Talk:Hunting dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dogs (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


The table is quite good, though it needs a few modifications to make it more accurate. Another level of division is necessary under gun dogs allowing for the division between the three main hunting styles: retriever, pointing breed, and flusher. Also, I think that lurchers should be added. I would place them in the table as a subdivision of sight hound as that how they hunt. Similarly, water dog should be a subdivision of retriever. I tried to make the change, but I lack the skill. If we have a bank of photos, it would be useful to replace photos of dogs such as the poodle which have ceased to be a hunting dog and replace with something like and American Water Spaniel or Irish Water Spaniel. The poodle is on the show dog page, after all. I recommend making changes to those photos that show non-hunting variant such as the basset hound, and show type cocker. A photo of a basset hound from a working british pack or a Treeing Walker would be more accurate for a hunting dog page. That little basset is cute, but he would have a tough time following a rabbit on those little legs.--Counsel 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I merged the text into the table and mucked around with the organization a bit. Added lurchers. Didn't want to try to show too many levels of hierarchy in the table, so lurchers are just at the same level as the other hounds; description will distinguish--same shd be true for water dogs ("Water dogs are a subclass of retrievers."). I think that's sufficient.
As for photos, when I created the page, I tried to find the nicest photos that we had at the time of dogs in that category. Something clear and attractive that showed the whole dog if possible and also was very typical of the indicated type. If you can find photos you'd rather include, fine--you can look through the list of dog images that I've tried very hard to collect as they've been added to wikipedia. I've also tried hard to make sure that the images on these pages are valid images to use on wikipedia (not copyrighted or fair use or otherwise questionable), so any should be fine.
Is it possible to shorten the descriptions on this page some? (OK--lurchers could be longer :-) .) Real details about each category should be in the individual articles.
And a question about lurchers--I have found info that says they're a mix between hounds and herding dogs. You say between hounds & terriers. I have an acquaintance, a dog genetics researcher, who says that in fact *any* hound mix is a lurcher (she has bred foxhounds with whippets). The New Encyclopedia of the Dog says it's a mix of Greyhounds with either terriers or collies. The Encyclopedia of dog breeds says it's any Longdog ("sighthounds or similar breeds") with "usually" a herding breed. I don't know what to think.
Elf | Talk
Counsel, please look at these hunting dogs.The Dogfather 06:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, easy to propose wonderful pics. Another to actually produce them. As far as the lurcher goes, it is really a concept that predates the strict kennel club classifications we have today. I think that combining almost anything with a sight hound to produce a working sight hound with hybrid strength would be a lurcher. Those who produce them are more concerned with the product than the ingredients. The herding and terrier crosses are most common, but my guess is that this is because they were the most commonly available dogs to cross in rural England. --Counsel 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've got to wholeheartedly disagree with the way this was handled. There's no reason to put a subclass on the same level as its parent class. That should be handled on the page for the parent class, or by rethinking the taxonomy used or the page layout. (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Working Poodles[edit]

