time to address everything in the FA review. Can others join in? MikeHobday (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can't get FA, try for Good Article status. It's a vigorous review too. And somewhat easier. I call it the REAL peer review. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'll try to find time to address some of my concerns too (ducks) I know I'm picky!Ealdgyth | Talk 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with the article is that it's kind of choppy and still in need of some organization. It is thorough in places, but then real sparse in others. I think there is a place for a discussion of the traditional roots of hunt attire and a comparison to modern traditions (use of safety helmets, colors and fabrics, etc.) I think it is a worthy project and worth continued effort! Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Result: Not promoted. The FAC is archived here. --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been closed very early, I believe that we have addressed all the main problems raised, so feel we should go for a quick resubmission. Anyone think differently? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs quite a bit more work. The lead isn't brilliant, and the last sentence is awkward. The flow throughout is choppy, and I'd say it needs a section on the Burns Inquiry. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Share concerns. A second failure in quick succession would be very bad news. Let's get the article right, including a full copyedit, get it stable and then resubmit. Is everything from the review at [4] completed? I'm not at all sure it is. MikeHobday (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And this [5] seems good advice. MikeHobday (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all issues from the review here have been addressed. Eg, the bit about hunts putting down their retiring hounds; that's not a fact, that's a complaint by an anti-hunting group re some hunts. There are foxhound retirement placement groups, just as for greyhounds. What about breeding programs? Do they breed from proven lines or do they breed from proven hounds, hounds that were outstanding in actual hunts? Kinda hard to write a truly first rate encyclopedic article about fox hunting, if none of the editors involved are experienced fox hunters. KWIM? --Una Smith (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably using the same techniques as the editors who wrote History of Lithuania (1219–1295) without being 700 years old? In any event, judge the text, not the author. I have amended the phrasing about hounds being put down to demonstrate that the information came from the hunts, not from anti-hunting groups. MikeHobday (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MikeHobday misunderstands me. I do not judge the author; I note that the text addresses a particular case, not fox hunting hounds in general. Here's an analogy: some houses are disposed of by arson, but arson is not the usual way we dispose of houses. --Una Smith (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I do not understand your concern. The source cited in the article says that UK fox hunts in the MFHA themselves say that they kill about 3,000 foxhounds per year. It is clear that "humane dispatch" is indeed the usual method of disposal of hounds amongst UK foxhunts. MikeHobday (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the sources and this was not clear to me. (See below). --AeronM (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered farmers packs

I recently removed this information about there being unregistered, as well as registered packs from the article, principally because despite extensive searching I can't find a reference, and it is the nature of unregulated entities not to have reliable sources. It has been reinserted, but I am having trouble seeing how this will meet WP:V in the future.

Their existence is inferred in articles by the master of foxhounds association of the US, as this gives the benefits of being a member, but never explicitly mentions it.

I suggest, that unless anyone has a good idea about where to find a source that isn't a blog or forum, we are going to have to remove the information.

All suggestion welcome, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted it because, if true, it is highly relevant. Indeed, the question as to whether fox hunting takes place in America outside of registered packs (i.e. as in the UK) seems a key issue for an article which we are hoping to move to featured article status. Were it not for this latter point, I would be happy to see the sentence deleted. MikeHobday (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the value of the point it makes, but if it can't meet WP:V it can't stay. I'll happily give it a couple of weeks for a source to be found (and i'll look too), but if one can't be found, i think it will have to go. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording and added a ref. --AeronM (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fate of hounds

