Talk:List of foxhound packs of the United Kingdom

Wording of statement about legislation in England and Wales.
A recent edit had amended this "Fox hunting with dogs in England is banned under the Hunting Act 2004" to this "some types of fox hunting with dogs in England are banned under the Hunting Act 2004, with the edit summary "Clarify - you can still hunt a fox with 2 dogs or less". I think that this may be a little misleading, so have reverted. To justify the change, we'd need to see a statement from a neutral source saying the same thing, and then have to make it clearer what is and what isn't permitted. I think that most people would understand 'fox hunting' in the context of this list to involve 'packs', as it itself states, and this definitely seems to be banned under the legislation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I added that as it is far from definitive that 'fox hunting' is banned. All active packs claim to hunt within the law, under a variety of facets of the legislation, so saying that it is banned may be misleading. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can find some form of compromise wording? If what you say is right, would "In England, fox hunting with a pack of dogs is banned under the Hunting Act 2004" do? As I said, I'd be happier if we could find a neutral source that explained the situation - it seems to be anything but clear at the moment, and the claims of the hunts aren't really ideal from a NPOV perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that sentence strikes me as too absolute. For instance, in February 2009 the High Court decided that the definition of "hunting" a mammal does not include searching for it, and that for the offence of "hunting a wild mammal" to take place there must be an identifiable mammal. I think "some types of fox hunting with dogs in England are banned under the Hunting Act 2004" is a fair summary of the general position. Here is a reference to the Court's decision. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but firstly I don't think your wording is really borne out by the source, since the issue it discusses isn't the type of hunting, but at what point it legally becomes a hunt, and secondly, the Horse and Hound website is unlikely to be seen as a neutral reliable source. Without this source, discussing the finer points of wording is rather peripheral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The rational consequence of disagreeing with "some types of fox hunting with dogs in England are banned under the Hunting Act 2004" is the position that "all types of fox hunting with dogs in England are banned under the Hunting Act 2004". Can anyone offer a reference which supports that statement? Moonraker2 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A logical fallacy. In any case, we need verifiable sources to justify stating that fox hunting with dogs may be legal in the face of numerous sources that have stated that it has been banned. Or if this is in dispute, we need neutral sources that state that there are questions regarding legality. We can't try to analyse the legal position ourselves, that would be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a rather simplistic view. A good test of whether something is lawful is whether those doing it are successfully prosecuted. By comparison, news stories claiming a "ban" (which is not a word used in the Hunting Act 2004) are trivial. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can call this simplistic if you like. It is Wikipedia policy. Articles are based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of one side of a debate. In any case, the fact that successful prosecutions have yet to take place for something can be no proof that it is legal. And you are correct that the legislation does not use the word 'ban'. What it does say is this: "A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt" . I'm not even going to try to figure out the exemptions, as I'm not a lawyer, and Wikipedia isn't a place for legal interpretation (see WP:OR). If you want to amend the text to show that hunting foxes with packs of dogs may be exempt, it is down to you to provide a neutral reliable source that says so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In which case, based on the source you already have, the wording could be "Hunting foxes with dogs is banned, with some exemptions,". OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. It would be nice to have a source that indicated what the exceptions were, but I think for now we'd be justified in making the change (strictly speaking, we shouldn't do this just based on the Act itself, which is a primary source - it shouldn't be too difficult to find a newspaper story or similar indicating that the 'exceptions' have been raised in court or whatever, I'll see if I can find some when I get the chance). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to this, we may need to check on the situation regarding Scotland, and perhaps reword the sentence referring to Northern Ireland as well, as it implies there are no exemptions elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)