I read an article recently about a poodle that earned a hunt test title as well Here it is. To me it is really exciting to see people putting effort into bringing poodle back to the hunting world. As far as I can tell, they exist only among the hunt test crowd (which is not the same as the hunting crowd). As a non-sporting breed they are not permitted into field-trials. This is unfortunate as poodles routinely test a the top of the breed list in intelligence and trainability and have a lot to commend them to the hunter. They are especially good for those with dog allergies. I think, at this point, however, the two or three breeders working toward a working poodle are the exception that proves the rule. If you look in the classifieds in a gun dog magazine, for instance, there are hundreds of ads for dogs of all types. There are no ads for poodles. I have never even read of a hunter (who was not a breeder) actually using a poodle and I have certainly never seen one. Their fluffy coat, produced after decades of selecting for coat traits that are the opposite of the insulating protective coat that would be helpful to a working water dog is a significant hurdle to overcome. Duck hunters are the people who use water dogs and they hunt in cold miserable conditions. I think that the poodle still has a way to go before it become a regular selection of those who have to break ice to provide an entry in the water for their dog. I would be interested to hear if anyone does know someone who hunts a poodle. They well may make it back in the working dog world, but I submit that they are not there yet.--Counsel 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is distressing to see you make blanket statements, such as "they exist only among the hunt test crowd", which are are not true. Just because the typical hunter is a troglodyte (the main reason I have left the sport; you are a singular exception) who would never consider hunting a poodle, does not mean that that they are not being used as such. I'll wager you don't see many ads for Irish Water Spaniels either, and most Labs and Goldens are also not field dogs. Poodles were hunting long before many of these other breeds existed, and as the prejudices against them begin to fall away, you will begin to see more in the field. I was visiting a hospital recently with my dog, and an employee stopped me to tell me of his recent pheasant hunt, last fall, where the guide used two Poodles to flush and retrieve the birds.The Dogfather 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said "as far as I can tell..." first. However, I stand corrected. It is an interesting question. Although, it appears only a few dogs (relatively speaking) are working in this way, there is no getting around the fact that a high percentage of them are successful at it. The working predjudice among hunters is that it takes constant work to maintain hunting genes. Poodles, for the most part, have been bred primarily for other-than-hunting traits for quite a while and seem to have kept a good ability. It certainly calls into question many of the field lines versus working lines arguments (which are prejudice mostly). I think the fact that those dogs that are worked are successful at it is enough to warrant their inclusion. Better to err on the side of over inclusion rather than risk perpetuating an unfounded prejudice. I will email that site you pointed out to see if they will donate a picture to Wikipedia for use on this page. My guess is they will be happy to do so.--Counsel 17:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the IWS and Golden are worked much more than the poodle today. There is even a regular Golded field trial here in Spokane, but you are certainly right that the vast majority of those dogs are not worked, but are included.--Counsel 17:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good working poodle pic. And if you would rather use something else, I guess I can understand that. I realize Poodles are not commonly used. Keep in mind that when many of these articles were started there were no pics to be had, so we used what was available. If you look at the histories of some of these dog articles you will see that I myself have gone to various breed enthusiasts to beg for pictures (the IWS comes to mind). So for a latecomer to show up and complain about the choice of pictures, well, I get my dander up a bit about it. Good pictures are hard to come by. If you can get people to donate what is needed, go for it. The Dogfather 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another note, the lady who donated the photo sent a story about her MINIATURE poodle that completed a NAHRA hunt test leg. These are more difficult than the AKC hunt tests (which forbid mini poodles) and she was one of only 6 dogs to complete the leg. There were 8 labs, 2 goldens, and a chessie to compete with. You just never know.--Counsel 06:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, poodles are bread from what the old Water Dog line, all of which were hunting dogs. Back in the 1700's they were a subspecies of dog, Canis aquaticus. The Portuguese Water Dog is another, and definately a hunting dog, although I seem to recall some were used to do water work for fisherman such as fetching net floats. I don't know if a fishing dog would be considered a hunting dog. Usually hunting is held in opposition to fishing. I gather the "curly-cue" coat of a poodle was designed to be hydrodynamic like a short-haired dog, yet long and thick enough to insolate the dog against the cold. The toy poodle is to my experience one of the most coordinated, atheletic, fastest, and high prey-drive of the toy dogs. The contrast with the ancient Chinese lap dogs line. So yes, please persue my leads: google scholar "Canis aquaticus" and "water dog" and "hunting poodle" and the other articles on Wikipedia let us know all about it so we can improve this article with anything about hunting with small poodles. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pig dogs[edit]

I noticed that pig dogs are not yet mentioned in this article. I don't know much about them, nor have I ever met any but a few strays, but they seem to be almost anything. And the manner in which they are used to hunt varies enormously, from those that circle the animal until it is too worn out to run away, to those that actually take down the animal themselves. I can see that they do not fit in very well with the article as it is, as I don't believe pigging is recognised as a sport. Research is likely to be difficult. The article is looking great though, well done with the pictures. I am a lemon 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am currently writing a page on hog dogs. I will look up how to redirect pig dogs to that page. It will encapsulate both bay and catch dogs. Finders and holders I believe is the Aussie term. As you can tell, I'm an American, so editorial from Down Under would be appreciated! Once this is done, I believe it could be linked in with the Curs, as those are the primary hog dogs in the US, but I'll have to revisit that issue once the article is up. --TrueBlueLacys (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Huntingwolf.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Huntingwolf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do both sexes work?[edit]

