This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It should surprise nobody that I'm no fan of fox hunting (though one wonders if it is any more cruel than, say, baiting for rats), but I have tried to be fair in the article. What do people think? -- Robert Merkel
Seems fair enough, although for balance a paragraph offering the pro-view could be necessary.
I don't think you can say it was INVENTED by aristocrats. Certainy the majority of people that hunt today are far from aristocrats, and to say that it is the preserve of the very rich is ludicrous!
It really needs to be more balanced. I will add about hunting being banned in Scotland.
Is it true that the Labour manifesto of 1997 pledged to ban fox hunting or merely to allow a free vote of the Commons and, if that called for legislation, to make government time available? Further, is it the Private Member's bill of Mike Foster (MP for Worcester) that is being described here as having been blocked by the House of Lords? Tony Blair claimed in a television interview that that was the case, but in the same interview he claimed to have voted for the bill when he was, in fact, absent from the Commons. I am agnostic on the issue personally, but I would like some reassurance that we have NPOV here. Alan Peakall 12:31 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)
Did the Scottish Parliament ban all hunting with hounds as the article says or only fox hunting with hounds? In the U.S. we certainly have many different animals hunted with hounds - although which ones varies by state. Rmhermen 20:00 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
I thought that the House of Commons voted to ban it last year and the year before as well but that the Lords haven't agreed yet. Rmhermen 17:04 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Fox hunting is not a bloodsport any more than falconry is. A bloodsport is animal fighting in which the animals are artificially constrained or confined (a pit for bear baiting, a ring for cockfighting and bullfighting). It doesn't involve any sort of pest control. Using rat terriers to kill rats in a warehouse is pest control (not bloodsport) even though it involves animals in a confined area. Hunting involves a prey animal and its quarry under open and natural (wild) conditions. The oldest forms of hunting (for man) are hunting with hounds (both scenthounds and sighthounds) and falconry.
I went through my collection of Websters and even the Unabridged (1983) doesn't even list it. However, I'll accept your other sources and add links to the hunting articles in the Bloodsport articles. I just don't want one form of hunting singled out as if it's somehow 'different'.
I'm anti-hunting but had hoped this article might give me more information on the pro-hunting arguments relating to pest control, ie:
--[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Two things - the pictures on this page (both of the hunt and the fox) are poor quality, can we find better ones?
I also seem to remember some documentation or emails have emerged from pro-hunt organisations, suggesting that the arguments of foxes being vermin and needing control in this way are in fact more of a means to retain goodwill for hunting. Does anyone have a memory or reference of this? FT2 12:27, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Anti-hunt organisations argue that fox numbers are primarily controlled by the resources they use, as is typical with any animal population. Many more foxes die on the roads than through hunting. Foxhunting has essentially no effect as a means of pest control. ciphergoth 18:13, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Feel free to correct any mistakes I introduced, but a total revert was certainly uncalled for. I don't want to get into revert wars, so please just re-introduce as many of my changes as you can. ciphergoth 09:36, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
I will restore my changes minus the one part you've called into question. Let's please have a discussion here about any problems with my changes, not a revert war. It is not my goal to introduce POV into the article, but to extend it and make it more useful. ciphergoth 09:41, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
This is quite backwards - ciphergoth2's changes should have been discussed before incorporation into the article. Absolutely no references were provided for the changes. They have no basis in fact, and I thought giving one especially egregious example would be sufficient. It's appalling to see the official government report labeled as 'pro-hunting', but it demonstrates ciphergoth2's extremely strong POV. User:12.73.221.211
The introduction says "Like all forms of hunting, fox hunting is a blood sport," and I disagree. Hunting is not necessarily a "sport" (a competition). Even when/where the sport of fox hunting is banned, eventual hunting of foxes (e.g. to kill off road accident injured animals) takes place. I don't suggest that this article be devoted to such general hunting of foxes -- it correctly describes the sport of fox hunting -- but it shouldn't make false generalizations about hunting. Perhaps just removing the first five words from the cited passage would be the best solution. -- LA2 14:23, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
Dbiv
Thanks for your Grammar corrections to the stuff I put in as 170.224.224.155
I've reinstated the 3 Year delays asked for by the Lords. Whilst not widley reported in the press this occured on two seperateoccassions for two seperate reasons. The first occassion regarding the RCVS investigation was backed up in a rather complex form by a second suggestion as to what the Commons should do if they rejected the liscensing at that point. The Speaker got very confused by all of this - and at some point I might write it up.
It then bounced off the commons, came back to the Lords, who then - asked for 3 years or none at all citing this as electioneering and nothing more - I'll need to cite Hansard for specifics, which is why I have not gone into further detail in the main post.
Next day it hit the Commons and the Lords, before the Speaker invoked the Parliament Act.