It is POV to mention only one of several normal fates of hounds after their fox hunting days. It is POV regardless of which fate(s) are mentioned and which are omitted. Let's have some facts, please, from reliable, verified sources. How many hounds are retired per year, and where do they go? Euthanasia (and then? renderer? cremation? burial? fed to other hounds?), breeding programs, retirement homes, others? Lets do some research, get some facts, and leave emotions at the door. --Una Smith (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read the source,[6] have you? For UK fox hunts, it is not disputed by anyone that euthanasia is the predominant fate of foxhounds. The other source cited, [7] is both reliable and neutral. No emotions are in play here, just cold hard facts. MikeHobday (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here in good ole Middleburg, home of the 'most hunts in a contiguous area' (12), many of our retired hounds are adopted by people, both hunt members and non. In California, many of our retired hounds were also adopted out. --AeronM (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the above source. It says the number of hounds removed from packs is essentially equal to the number that enter. Approximately 3000 enter per year. However, the above source also says "there is no record kept of the number of hounds put down each year" and that hounds "are removed from the pack for different reasons" and enumerates some reasons. Not all of those reasons involve humane dispatch and not all humane dispatches are for human convenience. Of the hounds removed from packs each year, how many are given other jobs, retired as pets, killed for (or die from) medical reasons, and killed for convenience? I found section 4 of the source, "How many are re-homed?", very interesting. --Una Smith (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The fell packs, cited as an exception to humane despatch, amount to six hunts, and their hounds are 420 compared to 11,766 for the MFHA. And that figure of 3,000 does not allow for the over 6,000 hounds in other packs. Accepting Fanshawe's estimate of 1 in 4-5 as surplus to requirements each year, that is another 1,400 hounds that go somewhere. The Burns Inquiry summary seems the best conclusion:

6.79 It is a common, but not universal, practice for hounds belonging to the registered packs to be put down after some six or seven years’ hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives. The Countryside Alliance estimated that the MFHA packs put down about 3,000 hounds a year in this way.[433] The Countryside Alliance and the MFHA explained to us that this was necessary in most cases because hounds were not domesticated animals; and that it would be unfair to subject them to the more constrained and solitary life of a pet dog.[434] In some cases, however, especially with hounds belonging to the Fell Packs, the hounds retire to live with the families who "walked" them as puppies and who have often continued to look after them during the summer breaks.

6.80 The anti-hunting organisations tend to argue that it is unnecessary to put hounds down in this way. They also argue that hunts breed too many dogs and are too ready to put them down if they are not thought suitable for some reason.[435]

If you want to add more information to the article based on this, do go ahead, but my point is that the 3,000 figure is notable and reliable. MikeHobday (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that number; I dispute the appropriateness of leaving out "the rest of the story" (Blind Men and an Elephant). --Una Smith (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. What verifiable source do you have that there is any more to the story? MikeHobday (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence for the time being for two reasons: 1) I read the references and found that the number (3,000) was suggested but was then lowered allowing for other 'fates,' and 2) the information was from the UK and does not reflect US practices in general. The information did not appear precise enough to be included here. We can do better. --AeronM (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find some verifiable US information? MikeHobday (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would reiterate what Una Smith said above; the fact that the first section of the cited source says "There is no record kept of the number of hounds put down each year," already throws some doubt as to the accuracy of the '3000' number. It goes on to say that "the figure is speculative," and also "During any one year some losses will occur through injuries and ill health." Clearly then, the sentence in the article ("Anti-hunting campaigners also criticise UK hunts who put down around 3,000 hounds after their working life has come to an end, at the age of about eight years.") is not accurate. I have removed it until such time as something better can be contributed. --AeronM (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another hunting source saying it is routine: "Hounds are humanely put down when they cease to have any quality of life." [8]. MikeHobday (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the position. Burns says MFHA hunts put down 3,000 per year. This source [9] are the UK hare hunts saying they put down an additional 900 hounds per year, suggetsing around 4,000 is the right figure. I will reinstate. MikeHobday (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitals

A minor point, hence merely Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Institutions. MikeHobday (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it that means you agree? "HM Government", but "the government said..." OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought MOS backed me up, but let's leave it till the experts at FA review see it. MikeHobday (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the wikilinking.  : - ) OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

how did foxes surve during the big fox hunting era if any one has any info i have a school prject any help would be much appreshated. many fanks from confused nerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.134.212 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Consensus (Image)