Or do the bitches do all/most of the hunting as in lion prides? Lycurgus (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Catch dog be merged into Hunting Dog. I think that the content in the Catch dog article can easily be explained in the context of Hunting dogs. Currently the debate from both views is as follows:

  • Oppose - Quote from Catch dog Discussion page "This article shouldn't be merged with "hunting dog" because, although hunters do use such dogs, so do many non-hunters, such as stockmen, farmers, and butchers. I suppose you could merge it both with "hunting dog" and "livestock dog" assuming such a page exists." Unnamed author, undated.
  • Support because it is a form of hunting dog, regardless of who uses them. Being classified as a hunting dog is not just a matter of being used by 'hunters', whom ever is using them for the purpose, it is still hunting. Keetanii (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy and paste from WikiProject dogs discussion page: "I just wanted to bring this to the attention of a few more people. There is question as to whether the catch dog page should be merged with the Hunting dog page. Personally I'd never heard of a catch dog before, I'd always known them as pig-dogs. ... Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge per Keetanii. I've never heard the word, I am not a naive en speaker though. The word can be found only in one dictionary and the definition is different from the article. See [1]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)"
  • Oppose I hardly think that a butcher or livestockman who sends a dog to retrieve him a sheep intact is "hunting". Second, as used by hunters, this is a particular type of hunting dog, as opposed to say a Bay Dog, which is not a Catch Dog, or a flushing dog like my spaniel which is a hunting dog but which is not a catch dog at all. The catch dog, like the flushing dog and the pointer and so on, should have it's place in the article "Hunting Dog", but each should also have their own articles, especially this one, is still a catch dog even when it used to collect wooly sheep and release shorn ones alive and unharmed, which is livestock work, not hunting. Chrisrus (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
5 of the 14 links as references in the catch dog article are dead links, these seem to be the main citations for the article, other than pages mentioning the term and a certain breed. The definition link from simply states "a dog used to help round up livestock." Which seems to indicate a general term for all herding dogs, and mentions nothing about pig-dogs or pigging or dogs used for hunting and eradicating wild nuisance boar (the main mentions in the catch dog article are about pigging, not sheep herding). There is very little in the literature that actuallly uses this term "catch dog" to prove notability of the phrase. I certainly believe that the information about these dogs and the work they do needs to go somewhere, but as it stands, I believe the Catch dog page is lacking greatly in references, proof of notability and even an accurate description of what a catch dog is supposed to be. If not hunting dog then perhaps merged to working dog, or made more specific in a page called "pig dogs". A quick google search brings up more associations and notability for the term pig dog than catch dog. However, what Chrisus has said, apparently a catch dog is not necessarily a pig dog but also encapsulates all cattle dogs and all sheep dogs. Yet I find no mention of this in any literature, and especially no mention of this in the references listed in the article. The breeds mentioned in the catch dog article are all "bull type" breeds, no mention of sheep dogs which you mention "used to collect wooly sheep and release shorn ones alive an unharmed". Keetanii (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to offer constructive criticism of the article Catch dog, the place would be the its talk page. If you want to propose it for detetion, there is a place to nominate articles for deletion. If you want to explain why it would be a good idea to merge "Catch dog" into the article "Hunting Dog", here might be a good place for it. You are arguing the wrong point. There is no reason to merge a dog which is used to catch animals alive either for hunting or for livestock work into this article, and no reason to merge every particular type of hunting dog into this article. You must argue why the articles should be merged despite the fact that not all catch dogs are hunting dogs and even if they were, not all hunting dog articles such as Gun dog or Sight hound should be merged into the umbrella article Hunting dog, so this merger proposal should be given a speedy fail and the hatnotes removed, and there is no reason to continue discussing it here. Chrisrus (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chrisrus' arguments — it seems to be a significant enough type of hunting dog according to sources I've found. A rename or split could be in order (I have heard the term catch dog used), but there seems to be enough independent material on the subject to warrant a separate article. Some examples: [2][3][4][5][6][7]anna 05:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have mis-represented myself. I in no way think that the "hog dog" or "Pig-dog" does not warrant it's own article, however I see very little literature pertaining to "Catch dog" in an informative sense. I have not been able to find anything that explains accurately what a catch dog is supposed to be as per Chrisus's explanation, which states that it is not just pig dogs but also includes sheep and I assume cattle dogs (although not listed as such in the article) and any dog which "catches" an animal (bear hunting dogs etc etc). If the Catch dog was just a pig dog, then I could make something of the article, but with no clear and accurate description available it could be nothing more than a page about an American term (vaguely mentioned in an online dictionary, and some vague mention in a dog breed history page with no clear definition, or a shop selling pig dog armor)). I suggested the merger since the tag was still on the hunting dog page, and the Catch dog page appears to be beyond help if no consensus is easily reached as to what the term even really means (try googling "catch dog" rather than pig dog or hog dog, and you might see what I mean). However if Anna and Chrisus have a clearer understanding of this term than myself (which as I have stated would not be difficult) then hopefully someone can do something with the page as I certainly cannot with the information at hand. As it stands the article could easily be put up for deletion due to all questionable content being referenced by dead links. I believe the deletion of all the information would be a bad thing, hence why a merger was suggested, to save what little useful information is in the article. I however respectfully stand down form my attempt to help these two articles. Please feel free to remove the tags as you see fit, however I ask that this thread be left intact for future reference if anyone should think to merge the two again (as I was not the first, it was already there when I visited the page). Cheers and happy wiki-ing - Keetanii (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this topic and for trying to improve the situation with these articles. Please do not "walk away", but rather let's move this to the talk page for catch dog. There are several things there that are not in the article that I'd love to see used, and then there is Ana's idea about spitting the article or something. You bring up good issues that need to be addressed about that article. Just because merging it into this article isn't the solution doesn't mean that there isn't a problem to be solved somehow, but let's leave this space here as this is not off-topic. Thanks again!  :) Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