Hasty
Last thing first, Bradley was "speaking to" not "moving" his ammendment - which I think is what you refer to, he made an accident of speach, no more.
The first time the Commons Suggested Ammendment went to the Lords it was rejected and the Lords attached a 3 year RCVS delay to their ammended bill. They may have at the same time attached a suggested ammendment to the banning bill as well, they were certainly talking about doing this, but I am unsure whether they did in the end.
When it went back to the Commons the Commons rejected the Lords ammendments to the main bill, got in a compolete flap about proceedure and opted again for the same 18 month suggested ammendment (this should never be described as part of the main bil, it runs parrallel with it) rather than Mr Michael's (ever so) "reasonable" 2007? option this was only put forward for purposes of spin IMHO.
Back to the Lords next day, the Lords insisted on their previous ammendments to the main bill, and insisted on a three year delay purportedly for different reasons - whether this was put forward as a seperate suggested ammendment as well as a normal ammendment I will have to check.
As regards the very last day I will hve to check hansard on this too.
I've not made changes at this point, but I think they need to be made.
There is a difficult position here. I think anyone watching proceedures from either side of the argument, who was up to speed with what was going on would know that a) The Lords were taking the piss as regards their 3 year dealy, and (b) so was alun michael with his 2007? delay half way between 18 months and 3 years. Now the NPOV would perhaps be to say that both were nonsense, but the Lords were portraying their delay as "to enable people to come to terms with things" whilst possibly effectively forcing a three month delay by their actions. The government were trying to ensure the ban got through any future legal challenges by appearing "reasonable" and "going the extra mile" to help people have time to adapt.
So how do we put all that in and appear neutral! Anyone got any guidance?
H
By Splitting the controversy section into three parts, I think we will see the arguments come onto the site. Certainly I can fill in some of the parts, and I'm sure we will see others comming to fill the others in :-)
Hasty
Everyone argues that their position is supported by the evidence. To say that one group's position is "based on evidence alone" is pretty much to say "here are the good guys, everyone else is a nutter". The information about the former chair of the League Against Cruel Sports also sat very oddly; it would read better if they were named and given them their proper title in the Parliamentary Middle Way Group. ciphergoth 09:28, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
That seems sensible, I have knocked the civil liberties bit out of teh Middle Way Group as well, since I have never heard of them using that argument - although pro-hunt do. I think the LACS reference will become relevant when I fill in a bit more about them. They make a large play on that background, and teh LACS will certainly be mentioned in the anti-hunt part. -- Hasty 11:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
General discussion on this? Rorybowman 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't quite see how to keep POV out of the Pro and Anti hunt sections - although I am trying, and look forward to the help of others to reduce this.
I suggest that we might initially let some POV remain in these two sections, and introduce a NPOV section at the end if needed. However, it may be that the NPOV occurs naturally as pro and anti edit each others points.-- Hasty 20:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't possibly let you get away with that unchallenged :-)
I agree it sits oddly, and feel free to drop it into another section to see how it looks, but it is undeniably there, this article by George Monbiot keeps getting mentioned in the anti-hunt forums, and forums like urban75 are unashamedly more anti-hunt due to the perceived class issues rather than the welfare ones.
In the mean time another one of my grammatically poor updates is now online.... -- Hasty 01:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This section is ridiculously biased in favor of the pro-hunting lobby. The pro section is written as though it were undisputed fact rather than opinion, and the Anti section seems merely to be an extension of the pro section - the author explains the position of the anti-hunting and then simply goes on to explain why they are wrong with quotes for far-from-neutral Daily Telegraph to back up the assertions. A really poor effort at neutrality. -- Axon 11:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've seen the talk, but it doesn't really seem tackle the bias in this article. I prefer to highlight bias and rely on the original author to modify as appropriate, which is a far less confrontational way. This:
Is totally POV and not really acceptable in an unbiased description of the postition of the anti-hunting lobby. -- Axon 11:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looking at options for making the article more NPOV - Each sub argument seems to have a proposer, an opposer and an NPOV e.g. (Anti proposition) Hunting is Cruel and evidence supporting, (Pro response) No it isn't and evidence supporting, (NPOV) It may be and here is the undisputed evidence. I would like to try chabging layout of the controversy section to this form and see how it looks. To clarify - Rather than there being headings of "Pro Arguments", "Anti-Arguments" and "NPOV" with sub-headings of Class / Cruelty / Utility etc. There will be there will Headings of Class / Cruelty / Welfare etc, and sub headings of Pro / Anti / NPOV under each. Anyone object / comments?
Secondly, since the page has not had any significant new material put in for a while, and this revision will be cosmetic, does anyone mind if I remove the currently being reviewed box at the same time or should it stay in?
H -- Hasty 16:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
", does not make it clear whether it would be legal to allow the dog to kill a fox that had only been injured by a shotgun."