A member of IFAW (User Talk:212.240.148.42) posted a couple of images to the article, one of which showed a mutilated fox. I don't think they're necessary, but I was reverted by MikeHobday. I'm going to remove them again until we have consensus. Should we Keep or Remove? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - I don't think the images serve any encyclopedic purpose -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - I don't really see how it makes the article more encyclopaedic. Owain.davies 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Add - Five "chocoloate box" images of hunts in the countryside paint a one sided image of the activity. The fact that animals are torn apart at the end of the process is a key factor in the debate which is already a key part of the article. The "torn apart" fox image should appear in the section on alleged cruelty. MikeHobday 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I wouldn't disagree that the section on cruelty could feature a good picture of an injured or dead fox in principle, but for me, i would want to be satisfied that in additon to meeting all of WPs picture standards (free use etc.) the picture was genuine (which i am not necessarily assured of with the one given) and was appropriately captioned. As i understand it, the presence of a carcass once the hunt has concluded is fairly rare, so it would have to be a very well sourced photo. That said, i still don't think it's imperative as i think anyone reading the article could probably envisage a dead fox. Owain.davies 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ReplyEqually, they could probably imagine a horse rider in a brightly coloured coat, coat being followed by riders and hounds in the countryside, but there are several photos of that inthe article. Still, I am pleased at your agreement. What level of assurance would you need that a photo was genuine? MikeHobday 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - The intent of including the images is obviously to mislead readers into assuming the "tearing apart" is the method of killing, when in reality the fox is already dead by that time. Read the autopsy reports in the Burns Inquiry. In short, death is generally caused by massive trauma within a few seconds as the animal is "crunched" to death, or, in some cases, the neck is broken (the way a rat terrier kills a rat). It appears to depend on the size differential and the positioning of hound and fox. Either way, it's very quick and doesn't involve being "torn apart". Flatterworld 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like the Burns post mortem on the fox subject to hunting by a terrier at the Royal Artillery which was found to have multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head, damage to the right eye, bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck? Or the "fox 4" post mortem: "Profound trauma by repeated dog bite. ... It is not possible to determine the time period from first bite to death from this post mortem material"? One such photo out of more than half a dozen does not seem misleading to me. MikeHobday 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply For those not interested in re-reading all the post mortems, suffice it to say the absence of blood in the lungs meant the fox didn't even live long enough to draw another breath - imo that's pretty quick. A multiplicity of bites doesn't mean they happened sequentially and over a long period of time, or even that they happened BEFORE death. As for the terrier issue, is Mike proposing we now include terrier pest control in the fox hunting article? Why not simply retitle the article "any animal killing another animal, particularly in the UK"? imo you're straying quite far afield. Flatterworld 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Are you saying that foxes hunted by terriers below ground are not being hunted? MikeHobday 08:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here. The article is not named 'All kinds of hunting which Mike Hobday finds cruel and which he's campaigning to make illegal', it's called 'Fox hunting'. Further, most of the Wikipedians here would like to see this title limited to scent hunting (whether or not limited to foxes and/or limited to pack hunting) as it's EXTREMELY confusing to encyclopedia readers, who live in all parts of the world, to be dashing about among all the various topics Mike seems to find related in some way. We are an encyclopedia, not a platform for those with various political aspirations. Terriers are NOT foxhounds. Terriers are NOT scenthounds. Terriers are NOT hounds at all. If Mike would like to write an article about terrier pest control, covering rats and foxes, comparing the cruelty of killing traps, Warfarin (and other poisons his government uses), and so forth to terrier work, he's welcome to do so. Just not in this article. In reading through past discussions, it appears Mike's goal is to undo the efforts of previous editors who separated this article into such articles as the one about Legislation. Wikipedia does NOT need this article to become some sort of general dumping ground. Flatterworld 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Leaving aside the personalities, the article is not called "fox hunting with hounds", it is called "fox hunting". Are you saying that foxes hunted by terriers below ground are not being hunted? MikeHobday 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think it might be worth considering changing the title of the article to "British Fox-hunting" precisely to prevent this kind of confusion. In British sporting usage, "Hunting" is done with hounds. It is not "Shooting" which is completely different. A fox that is chased with hounds is hunted. A Fox that is shot is not hunted, it is shot. (Fox-hunters have historically despised fox-shooters.) Digging out foxes with terriers is Terrierwork.David A. Flory 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply Terriers are intrinsic to fox hunting in Britain and should not be separated from the article. I think the similarities between British and US hunting are sufficient to merit an interesting comparison in the same article. I agree with you that fox shooting should be in a seprate article, whether or not called Vulpicide! MikeHobday 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - As per Talk, I don't think the images serve any encyclopedic purpose --TFoxton 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• As per Owain Davies, above, I suggest that the dead fox photo at [10] be added to the Animal welfare and animal rights section with the caption, "Imagery of dead foxes played a significant role in highlighting accusations of cruelty in fox hunting." My view is that a photo, from an organisation with several professional hunt monitors is likely to be well sourced. MikeHobday (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think their photos are the least likely to be neutral, and monitors have in the past been accused of faking or posing photos (whether true or not). As I said, its not the principle of the photo I object to, and your suggestion of mentioned that it has been used for PR purposes is sensible enough, but I still have major concern over whether such photos are genuine. I think the only way to assure that is to use one which shows the actual kill or the hounds as well as the fox. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure any independent person has accused them of faking photos. Are you suggesting they killed the fox themselves, or that they found a fox nd ripped its guts out? MikeHobday (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting either thing, but they could just have found a fox already eviscerated by any one of a number of carnivorous scavengers, not necessarily anything to do with a hound or any other sort of dog. What I believe or you believe isn't really relevant in either case, as it is all to do with whether it can be proven either way. You can clearly see post mortem rigor in the fox, so its been dead for some time, and anything could have been picking at it. This is why sourcing a suitable image will be of great difficulty, and I don't believe that organisations such as the league are reliable sources, as they have a vested interest in showing shocking pictures, and that is the sort of interest which leads people to embellish a picture in some way. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that accusations of embellishment without reliable sourcing need not be regarded too seriously. Back to the main point, there is no evidence that the specific fox or coyote pictured in the article were hunted, yet they can be included because they have a suitable caption. So does this, even under your unlikely scenario. MikeHobday (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At the minute, your caption fails WP:NOR. Find some back up for the statement that it had a major effect or even was widely used, or it will have to go again. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wouldn't have added that caption if you'd expressed such a concern. Is the new one better? Trust the reference is OK for you. MikeHobday (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Second vote, on revised placement and wording

