Talk:Hunting

Cyber hunting

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

Conservation Category

This a quick note to explain my reverting of an edit by user:Alan_Liefting. I asked him on his talk page prior to my reverting it, to explain his reasoning. My question was deleted. If I somehow offended or breached protocol by asking on his talk page, I apologize. But I would like to have a discussion about why he feels that hunting should not be included in the Conservation category. Zonedar (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not deleted your question. I moved it to the bottom of my talk page for consistency. My answer is at User talk:Alan Liefting#Deletion of Conservation category from Hunting. As a stated in my talk page reply hunting is generally the opposite of conservation. Poaching, which is illegal hunting, currently categorised under environmental issues, is an article that should be in a conservation subcat. Culling, a process that involves hunting, would have a closer link to conservation in certain cases. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought that it had been deleted. I appologize. I think that needs to be discussed. To say that 'Hunting is generally considered the opposite of conservation' is a POV. It could easily be countered with such things as Pittman-Robertson (which is on the Conservation page, BTW) taxes, Duck Stamps (also on the conservation page), Hunting license funds and fees that go directly to conservation efforts, the CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe, hunting reserves in various countries around the world, etc. Zonedar (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that I said that hunting is "generally" the opposite of conservation. Some minor aspects of hunting are directly related to conservation but hunting as a whole is not. The section on hunting on the conservation page is contested. I feel that too much space is given to the hunting fraternity in the article instead of being devoted to other areas. My POV is based on a lot of research and I feel that my stance taken here is NPOV. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the hunting section is in contention on the conservation page is irrelevant to it's inclusion in the conservation category. To say that, "[You] feel that too much space is given to the hunting fraternity in the article instead of being devoted to other areas" certainly indicates a POV on that issue. That leads me to believe that your edits were intended to expand that issue to the category and possibly the hunting page itself.

Personally can't think that it can be argued that hunting (and sport fishing) is not inexorably linked to the history of the conservation movement and it's present continuation given the conservation origins and amounts of money hunting generates and uses for conservation yearly. From the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation's 2007 report [1] :

"Hunters and anglers have historically been — and continue to be — the largest contributors to government wildlife conservation programs. Through excise taxes and license revenues, they have contributed more than $10 billion dollars to conservation, and annually provide more than 80% of the funding for most state fish and wildlife agencies."

$10 billion dollars for just this part of the United States conservation funding isn't "minor" and according to the report is the largest contributor.

That being said, As the hunting page attracts strong opinion I'd like to keep it out of other contentious discussions on other pages. Zonedar (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see the argument for hunting not being included in conservation since it does seem a little odd to conserve a species in order to hunt it, however, Zonedar's quotes about hunters and anglers supporting programs considered to be conservation appear correct, and conservation is one of the stated purposes of hunting, so I think it should be included. Some recent studies have indicated that sport hunting of some species may cause conservation problems by killing off the strongest specimens, but that could be considered separately in a Criticism or Controversy section. Bob98133 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In the world we have now, it's completely wrong to say "hunting is generally the opposite of conservation", and it really isn't the least bit "odd to conserve a species in order to hunt it". The most critical thing for the future of any form of hunting is the conservation of the species concerned. Perhaps if we go back to what we could call "frontier days" around the world, then there would be a good deal of truth in the idea that "hunting was generally the opposite of conservation", but the world has moved on. Xn4 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether hunting is the opposite of conservation or whether it is odd to call hunting conservation, but rather how to improve this article. For the sake of this article, hunting should be in the conservation category, which I thought we'd agreed to; and which sounds like your objective. Bob98133 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary hunting is "Chasing and killing animals for sport or to get food". Conservation is the protection of plants and animals from the effects of human activity. Granted, there is a conservation ethic amongst some of the the hunting fraternity but this is not a reason to have it included in the conservation category. A mention on the conservation page is sufficient. There must be boundaries set for categories (and lists) so that the number of items does not become excessive, and this in fact this happens rather often. That boundary is subjective but in the case of categories it can be set to a max of 200 articles for ease of navigation using the categories. If hunting was included in the conservation category there would be any number of other articles that could also be placed in it. The category would then lose its value as a navigational tool since the articles in the category would be of quite disparate topics. I would happy to have a Conservation aspects of hunting article in the conservation category.

With regard to Zonedars comments:

• the $10 billion figure is the POV of a hunting advocacy group and is not put in context with how much conservation biologists and conservationists (including volunteer time)
• to say that the hunting is inexorably linked to conservation ignores the efforts of the conservation movement over the past 100 years
• WP:NPOV states "...neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately...". All my research indicates that conservation biologists and conservationists deserve a larger hearing in the conservation article than the hunting fraternity.