I pulled this sentance, because I have a hunch that the law does clearly state, but I have not read a copy of the act, has anyone else? I think this may have been what the recent court case was about.
Advice needed.
In fact the law is clear. It is illegal in Scotland to use dogs to chase or deliberately kill a fox. See the Act at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2002/20020006.htm. There are very limited exemptions. Section 2(2) exempts killing in the course of a legal activity (so not "in the course of" chasing a fox). Mike Hobday
"To say you wish to allow the fox population to expand in an uncontrolled way is effectively to say you wish to see foxes' prey species hunted to death by foxes, and that you wish to condemn a large number of foxes to extended suffering." -- Is that really a NPOV?
I would like to point out to some people who really don't know anything about the hunt.
1: The dogs bite the fox from the back of the neck killing it. Then they tear it up to pieces. 2: The hunt kills weak foxs (for example the sick or the old) who are more likely to look for easy prey (farm animals). The smart foxes survive the hunt and would aassociate the area with danger and stay away. 3: Thousands of dogs have to be put down beacuse they been breed specifically to hunt foxes and they can't be retrained. 4: Farmers will have to use snares and traps to kill foxes who are near the farm. This is a painful and slow death. 5: Shooting a fox with gun isn't practical beacuse the shooter can stay hunt the fox 24/7 and it's to effective. There is little chance the fox will survive the encounter. A fox who survives a fox hunt will know not to go to the area beacuse of the danger involved.
And before you accuse me of being biast you should know this. What ever you may think of Fox hunting at the end of the day a fox is a predator. He will try to kill farm animals. Weak animals will usually look for easy prey and it is them who are in the farms. Get rid of them and you will have a healthy species.
And no the fox isn't teared apart alive. The hounds have been traiend to bite the neck of the fox first to kill it. Then they will tear it up to peices. Furious Stormrage
Is it fair to say that a complete heavy edit is required on the "Controversy over hunting" section. I volunteer but ask for some help, anyone?
I have a general interest in the subject and am concerned that people often can't find the correct information they require. Is it fair to say that to obtain an NPOV first the UK legislative part needs to be moved to its own article - it could be linked from the fox hunting article - as my friend above suggests. Also I agree: It doens't resemble an encyclopedia article because, i think, it has been hijacked by either side of the argument. Does the article even need the level of detail into the issues that it currently has? Ashley 22:02, 4 January 2006 (GMT)
I have created the article fox hunting legislation to provide a place to more cleanly and distinctly place these issues. I am hoping that this will help to make the article more general and less explicitly focussed on UK politics. Breaking things out by nation, year or a specific piece of legislation will also allow more specificity. Since I am not familiar with these subject areas, fox hunting legislation is very skeletal. I'll leave it to subject matter experts to do a good job in migrating these over so that this article can address the issue of fox hunting more generally. As always, feedback is encouraged. Cheers! - Rorybowman 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've looked in vain for any treatment of fox hunting in the USA, which is often done by hunt clubs on large acreages of land, fenced with foxproof fences and stocked with foxes, which are run by hounds. Hiding spots are provided - generally pipes that are large enough for foxes but too small for the dogs. Foxes are rarely killed; they seemingly regard it as a game, where they usually run the dogs for a long time before taking cover. Some foxes never take cover. Hunters also rarely follow the dogs. They usually remain at the clubhouse and listen to the progress of the "hunt." Pollinator 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your info on fox hunting in the U.S. is incorrect. Although it is done on large spaces of land, they are not fenced in. The hunt club must be granted permission to hunt on the landowner's land. Also they are certianly not "stocked with foxes", that is against the rules. Some days the hounds never catch a scent. You are correct that in America the foxes are rarely killed. This is because our purpouse is only to chase the fox. However, your claim that "Hunters also rarely follow the dogs. They usually remain at the clubhouse and listen to the progress of the 'hunt.'" is very incorrect. The Huntmaster always follows and directs the hounds. Stray hounds are gathered by the Whipper-In's. Those that are not staff follow the huntmaster. In conclusion, the hounds are always accomipianied and hunting is never done in a fenced in area "stocked with foxes". The fox is rearely killed, and once under ground or treed it is "acounted for": and left. The hunt then ends or tries to find a new fox. In America it is somestime called Fox Chasing. The two websites mentioned above are very informational.