Imagery of dead foxes were widely used to highlight accusations of cruelty in fox hunting

Remove. Photographs of dead animals are not suitable for an encyclopedia, unless maybe the entry is "Dead Animals." We can describe the existing controversy without adding gratuitous gore meant to incite more controversy. --AeronM (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - the carcass looks nothing like the kill of a pack of carnivores; it looks like roadkill. --Una Smith (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Help me to judge. What does "the kill of a pack of carnivores" look like? BTW, the caption does not say how the fox was killed, whether by a pack of carnivores or not." MikeHobday (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is no blood on the grass, indicating it wasn't killed where its lying. Without any other convincing evidence, help us to judge why it should be used to illustrate the article especially since, as you say the caption does not say how the fox was killed, so how do you know it was killed during fox hunting or not? Bugguyak (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no such proof. Hence I have accepted that the article should not claim that this fox was killed by hunting, although I personally trust the organisation concerned. This is why I suggested the caption and, on request, inserted a source to demonstrate that the caption was true. MikeHobday (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - inappropriate for this site, keep it on the IFAW site, if people want to see it they can look there. Plus, if the fox was not killed by carnivores, why is it here in the first place? --TFoxton (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As before, there are a large number (too many) "picture postcard" photos of hunts, as if the activity was universally bland, pretty and uncontentious. To delete the single image that suggests a degree of controversy about the activity is to engage in the most blatant POV pushing. There is no reason not to believe that the description of the image, that of a kill by hounds, is accurate, but even if it is not, it is most clearly what the caption says it is, namely an example of the publicity verifiably used in the debate over fox hunting. I guess it depends whether the purpose of the article is to be a nice photo album, or is it is still desired to make it a featured article candidate. MikeHobday (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

