Talk:Opposition to hunting

introduction
I'm going to create a stub article here and work on expanding it over the next few weeks. I hope to shortly add a history of the anti-hunting political movement and discussion of current issues. I'm wondering if I need to add in its definition that it is primarily a UK phenomenon? Anyone is welcomed to contribute as long as they keep a NPOV in keeping with Wikipedia policies.

Yes class thing in UK as most other places dotn have class anymore or there its not related to hunting.--Polygamist times 4 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

needed
Discussions of current issues and unintended consequences. Especially needed is a neutral discussion of the unintended consequences of the British fox hunting laws.
 * Evidence to back your assumption of negative consequences will be interesting to see. MikeHobday 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion for the time being. This being the first day I've had time to post this page I'm busy working on getting closer source references to the newspaper articles I've been reading about an increase in illegal hunting, deliberate fox kills et cetera. Trilobitealive 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The key thing is that anything you add must be verifiable. Have just checked your sources, but the wolf extirpation story does not seem to add to your case, that there is an unintended consequence, and the Mallalieu speech is speculative in advance of the ban. The Digest of the Marine mammal Act only mentions hunting in respect of trophy imports. The Alvin reference does not seem to relate to population fluctutation in target populations (seals?) but in fish. Similarly, the Conneticut paper refers to fluctuation in the prey of a target species. Your anonymnous email is, bu definition, not a verifiable source. Finally, I do not see how laws which protect hunters from harrassment can be an unintended consequence of anti hunting unless such harassment was one of the objectives of the anti hunting movement.
 * Apologies if I have understood, but you seem to think that any eventor view, no matter how loosely related to anti hunting, must be an unintended consequence. This would not even be logical if the anti hunting persepective claimed that its short term goals would put the world to rights. Take the Hunting Act 2004 in the UK. Its supporters did not claim that it would put the world to rights, merely that it would outlaw one cruel means of killing animals. MikeHobday 07:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. That was a premature posting with references which are not yet right for Wikipedia and with an assumption the reader understands population biology and can make the jumps between points. Will work on it further, after I've done more work elsewhere.Trilobitealive 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it exist?
The idea that there is an anti-hunting movement, in the sense that there is any identifiable unifying philosophy seems unlikely. I understand that there are groups which oppose certain acts, or certain types of hunting, but are there groups or a group who seek to end all hunting or at least oppose all hunting? Perhaps creating a category, rather than an article would be the way to go. This page seems prone to attempts to pull all groups together in order to throw up a series of straw men to knock down. Destruction of foxes as a result of an admittedly silly anti-fox hunting law is a consequence of that law, not necessarily an anti-hunting philosophy in general. I am a hunter and believe very firmly that hunting has positive social and moral value. It gives one a connection with one's food and the natural world that is not obtainable at the supermarket. A reverence for the lives given up to provide the hunter with food is something that the majority of people living in the first world have lost. I think that hunting stands on its own merits without having to resort to punching down straw men.--Counsel 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly I started this article as a place to develop a structure for defining and delineating, maybe even deconstructing this elusive term.
 * I don't know that anti-hunting even exists in the minds of members of any self-identified anti-hunting groups but with 163,000 google hits for the term in quotation marks it exists in the vernacular. What I have found is that it exists most strongly as a pejorative term used by conservationists and hunters to describe persons they consider meddlers into a traditional lifestyle which goes back to the dawn of history. Is it a bogeyman, a shibboleth or a dispassionate term?
 * I'm not yet sure what the anti-hunting movement is, though I've read allusions to it for 20 years in pro-hunting and traditional conservation writings. It seems to be most strongly associated with a cluster of British socialist organizations and American humane societies.
 * Hope this helps. Try to find a way of adding to the stub if you would.Trilobitealive 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not at all sure that there is evidence that the anti-hunting movement, if such exists, "seems to be most strongly associated with a cluster of British socialist organizations and American humane societies". The Fabian Society reference I deleted from the main article refers to the century before last. I agree with Floridan, from an opposite perspective, that this article does not appear likely to become encyclopaedic. Unless it can show better prospects, perhaps it should be submitted for WP:AFD? MikeHobday 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that deleting it would just make the subject go away, though I'm starting to agree that it might be best merged into the hunting article. I'm clearly too much of a newby to be primary author of and article on such a complex subject but my clumsiness doesn't make it something which is negligligable.