I'm sorry, I apologize. I thought your information implied that hunting in fox pens was the American equivalent to the English hunting on horseback, since the main Article was on fox hunting on horseback. I did not want people to get the wrong idea, so I wrote the above information, not realizing that there were two different types of Fox hunting in the US. Afterwards I became very curious as to where you got your info (I wanted to do a little research, but had nothing to go on). What I now understand is that there are two types of Fox hunting in the US. The one that you described, hunting with fox pens, focuses largely on the hounds and the hunting dogs?. The one I described, fox chasing, more closely resembles the English hunt because there are horses and there is alot of focus on tradition. Maybe there could be a Fox Chase article and a Fox Pen article one Day. Sorry and Thanks -ep
I'm not sure about the Coyote thing, I know that the Genesee Valley Fohunt doesn't hunt Coyotes, and I'm pretty sure most of the hunts in the area stick to Foxes as best they can
Wcoynelloyd 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)wcl
I have brought over most of the 2006 rewrite and commented out what I couldn't find an elegant way to fold in. The current article is WAY long at 32K without removing these commented sections, but to make it easier to find them and incorporate them into the new structure I have left them for now. I'll probably come back at the end of the calendar month to excise them completely, so if you love a section, please migrate it up and over into the new modular controversy area. As much as possible, I've tried to boil each argument down to its essence and reference the relevant off-site arguments as footnotes. This seems much tidier than just quoting huge swaths of text. Rorybowman 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The article reads "hunting dogs are more properly referred to as hounds." This is manifestly wrong: what about terriers, retrievers, pointers, and setters? I'm not really sure how to rephrase this. – Joke 20:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Noticed a few unregistered IP users this weekend who decided that the separate "Animals" section was silly, since the entire world is obviously run by humans and anything mentioned on a web site must be primarily about humans, so I thought I would note that the animals section is in this article for a clear reason, given that animal welfare is the primary POV issue that this subject must address. The current set of subheadings is designed to address the various POV and technical aspects of the subject matter while remaining encyclopedic. If you have a major revision or quarrel with this structure, the appropriate place to address it is here, in the talk page. If you register, your views will be taken more seriously. - Rorybowman 14:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Did some searching on evidence for blooding; to my surprise, only anti-hunt websites mention it. The only other reference I could find was the Inquiry which says in a footnote that it's largely died out. I thought there were pictures in the media a few years ago of William or Harry getting blooded? Can anyone help provide verifiable information for this paragraph? Thanks! — ciphergoth 08:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if the Peter Bradley comment should be included. His quote, in the Telegraph article, is "the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war. But it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round." As such, this is not an example of fox hunting being opposed for class reasons. MikeHobday 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I think the article could use a paragraph on the capturing of the fox from the wild, similar to Badger-digging. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this whole section from the article:
I think there should be a section presenting the argument on libertarian grounds, but this is completely incoherent and needs to be redone from scratch. "So long as it's legal, it should be legal"? Things don't become moral or immoral when they're made legal or illegal - the law is supposed to follow morality, not shape it. "For a majority of people to impose their will on a minority is wrong" - this is an argument that there should be no laws of any kind, not just in regard to animal cruelty but on any other issue. If this is the argument being made it should be explicit.
I've had a go at replacing it, but it'll need work, and really someone should cite notable instances of the argument being made. — ciphergoth 08:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Odd that I write a section in favour of hunting since I dislike it intensely. As it happens, I dislike the hypocrisy surrounding the ban even more. The cruelty argument against hunting does not stand up to scrutiny. More odd is the fact that the hunting lobby did such a rotten job of pointing out the truth: that the alternatives to hunting manage to be even worse. I have noticed that when talking with opponents of hunting, they often cannot remain calm and cannot rationally compare one cruelty with another. 86.129.162.104 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone has edited this to mention broken necks which is not the point: A broken neck is instant but not certain to happen. A fox might be torn apart by the dogs but even so, this is much quicker than dying of gangrene after being shot. By putting it near the original version, I have removed any POV and any disputed facts. (Same contributor) -- 86.129.160.200 10:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this section is opinion and not fact. I disagreee:
As far as I can see, all the points in this section are obviously true once they have been pointed out. 86.129.164.228 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just that I disagree with them, but the supporting arguments section seems to have become a bit disjointed. I don't think I'm the best person to start to tidy them up - so does anyone else fancy a try? MikeHobday 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited a sentence on bloodhounds and hunting the clean boot, to link to appropriate articles, but now I wonder why that sentence was in Foxhunting afterall?
Where the quarry is not fox and the joy of the sport is hound work and the "chase", and not shooting or trophy hunting, then perhaps a linkable Venery wiki is appropriate? Sanft 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
i think it is completely wrong and it should be againts the law in all countries
A significant portion of the anti-hunting people were arguing against hunting on the basis of killing any animal being wrong, presumably part of the whole 'meat is murder' movement. I don't think I can bring myself to write anything about it though because it seems so retarded to me that I'm not sure i could clearly make its case on a level more than "lolz animalz r teh cute no kill them murdererz"... prehaps someone who agrees with the all animal deaths are a bad thing POV could add something? 81.152.196.46 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It should surprise nobody that I'm no fan of fox hunting (though one wonders if it is any more cruel than, say, baiting for rats), but I have tried to be fair in the article. What do people think? -- Robert Merkel
Seems fair enough, although for balance a paragraph offering the pro-view could be necessary.