MikeHobday, I believe you have voted twice. --AeronM (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find the votes were in separate issues. I have belatedly inserted a header to show this. Hope that's OK. Doesn't affect the apparent vote anyway. MikeHobday (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep Simply because Wikipedia is not censored [11] and you have the option not to see an image on Wikipedia [12] Bugguyak (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I checked out a few other articles with controversial subjects, and "shock photos" were not allowed (see abortion for example). I believe the same principle applies here. --AeronM (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it may be necessary to file an RfC as it does not appear we are going to reach a consensus on this one. In the mean time, per Wikipedia:Image use policy (specifically "Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article.") I am removing the photo. --AeronM (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reinserted pending either consensus or RfC. How is a dead fox shocking? Surely death is natural? MikeHobday (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Mike. Photo stays out until there is a consensus to add, per wiki policy, and as quoted above. --AeronM (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought here, will not reinstate picture if policy is interpreted as you say. MikeHobday (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the image should stay out until it's clear that it should be included. For what it's worth, I don't see any value of adding the image. Do I need to see a dead fox to understand how it applies? Not really. Unless the image is explicitly one that was used in promotion against fox hunting by an organization, it just seems to be a picture of a dead fox that doesn't help. You may seek more opinions at the village pump or WP:3O or try the WP:DR as a last resort. MECU≈talk 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see the image as gory. But the caption could be more descriptive. Which anti-hunting group used it? How did they describe the image? The image source link[13] doesn't have the image and I can't find the original image on the site.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to accept that the image was once on the IFAW site - because Wikimedia OTRS has accepted that IFAW uploaded the image[14]. Unfortunately, more information does not seem to be available. Hence note that the claim in the caption is more limited. MikeHobday (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When Foxes grow up

Owain has added that young foxes "are full size by autumn season as they are born in spring" using what looks like a pro-hunt source. I wonder if this is insufficiently nuanced? The academic source already quoted, [15] says "Mother and pups remain together until the autumn after the birth. Sexual maturity is reached by 10 months." In either case, I am not sure that this implies the degree of maturity that "full size" implies. Especially as autumn hunting sometimes starts in August, well before the Autumn. If the implication is that the foxes are no longer dependent cubs but are fully independent in their own right, that may not be true. If the claim is merely one about body length, I am not sure this is relevant. MikeHobday (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike there does not appear to be anything wrong with the statement. Even the academic source you provide does not contradict it. Merely because it "looks like a pro-hunt" source does not invalidate its accuracy. The article is about fox hunting, there is nothing wrong with having a source that actually might be pertinent for a change. The section is about hunting immature fox, not about hunting small fox, since as you state maturity does not imply full size in that a young fox can appear full sized. Bugguyak (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately added this to avoid the inherent POV in statements regarding killing young animals. People almost always react more strongly to statements regarding killing of young animals (kittens, puppies etc.), so I felt it was a relevant point to add. A lot of anti hunt like to use the fact that this is 'young' to try and gain support, but the truth is, by the time they are hunted, they are usually independent, or very close to it. The source may be inherently pro, but most actual books on the subject are. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my point. The academic source implies to me more "close to it" than "independent." The article implies the opposite. Had I felt the statement wrong, I would have reverted. Because I think the nuance is wrong, I am discussing here. MikeHobday (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What nuance is wrong here? I don't see where either article implies that helpless or dependent young are hunted for sport. You are the only one making that implication.Bugguyak (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The University article cited above suggests that foxes hunted during at leats the first part of autumn/cub hunting are neither sexually mature nor sufficiently independent to live apart from their family group. By saying that such foxes are full grown, the article currntly implies the opposite. Perhaps easier if I edit the article. Change it again if you think I'm getting it wrong. MikeHobday (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate one would have to give all the information about sexual maturity the university article cites: "pups leave the den 4 or 5 weeks after birth and are fully weaned by 8 to 10 weeks. Mother and pups remain together until the autumn after the birth. Sexual maturity is reached by 10 months." POV interpretations of implied nuances have no place in the article. Why don't you just come out and say what you think the passage implies? Bugguyak (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Genuinely, I thought I had. The article implied foxes were fully mature, the academic source implies they are not. How can I clarify my words better? MikeHobday (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Conservation