-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite some figures then. If those figures end up making the contributions that I cited, in context, seem insignificant then, no problem. You have thus far not provided any data as to why the hunting page should not be included in the conservation category, other than a POV.

Again this discussion not about the conservation page. It's about whether the hunting page should be included in the conservation category. If you feel that the hunting section on the conservation page takes up too much space, please discuss if there. Don't bring it here. Zonedar (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what sort of figures you want me to cite. Do I find out the cost of all of the conservation biology research, the costs of running conservation organizations and the dollar value of all the time given by conservation volunteers? It is intuative - conservation is about conserving species and hunting is about shooting them (on the whole). Also, note that the discussion here is also applicable to the articles themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan, I think that you're making the mistake of assuming hunters want the destruction of their prey species. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hunters want to want to 'conserve' both the species and habitat for multiple reasons. Most of them parallel to those of the broader conservation community. Preserving habitat for themselves and future generations, spiritual connections to the 'natural world', etc. They also want to be able to continue to hunt. Hunters have been involved with the preservation and recovery of many species. From white and black rhino to pronghorns. It may seem logically inconsistent to you, but this is a fact.

If you'd like something other than an "advocacy group" then just do a search for 'sport hunting' at cites.org (the web site for the UN's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/cites?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22sport+hunting%22&start=10&sa=N Here you'll see page after page of documents referring to the conservation aspects of hunting on the preservation of species.

In regards to the monies spent, I'm just saying if you can show how those spent by the sport hunting and fishing community is somehow insignificant compared to the broader 'conservation community', please do so. So far all you've done is express opinion.

This all being said, I'm going to quit the back-and-forth on this subject.Zonedar (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not "making the mistake of assuming hunters want the destruction of their prey species". I don't think I ever suggested that. I am aware that there is a conservation ethic amongst some of the hunting fraternity (which is why I said in the initial reply on my talk page that "Hunting is generally the opposite of conservation" - emphasis added here). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

deerr poaching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.188.58 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunting is absolutely, definitely related to conservation. There are a handful of communities in the United States where game animals such as deer and boars are overpopulated to the point where they’re a nuisance to people (e.g. often rummaging through people’s gardens and garbage).

What can also happen is that as we eliminate the larger predators from an area (e.g. bobcats, wolves, bears), the populations of the wild animals they preyed on (e.g. deer) can grow out of control, damaging to the environment (e.g. by overgrazing) and even to the point where they can no longer sustain themselves.

Hunting quotas here serve to ‘maintain the balance of nature’.

So there you have it: ‘hunting for conservation’.

On the flipside, there are organizations that are more like ‘conservation for hunting’… Ducks Unlimited, for example. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a relationship between hunting and conservation, since the latter is so frequently employed to justify the former. Whether or not this is a positive relationship, that is that hunting supports conservation, may be more open to debate. A couple of media items that I have seen in the last few years indicate that hunting may lead to more conservation problems than it might solve by imbalancing wild populations and encouraging increased populations in areas which may lead to conflicts. It is far too simple to claim that conflicts exist and killing the animals solves these conflicts. In any event, as has been discussed, conservation is generally agreed to be a function of hunting. New research or studies may undermine this, and can be added as they appear, but for the moment the relationship exists. Bob98133 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

"Hunting advocates claim that hunting can be a necessary component[1] of modern wildlife management, for example to help maintain a population of healthy animals within an environment's ecological carrying capacity when natural checks such as predators are absent." is POV it uses the word claim instead of state or say which is more NPOV 70.150.94.194 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

has anybody researched "paper hunt"? which is a famours game in the 19centry. Please tell what's is and how to play it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.91.98.57 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Tools, not Weapons

The difference between a tool and a weapon is it's intended purpose, with weapons being relegated to actions again other humans. No one refers to a rod-n-reel as a "weapon." It's a tool used for fishing. Even the harpoons used to hunt whales are not called "weapons." They're called by their proper name: harpoons. I've hunted with bow and arrow, shotgun, rifle, and pistol, and not once have I ever heard of them being referred to as a weapon in the confines of their intended purpose with respect to hunting. Guns used in local law enforcement are primarily intended as a deterrent, by their mere presence, and they're refered to as "weapons" because of their intended target: Man. Extraordinary precautions are taken, however, to avoid ever having to draw those weapons, much less use them, and the vast majority of career law enforcement members never fire their weapons outside of the practice range. A rifle used for hunting is referred to as a "rifle." In the context of hunting, a variety of guns are referred to as "guns" or "firearms." According to the science of anthropology, the correct term used to describe instruments used for hunting is "tools." 19:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)