General Organization[edit]

I already made comment on some of my issue with this article in the Tables discussion, but I think this article could use some fairly heavy reworking. I mean none of this to disparage any work done as at core, there is some great info here, just it's kinda all mashed up.

  • Inconsistent hierarchy in table (see comment added at the end of the Tables discussion)
  • some descriptions in tables are too verbose and florid
  • descriptions in tables do little to differentiate types (e.g. read the pointer, spaniel, and setter entries pretending you know nothing about dogs)
  • the further details just reads like a list of personal pontifications on a few select breeds and has little organization to it.

My suggestions for how to improve this article: Firstly, break up the table and create three sections to the article. Devote a section to hounds, one to gun dogs, and one to others. The introduction in the table to hounds and gun dogs (e.g. "Hounds...[snip]... raccoons, coyotes, and large predators are hunted with hounds.") can be used as the section introduction with each subtype getting a subsection--this incidentally would make dealing with something like water dogs much easier and much more elegant. If so desired, the table can be retained, but just with the hound portion in the hound section, with much more lean descriptions, the gun dogs portion of the table in the gun dogs section, and the rest under other.

This would allow for a much more useful structure to navigate the article (as is, if I want to see what this says about coonhounds, I have to find them in the table, then wade through that at the bottom--or more likely, I'll just click on the link for coonhounds and not ever even bother with what's at the bottom).

Actually, thinking about it, instead of that third section just being "Other", it might be wise to just call it "Small Hunting Dogs", move mention of both the lurcher and curs under hounds (pointing out that they aren't necessarily "hounds" per se) which would give a much more descriptive, albeit somewhat misleading header title to that section. It's an apt title in that feists, terriers, and dachshunds are smaller breeds, but misleading in that breeds like the basset hound can be on the small side too...*shrugs* guess that's why I only make suggestions and don't actually edit pages. (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not? I say "go for it: be WP:BOLD! Everything you describe sounds great to me, and if others have even better ideas, let them improve it even further. This is how Wikipedia gets better all the time, everyone has something to contribute. If you need help, ask! Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bthetrendystyle\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)