 * The more I look into online references the more I see this as a very popular shibboleth of the pro-hunting movement, used to name the same people that the humane societies call animal rights advocates. I see an eerie analogy to other anti descriptors used in a pejortive way, such as anti-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-women's rights in the abortion debate. As such it is something wikipedia needs to maintain.


 * Concerning the Fabian reference, I find it very pertinent and no less appropriate than comments on similar pages trying to tie the animal rights movement with idealizations Rousseau used to explain human rights in a state of nature. The fact that this isn't obvious to the reader is more a product of my own newness to wikipedia editing, haste and lack of time to quickly complete the edit than a lack of relevency.


 * Regards to all.Trilobitealive 04:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that the article is entirely without merit. Upon review, I think that perhaps a short explaination of the anti-hunting movement, or perhaps making the article UK specific where such organizations have generated more media coverage and then create a category. Certainly there are organizations that are anti-hunting. Whether or not their anti-hunting sentiments are similar enough to warrant an article covering anti-huntingism in general remains to be seen. A category would at least allow someone doing research on this sort of thing to find the various organizations.--Counsel 21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think one difficulty in such a topic is that the organizations each subsume their unifying anti-hunting sentiment under one of the directions of social revisionism they take. Hunters recognize the anti-hunting behavior, but from the other side it is anti-a, anti-b and anti-c with anti-hunting as a more or less regrettable consequence.
 * In retrospect I think that creating a section for it in the hunting article would lead that subject further afield into politics-of-hunting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC). Trilobitealive 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Anti anything means you are against it in any for or in any reason. This has been lossened so as to include a person who may not like fox hunting with dogs but not be against pig shooting. they are still anti-hunting in some cases but not all!--Big5Hunter 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Class struggle
I've removed the reference because it does not confirm the comment in the article. Indeed, the statement in the cited source, "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" implies perhaps the opposite of the comment in this article. I think beter evidence is needed for this assertion to stand. MikeHobday 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have placed a new link as the source for the statement that much anti-hunting energy derives from class differences. Frankly, if one searches the internet for anti-hunting and class there are so many sources that it almost seems this fact should not require a source.  I understand that some of the editors of this article and many dealing with this subject are passionate advocates involved in this struggle.  This is a controversial subject, but the fact that this is primarily a British phenomenon and hunting has such a particularly class-based history in that country are not just coincidences.  Most of the anti-hunting support is found in the Labour party there, a party founded on the principles of class-struggle.  It may be hard for many of the wikipedians in the UK to imagine, but hunting in the United States is largely divorced from issues of class.--Counsel 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, the new reference is assertion rather than fact. And assertion by an opponent is hardly the most reliable source! MikeHobday 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. This assertion comes from one who spent years inside the anti-hunting movement. If he is not a knowlegable source, who would be.--Counsel 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Difficulty for me to advise you on sources for a statement that is not true! Fortunately, I don't have to. See WP:V for the rules. MikeHobday 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at this statement and the referenct I think it is best to end with something to the effect that according to X's perception A is true but according to y's perception B is true and leave it to the reader to sort out truth versus falsehood. My 2 centavos...Trilobitealive 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Another unsolicited opinion...In politics in general I often wonder which is the truest most neutral point of view, that of participants who know more of the details or that of observers who can look with the distance perspective of not being in the heat of political battle?Trilobitealive 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You make an important point. How do you find objective and independent experts on a subject that most people with knowledge also feel passionately? Take a political analogy, however. We would not use a Republican as an authorative source on (say) the Hilary Clinton article. MikeHobday 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You say that an assertion by an opponent is not reliable. This seems an effective way of ensuring that only one POV would be provided. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, ipso facto. Here we have a report from a person who participated in managed the activities of key player in the anti-hunting movement. He states that the efforts were motivated by class differences. Motivation is not a tangible thing that can be examined. Such a report is the only way that it can be demonstrated. Are we to exclude such things as the statment in the League Against Cruel Sports article which states "We believe that nobody has the right to terrorise and kill animals for sport,". It is impossible to verify that the LACS believes this. Annette Crosbie stated it, but it cannot be verified. The only difference between the two statements is the POV of the person reported to have made it. Are you arguing that both should be removed, or only the one with which you disagree.--Counsel 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My strongest objection is to statements that are both false and unverified. According to WP:V, perhaps we should remove statements that are true but unverified, but I would personally not tend to edit in that style. As for the League statement, my view is yes, it should be reported as a statement of an organisaton's policy rather than a statement of belief. How can an encyclopedia know what is believed? On the other hand, I do not claim expertise in WP:V. Sorry forbot being more helpful. MikeHobday 07:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You say that you want to exclude information that is false and unverifiable. This sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but how does this work in practice.  This again leaves you alone the ultimate arbiter of what is included.  Take the following example from the entry from the entry on the US Democratic Party:  "Since the 1990s and the shift towards third-way politics employed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party has become less ideologically driven and more centrist in the American political spectrum as it attempts to expand its appeal to independent voters."  This is useful information.  It is entirely unverifiable.  Some might even argue it is false.  Are we to exclude something like this?  Your rationale would allow anyone who disagrees philosophically to deny wikipedia users this information.  Some information is inherently difficult to verify.--Counsel 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this is a cheap answer - but it's not my criteria that matters, it's the Wikipedia policy. My personal views rightly count for naught. To be honest, I think the wording is still suspect. I do not know what "has an element of" means, for example. I want to give this more serious thought, because it is an important issue. Let me give this some thought, and perhaps I'll use the talk page to suggest some language. MikeHobday 17:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Found you a reliable source. , para 4.12. If this is inserted in appropriate context, I would certainly consider it verifiable. Not sure if you are familiar with the Burns report. Over 95% of it was accepted by both sides of the argument. MikeHobday 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends where it is, in the UK where there is a class system still. Its view si strongly linked to class.--Polygamist times 4 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub status and orphan status
Should this article still be considered a stub and an orphan? IMHO, thanks primarily to the efforts of MikeHobday and Counselit appears to have outgrown its stub classification and possibly the orphan classification as well. (see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment)