I don't think you can say it was INVENTED by aristocrats. Certainy the majority of people that hunt today are far from aristocrats, and to say that it is the preserve of the very rich is ludicrous!
It really needs to be more balanced. I will add about hunting being banned in Scotland.
Is it true that the Labour manifesto of 1997 pledged to ban fox hunting or merely to allow a free vote of the Commons and, if that called for legislation, to make government time available? Further, is it the Private Member's bill of Mike Foster (MP for Worcester) that is being described here as having been blocked by the House of Lords? Tony Blair claimed in a television interview that that was the case, but in the same interview he claimed to have voted for the bill when he was, in fact, absent from the Commons. I am agnostic on the issue personally, but I would like some reassurance that we have NPOV here. Alan Peakall 12:31 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)
Did the Scottish Parliament ban all hunting with hounds as the article says or only fox hunting with hounds? In the U.S. we certainly have many different animals hunted with hounds - although which ones varies by state. Rmhermen 20:00 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
I thought that the House of Commons voted to ban it last year and the year before as well but that the Lords haven't agreed yet. Rmhermen 17:04 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Fox hunting is not a bloodsport any more than falconry is. A bloodsport is animal fighting in which the animals are artificially constrained or confined (a pit for bear baiting, a ring for cockfighting and bullfighting). It doesn't involve any sort of pest control. Using rat terriers to kill rats in a warehouse is pest control (not bloodsport) even though it involves animals in a confined area. Hunting involves a prey animal and its quarry under open and natural (wild) conditions. The oldest forms of hunting (for man) are hunting with hounds (both scenthounds and sighthounds) and falconry.
I went through my collection of Websters and even the Unabridged (1983) doesn't even list it. However, I'll accept your other sources and add links to the hunting articles in the Bloodsport articles. I just don't want one form of hunting singled out as if it's somehow 'different'.
I'm anti-hunting but had hoped this article might give me more information on the pro-hunting arguments relating to pest control, ie:
--[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Two things - the pictures on this page (both of the hunt and the fox) are poor quality, can we find better ones?
I also seem to remember some documentation or emails have emerged from pro-hunt organisations, suggesting that the arguments of foxes being vermin and needing control in this way are in fact more of a means to retain goodwill for hunting. Does anyone have a memory or reference of this? FT2 12:27, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Anti-hunt organisations argue that fox numbers are primarily controlled by the resources they use, as is typical with any animal population. Many more foxes die on the roads than through hunting. Foxhunting has essentially no effect as a means of pest control. ciphergoth 18:13, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Feel free to correct any mistakes I introduced, but a total revert was certainly uncalled for. I don't want to get into revert wars, so please just re-introduce as many of my changes as you can. ciphergoth 09:36, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
I will restore my changes minus the one part you've called into question. Let's please have a discussion here about any problems with my changes, not a revert war. It is not my goal to introduce POV into the article, but to extend it and make it more useful. ciphergoth 09:41, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
This is quite backwards - ciphergoth2's changes should have been discussed before incorporation into the article. Absolutely no references were provided for the changes. They have no basis in fact, and I thought giving one especially egregious example would be sufficient. It's appalling to see the official government report labeled as 'pro-hunting', but it demonstrates ciphergoth2's extremely strong POV. User:12.73.221.211
The introduction says "Like all forms of hunting, fox hunting is a blood sport," and I disagree. Hunting is not necessarily a "sport" (a competition). Even when/where the sport of fox hunting is banned, eventual hunting of foxes (e.g. to kill off road accident injured animals) takes place. I don't suggest that this article be devoted to such general hunting of foxes -- it correctly describes the sport of fox hunting -- but it shouldn't make false generalizations about hunting. Perhaps just removing the first five words from the cited passage would be the best solution. -- LA2 14:23, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
Dbiv
Thanks for your Grammar corrections to the stuff I put in as 170.224.224.155
I've reinstated the 3 Year delays asked for by the Lords. Whilst not widley reported in the press this occured on two seperateoccassions for two seperate reasons. The first occassion regarding the RCVS investigation was backed up in a rather complex form by a second suggestion as to what the Commons should do if they rejected the liscensing at that point. The Speaker got very confused by all of this - and at some point I might write it up.
It then bounced off the commons, came back to the Lords, who then - asked for 3 years or none at all citing this as electioneering and nothing more - I'll need to cite Hansard for specifics, which is why I have not gone into further detail in the main post.
Next day it hit the Commons and the Lords, before the Speaker invoked the Parliament Act.