Just finished the book, 'memoirs of a foxhunting man' and was interested to read that traditional hunting encourages farmers to looks after their hedges (and avoid using barbed wires) which helps protect butterflies and other hedge dwelling animals. Obviously, this is not an adequate source, however, i wonder whether the conservation benefits of fox hunting might be added to this article? (If we get some good sources together) (Captain hoek (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Pulling foxes apart does not help butterflies.

Ratcatcher

I don't have a source for this - but I thought 'ratcatcher' was a tweed jacket and cloth cap and that the black coat is called 'black coat'. In the UK anyway. [16]Fainites ^barley 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected that ratcatcher mention, but I think the whole attire section needs a rewrite. Tangledweb (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Attire

The attire section seems to be a bit thin, poorly sourced and innaccurate in places or at least ignoring regional differences. I'll stay out of the controversial sections, but is anybody very attached to attire and likely to be offended if I rewrite it? Tangledweb (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who's offended might get a life, but my suggestion would be that you try to add sources for the changes you make. If the article is nominated for featured article status in the future, there's the danger that someone might ask for evidence. In the meantime, go for it! MikeHobday (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV discussions Oct 08

Following copied from user talk page of Captainclegg:

For the anti-hunting support and RSPCA ban, the cites don't support the statement, and so they can't stay.

For the movement through parliament, there is no citation for 'overwhelming public support', and i'm not entirely sure that the vote numbers are strictly relevant? If you could justify why you think they're relevant?

Thanks OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref Your comment on my talk page - i happen to think that this is a very balanced article, which has been extensively worked on by supporters, antis and neutrals. One of the regular contributors and watchers is a strongly anti Labour politician, Mike Hobday, and he tends to keep anti views well represented. It is especially important on pages like this to keep an NPOV, and this article was very close to featured article status, but we just need a few more technical citations and checks around hunt procedures. Always happy to add new information, but we must make sure it's correct and cited. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The RSPCA ban is a matter of fact and I wish to put that back in. The overwhelming support is borne out in nearly every opinion poll done before and after (see Advertising Standard Authority ruling). I assume you believe in democracy, so the Free Vote in the House and the huge majority is symptomatic of a representative sample of the population. That is the democracy we have where the MP's are our representatives. If you don't approve of that then that should be in a different article. I am VERY concerned at the general tenure of this article and it reads like a strong support for hunting and no counter-balance, which is what I am trying to inject. Captainclegg (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Although this discussion should really be on the article talk page, I agree with Captainclegg about the RSPCA ban. Perhaps the wording needs to be subtly altered, however I don't agree with removing the sentence. From my reading of the BBC article cited, it appears to be essentially correct. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be fact, but the citation you provided doesn't prove it - it says they were considering it - in 2000. You need a more recent citation than that which actually says they did it. As it happens, i don't believe that the House of Commons is genuine democracy, but that's not really relevant to the argument - and they definately are not representative of the wider population! The important thing is this article (and wikipedia in general) is whether you can support your claims. I am happy to try and work in the vote pattern, as that is cited, but you are making unsupported (and probably unsupportable) claims, which violate the WP policy, which you can find at WP:CITE. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion below:

Thank you. We now seem to be getting to the nub of the matter. OwainDavies is now dictating how old citations may be. Is that fair? He does not think that Parliament is representative... well its what we have and have had for a very long time. The vote was Free (no whips) and the huge majority came out against hunting. If you feel that Parliament is not representative of the wider population (supply citation please), I wonder if you would alter your opinion if the matter had been reversed! Captainclegg (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! That's not what I said, and is heading towards personal attack. I said that the citation does not support the statement you've made, which is clearly true. The article you've cited says they are considering - not that they've done it, as the text you wrote said. It's not the age, but the content. If you can find a follow up article from that time which says they did it, then that is perfectly acceptable!