 * Endorse! I've removed them both. Rockpock  e  t  05:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

'Class issues' section
I added a POV warning template to this section, as I have some issues with the neutrality of the first few lines:
 * "Class has sometimes been proposed as a possible differentiating factor between hunting in the UK and hunting in the United States. This seems, however, to form a very minor aspect of the UK's anti-hunting movement.


 * Traditionally, support for hunting, notably rabbit and hare coursing, has long been a part of working class culture in the United Kingdom.[1]. As recently as 2005, one anti-hare coursing organisation referred to coursing supporters as being made up of "10% Nobs and 90% Yobs"."

The assertion that class struggle is a 'very minor aspect' of the British anti-hunting movement is disputable, at the very least. Certainly, accurately or not, arguments over hunting in the UK have long been portrayed as being between upper-class landowners on the one hand and their lower-class opponents on the other. (Anecdotal example: when the Countryside Alliance held a protest outside the Houses of Parliament against the Hunting Act 2004, the Daily Mirror reported it with the simple headline, Class War.) Fox hunting, in particular, has traditionally been seen (and often still is today) as being the preserve of the rural upper-class. (See, for example, the quotes on the page for pro-hunting campaigner Otis Ferry.)

This section of the article argues the opposite, that hunting in the UK is more associated with the working-class; that may be true for rabbit and hare coursing, but it certainly isn't for fox hunting, and it's debatable for hunting as a whole. If hunting really is more associated with the working-class, I have to wonder why it was the Labour Party that passed the Hunting Act against the determined opposition of the Conservative Party (particularly in the House of Lords), rather than the other way around.