Hasty
Last thing first, Bradley was "speaking to" not "moving" his ammendment - which I think is what you refer to, he made an accident of speach, no more.
The first time the Commons Suggested Ammendment went to the Lords it was rejected and the Lords attached a 3 year RCVS delay to their ammended bill. They may have at the same time attached a suggested ammendment to the banning bill as well, they were certainly talking about doing this, but I am unsure whether they did in the end.
When it went back to the Commons the Commons rejected the Lords ammendments to the main bill, got in a compolete flap about proceedure and opted again for the same 18 month suggested ammendment (this should never be described as part of the main bil, it runs parrallel with it) rather than Mr Michael's (ever so) "reasonable" 2007? option this was only put forward for purposes of spin IMHO.
Back to the Lords next day, the Lords insisted on their previous ammendments to the main bill, and insisted on a three year delay purportedly for different reasons - whether this was put forward as a seperate suggested ammendment as well as a normal ammendment I will have to check.
As regards the very last day I will hve to check hansard on this too.
I've not made changes at this point, but I think they need to be made.
There is a difficult position here. I think anyone watching proceedures from either side of the argument, who was up to speed with what was going on would know that a) The Lords were taking the piss as regards their 3 year dealy, and (b) so was alun michael with his 2007? delay half way between 18 months and 3 years. Now the NPOV would perhaps be to say that both were nonsense, but the Lords were portraying their delay as "to enable people to come to terms with things" whilst possibly effectively forcing a three month delay by their actions. The government were trying to ensure the ban got through any future legal challenges by appearing "reasonable" and "going the extra mile" to help people have time to adapt.
So how do we put all that in and appear neutral! Anyone got any guidance?
H
By Splitting the controversy section into three parts, I think we will see the arguments come onto the site. Certainly I can fill in some of the parts, and I'm sure we will see others comming to fill the others in :-)
Hasty
Everyone argues that their position is supported by the evidence. To say that one group's position is "based on evidence alone" is pretty much to say "here are the good guys, everyone else is a nutter". The information about the former chair of the League Against Cruel Sports also sat very oddly; it would read better if they were named and given them their proper title in the Parliamentary Middle Way Group. ciphergoth 09:28, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
That seems sensible, I have knocked the civil liberties bit out of teh Middle Way Group as well, since I have never heard of them using that argument - although pro-hunt do. I think the LACS reference will become relevant when I fill in a bit more about them. They make a large play on that background, and teh LACS will certainly be mentioned in the anti-hunt part. -- Hasty 11:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
General discussion on this? Rorybowman 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't quite see how to keep POV out of the Pro and Anti hunt sections - although I am trying, and look forward to the help of others to reduce this.
I suggest that we might initially let some POV remain in these two sections, and introduce a NPOV section at the end if needed. However, it may be that the NPOV occurs naturally as pro and anti edit each others points.-- Hasty 20:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't possibly let you get away with that unchallenged :-)
I agree it sits oddly, and feel free to drop it into another section to see how it looks, but it is undeniably there, this article by George Monbiot keeps getting mentioned in the anti-hunt forums, and forums like urban75 are unashamedly more anti-hunt due to the perceived class issues rather than the welfare ones.
In the mean time another one of my grammatically poor updates is now online.... -- Hasty 01:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This section is ridiculously biased in favor of the pro-hunting lobby. The pro section is written as though it were undisputed fact rather than opinion, and the Anti section seems merely to be an extension of the pro section - the author explains the position of the anti-hunting and then simply goes on to explain why they are wrong with quotes for far-from-neutral Daily Telegraph to back up the assertions. A really poor effort at neutrality. -- Axon 11:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've seen the talk, but it doesn't really seem tackle the bias in this article. I prefer to highlight bias and rely on the original author to modify as appropriate, which is a far less confrontational way. This:
Is totally POV and not really acceptable in an unbiased description of the postition of the anti-hunting lobby. -- Axon 11:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looking at options for making the article more NPOV - Each sub argument seems to have a proposer, an opposer and an NPOV e.g. (Anti proposition) Hunting is Cruel and evidence supporting, (Pro response) No it isn't and evidence supporting, (NPOV) It may be and here is the undisputed evidence. I would like to try chabging layout of the controversy section to this form and see how it looks. To clarify - Rather than there being headings of "Pro Arguments", "Anti-Arguments" and "NPOV" with sub-headings of Class / Cruelty / Utility etc. There will be there will Headings of Class / Cruelty / Welfare etc, and sub headings of Pro / Anti / NPOV under each. Anyone object / comments?
Secondly, since the page has not had any significant new material put in for a while, and this revision will be cosmetic, does anyone mind if I remove the currently being reviewed box at the same time or should it stay in?
H -- Hasty 16:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
", does not make it clear whether it would be legal to allow the dog to kill a fox that had only been injured by a shotgun."