My personal opinion on parliament isn't relevant to the discussion, as i already said, but again the problem lies with the statement about overwhelming public support - surveys have come out both for and against a ban, but there is ample citeable evidence that MPs do not necessarily note in line with public opinion (Iraq war, anyone?) I'm not against adding addtional information (either pro or anti), but it needs to be cited. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, in no way is this approaching a personal attack and I apologise if you took it that way. Its just that I am new to Wikipedia + feel rather strongly about this subject! I just find the ability to override an edit is similar to bullying and not pleasant. I will stand down on this, otherwise I will just get really het up! Can you tell me if I am 'blocked'? I was unaware of that rule. I'm sorry. I just reacted strongly. Captainclegg (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology unreservedly accepted. As for blocking, I couldn't say, as i'm not an admin, but i would suspect not, especially as you are new. I can see you feel strongly about the subject, but as you alluded to earlier, Wikipedia has a reputation for inaccuracy, and the only way we can combat this as editors is to ensure we adhere to the key policies, such as WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The things you've added follow common newcomer mistakes of making statements not precisely supported by the reference you've given, or not supported by references at all. On some articles, that can ride for a time, but on articles as controversial as this one, there is no room for uncited edits. As I said, I think we can work the vote level in if you would like, but we simply can't have some of the statements like 'overwhelming public support', 'strong support' for the anti movement and the RSPCA ban on hunting members without a strong citation - it undermines the encylopaedia's work to make a good reference piece. In WP:V you'll find one of the key pieces to editing - it's not about what is true, but about what can be proven to be true. Hard to grasp at first, especially when you are passionate, but it is fundamental to keeping accuracy.

So, the summary really is, that if you can prove with reliable sources any of the things you've put down, then they could go in, but on an article as controversial as this, proof is key. I hope that helps guide you in editing, and if you're not sure, please feel free to run stuff past me either on the talk page here, or on my own talk page, and i'll happily give an opinion on whether is meets Wikipedia standards, or give suggestions on how to make it meet standards. Regards OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now posted a revised version which hopefully includes the facts you were trying to get across, whilst avoiding the uncited (and possibly uncitable) areas. I found a better reference for the RSPCA action, and have included the size of the vote in the current status. I hope this is acceptable, but of course, feel free to edit it - just please try and stay within WP:V and WP:CITE. Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. A considerable and considered improvement. Captainclegg (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are pleased with the outcome. The intention is only to try and stick to key editing principles, not to stop the editing taking place, and i know it is difficult when you first start editing on WP, and almost everyone makes exactly the same mistakes! I look forward to seeing more edits from you in the future, and if you need any help with them, please let me know. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New controversy with the wording of law in the UK

Whilst reading on-line, I happened upon this article by Professor Roger Scruton. http://www.huntingmagazine.co.uk/pf_huntingban.htm . He talks about the ambiguity of words used in law, especially the English Language. He argues that "In English usage the verb ‘to hunt’ describes four quite different activities. Used intransitively, as in ‘Sarah hunts’, or ‘John hunts with the Old Berkshire’, it describes what we hunt followers do. We follow packs of hounds as they comb the open countryside in search of a scent. Nothing in the Act can conceivably be understood as forbidding that activity, which is after all a favourite pursuit among members of the League Against Cruel Sports. Hunting, in this sense, involves no intention to kill or even to chase an animal, but only an intention to keep up with a pack of hounds."
Could this article, in quite a prominent Hunting magazine, give reason to add another controversy with the law itself?
p.s. I am new to wikipedia for adding information and whatnot, hoping to help with this presumably new piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.94.80 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a recent High Court decision at [17] which provides an authoratitive view on this issue which should probably replace (my) previous language. I'll do this when I have time, unless someone can do it first. Note, however, that the CPS is considering an appeal [18] MikeHobday (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Second thoughts: more appropriate, and have made amendments, at the Hunting Act article. MikeHobday (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion - Fox Hunting Points of View

Please view this film from an online youth magazine as I would like to submit it as an external link. Thanks Willsmore (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)