As for the quote about hare coursers being 'more Yobs than Nobs' - it's unclear from the context whether that's supposed to be a statement about the class of hare coursers or their behaviour.

Essentially, I think these lines need to be rewritten, to more accurately reflect how the issue of class relates to the debate over hunting in the UK. At the moment, they seem misleading, if not downright inaccurate. Terraxos 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is important to differentiate between class as a genuine part of the anti-hunting debate, and class as a perceived part of it. Theoretically, the latter comes in two varieties: 'dislike of "toffs"' and '"toffs'" dislike of being told what to do'. The Daily Mirror headline is interesting in that it is certainly a "description" of the latter, although arguably it appeals to prejudices about the former. An example of (deliberate) confusion that arises with regards to this is a Telegraph article by Peter Bradley at alleging the latter form of class conflict, and an interpretation of that article in the same newspaper at  directly reversing the meaning of the original in order to imply the former variety of class conflict.
 * For now, the article covers the reality of class as an issue, and provides evidence that it is a minor factor. MikeHobday (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm the only one who's noticed this, but hunting in the UK and the US are different. Centuries of population have destroyed any chance of the common citizen hunting. This whole article seems to be in love with fox hunting, something that an average person would never do. Employment is not critical in this article. But what is critical is that hunting in the US is not fox hunting. It's completely different because the animals to hunt are completely different. To a Briton the phrase "Hunting with dogs" conjures up images of packs of animals tearing apart animals. While to an American that includes fowl, small mammel, wild pig and possibly others. This whole article is flawed in that manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermit15 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt you're the only person, as the article explicitly mentions this aspect. But feel fre to improve the article yourself! MikeHobday (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hunting endangered species
Species designated as "endangered" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are protected from hunting in the U.S. therefore hunting endangered species is illegal in the U.S. I should have made that particular distinction I guess. Bugguyak 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But they are hunted elsewhere too. 81.107.185.168 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose my point was that endangered species are NOT hunted everywhere. Perhaps someone could expand on where exactly endangered species are hunted.Bugguyak 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And some endangered species are legally hunted in a controlled manner where they are not only overabundant, but a nuisance and dangerous.... -- Fyslee / talk 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have references for this it would be very interesting, however an overabundant endangered species seems to be an oxymoron.Bugguyak 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some animals are endangered or threatened when one looks globally at the issue, but in small local areas may be so abundant as to be a nuisance. The elephant comes to mind. I think it is classified as protected, rather than endangered, but the principle applies, nonetheless. Hunting of elephants is highly controlled and limited to where there is a real need for it to be done. -- Fyslee / talk 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But protected species and endangered species are very different in their conservation status. A protected species can be hunted with permits or licenses, for example most migratory birds are protected. I still do not know of any endangered animal that is legally hunted for sport in any country. Though I am certain that endangered gorillas are hunted for the bushmeat trade in Africa, but that is not legal in Africa either. I thought the passage should distinguish the fact that hunting endangered species is not legal in countries under CITES or with the equivilant of the US endangered species act. Bugguyak 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that right? I thought CITES permitted limited hunting, though I may be wrong? MikeHobday 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved, as request was unopposed. &mdash;innotata 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-hunting → Opposition to hunting – "Anti-hunting" fails WP:NOUN and looks odd on its own. My suggestion is based on the previous title Opposition to abortion, but I'm open to other suggestions. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support clear improvement that mirrors the first sentence of the article lead. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. GregKaye 13:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Very odd title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kittelsen cartoon
Okay I removed  a cartoon that has been a personal favorite of mine for quite some time, and I dont know how I originally stumbled across it. As much as I love the cartoon, I dont think we should be using it here. The cartoon is funny precisely because it's unrealistic ... and we are attributing to it a very serious message that may or may not have been intended by the original author. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, — Soap — 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)