I pulled this sentance, because I have a hunch that the law does clearly state, but I have not read a copy of the act, has anyone else? I think this may have been what the recent court case was about.
Advice needed.
In fact the law is clear. It is illegal in Scotland to use dogs to chase or deliberately kill a fox. See the Act at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2002/20020006.htm. There are very limited exemptions. Section 2(2) exempts killing in the course of a legal activity (so not "in the course of" chasing a fox). Mike Hobday
"To say you wish to allow the fox population to expand in an uncontrolled way is effectively to say you wish to see foxes' prey species hunted to death by foxes, and that you wish to condemn a large number of foxes to extended suffering." -- Is that really a NPOV?
I would like to point out to some people who really don't know anything about the hunt.
1: The dogs bite the fox from the back of the neck killing it. Then they tear it up to pieces. 2: The hunt kills weak foxs (for example the sick or the old) who are more likely to look for easy prey (farm animals). The smart foxes survive the hunt and would aassociate the area with danger and stay away. 3: Thousands of dogs have to be put down beacuse they been breed specifically to hunt foxes and they can't be retrained. 4: Farmers will have to use snares and traps to kill foxes who are near the farm. This is a painful and slow death. 5: Shooting a fox with gun isn't practical beacuse the shooter can stay hunt the fox 24/7 and it's to effective. There is little chance the fox will survive the encounter. A fox who survives a fox hunt will know not to go to the area beacuse of the danger involved.
And before you accuse me of being biast you should know this. What ever you may think of Fox hunting at the end of the day a fox is a predator. He will try to kill farm animals. Weak animals will usually look for easy prey and it is them who are in the farms. Get rid of them and you will have a healthy species.
And no the fox isn't teared apart alive. The hounds have been traiend to bite the neck of the fox first to kill it. Then they will tear it up to peices. Furious Stormrage
Is it fair to say that a complete heavy edit is required on the "Controversy over hunting" section. I volunteer but ask for some help, anyone?
I have a general interest in the subject and am concerned that people often can't find the correct information they require. Is it fair to say that to obtain an NPOV first the UK legislative part needs to be moved to its own article - it could be linked from the fox hunting article - as my friend above suggests. Also I agree: It doens't resemble an encyclopedia article because, i think, it has been hijacked by either side of the argument. Does the article even need the level of detail into the issues that it currently has? Ashley 22:02, 4 January 2006 (GMT)
I have created the article fox hunting legislation to provide a place to more cleanly and distinctly place these issues. I am hoping that this will help to make the article more general and less explicitly focussed on UK politics. Breaking things out by nation, year or a specific piece of legislation will also allow more specificity. Since I am not familiar with these subject areas, fox hunting legislation is very skeletal. I'll leave it to subject matter experts to do a good job in migrating these over so that this article can address the issue of fox hunting more generally. As always, feedback is encouraged. Cheers! - Rorybowman 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've looked in vain for any treatment of fox hunting in the USA, which is often done by hunt clubs on large acreages of land, fenced with foxproof fences and stocked with foxes, which are run by hounds. Hiding spots are provided - generally pipes that are large enough for foxes but too small for the dogs. Foxes are rarely killed; they seemingly regard it as a game, where they usually run the dogs for a long time before taking cover. Some foxes never take cover. Hunters also rarely follow the dogs. They usually remain at the clubhouse and listen to the progress of the "hunt." Pollinator 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your info on fox hunting in the U.S. is incorrect. Although it is done on large spaces of land, they are not fenced in. The hunt club must be granted permission to hunt on the landowner's land. Also they are certianly not "stocked with foxes", that is against the rules. Some days the hounds never catch a scent. You are correct that in America the foxes are rarely killed. This is because our purpouse is only to chase the fox. However, your claim that "Hunters also rarely follow the dogs. They usually remain at the clubhouse and listen to the progress of the 'hunt.'" is very incorrect. The Huntmaster always follows and directs the hounds. Stray hounds are gathered by the Whipper-In's. Those that are not staff follow the huntmaster. In conclusion, the hounds are always accomipianied and hunting is never done in a fenced in area "stocked with foxes". The fox is rearely killed, and once under ground or treed it is "acounted for": and left. The hunt then ends or tries to find a new fox. In America it is somestime called Fox Chasing. The two websites mentioned above are very informational.
I'm sorry, I apologize. I thought your information implied that hunting in fox pens was the American equivalent to the English hunting on horseback, since the main Article was on fox hunting on horseback. I did not want people to get the wrong idea, so I wrote the above information, not realizing that there were two different types of Fox hunting in the US. Afterwards I became very curious as to where you got your info (I wanted to do a little research, but had nothing to go on). What I now understand is that there are two types of Fox hunting in the US. The one that you described, hunting with fox pens, focuses largely on the hounds and the hunting dogs?. The one I described, fox chasing, more closely resembles the English hunt because there are horses and there is alot of focus on tradition. Maybe there could be a Fox Chase article and a Fox Pen article one Day. Sorry and Thanks -ep
I'm not sure about the Coyote thing, I know that the Genesee Valley Fohunt doesn't hunt Coyotes, and I'm pretty sure most of the hunts in the area stick to Foxes as best they can
Wcoynelloyd 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)wcl
I have brought over most of the 2006 rewrite and commented out what I couldn't find an elegant way to fold in. The current article is WAY long at 32K without removing these commented sections, but to make it easier to find them and incorporate them into the new structure I have left them for now. I'll probably come back at the end of the calendar month to excise them completely, so if you love a section, please migrate it up and over into the new modular controversy area. As much as possible, I've tried to boil each argument down to its essence and reference the relevant off-site arguments as footnotes. This seems much tidier than just quoting huge swaths of text. Rorybowman 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The article reads "hunting dogs are more properly referred to as hounds." This is manifestly wrong: what about terriers, retrievers, pointers, and setters? I'm not really sure how to rephrase this. – Joke 20:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Noticed a few unregistered IP users this weekend who decided that the separate "Animals" section was silly, since the entire world is obviously run by humans and anything mentioned on a web site must be primarily about humans, so I thought I would note that the animals section is in this article for a clear reason, given that animal welfare is the primary POV issue that this subject must address. The current set of subheadings is designed to address the various POV and technical aspects of the subject matter while remaining encyclopedic. If you have a major revision or quarrel with this structure, the appropriate place to address it is here, in the talk page. If you register, your views will be taken more seriously. - Rorybowman 14:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Did some searching on evidence for blooding; to my surprise, only anti-hunt websites mention it. The only other reference I could find was the Inquiry which says in a footnote that it's largely died out. I thought there were pictures in the media a few years ago of William or Harry getting blooded? Can anyone help provide verifiable information for this paragraph? Thanks! — ciphergoth 08:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if the Peter Bradley comment should be included. His quote, in the Telegraph article, is "the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war. But it was not class war as we know it. It was not launched by the tribunes against the toffs - it was the other way round." As such, this is not an example of fox hunting being opposed for class reasons. MikeHobday 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I think the article could use a paragraph on the capturing of the fox from the wild, similar to Badger-digging. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this whole section from the article:
I think there should be a section presenting the argument on libertarian grounds, but this is completely incoherent and needs to be redone from scratch. "So long as it's legal, it should be legal"? Things don't become moral or immoral when they're made legal or illegal - the law is supposed to follow morality, not shape it. "For a majority of people to impose their will on a minority is wrong" - this is an argument that there should be no laws of any kind, not just in regard to animal cruelty but on any other issue. If this is the argument being made it should be explicit.
I've had a go at replacing it, but it'll need work, and really someone should cite notable instances of the argument being made. — ciphergoth 08:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Odd that I write a section in favour of hunting since I dislike it intensely. As it happens, I dislike the hypocrisy surrounding the ban even more. The cruelty argument against hunting does not stand up to scrutiny. More odd is the fact that the hunting lobby did such a rotten job of pointing out the truth: that the alternatives to hunting manage to be even worse. I have noticed that when talking with opponents of hunting, they often cannot remain calm and cannot rationally compare one cruelty with another. 86.129.162.104 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone has edited this to mention broken necks which is not the point: A broken neck is instant but not certain to happen. A fox might be torn apart by the dogs but even so, this is much quicker than dying of gangrene after being shot. By putting it near the original version, I have removed any POV and any disputed facts. (Same contributor) -- 86.129.160.200 10:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this section is opinion and not fact. I disagreee:
As far as I can see, all the points in this section are obviously true once they have been pointed out. 86.129.164.228 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just that I disagree with them, but the supporting arguments section seems to have become a bit disjointed. I don't think I'm the best person to start to tidy them up - so does anyone else fancy a try? MikeHobday 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited a sentence on bloodhounds and hunting the clean boot, to link to appropriate articles, but now I wonder why that sentence was in Foxhunting afterall?
Where the quarry is not fox and the joy of the sport is hound work and the "chase", and not shooting or trophy hunting, then perhaps a linkable Venery wiki is appropriate? Sanft 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
i think it is completely wrong and it should be againts the law in all countries
A significant portion of the anti-hunting people were arguing against hunting on the basis of killing any animal being wrong, presumably part of the whole 'meat is murder' movement. I don't think I can bring myself to write anything about it though because it seems so retarded to me that I'm not sure i could clearly make its case on a level more than "lolz animalz r teh cute no kill them murdererz"... prehaps someone who agrees with the all animal deaths are a bad thing POV could add something? 81.152.196.46 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |