Talk:Hunting dog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Huntingwolf.jpg

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:

• File:OudryHyena.jpg
• File:Caccia-lupo.jpg
• Image:Охота на волка.jpg
• Image:Второй Охота на волка.jpg
• Image:Wolf hunt by Gerard Reesbrack.jpg
• Image:Loup Oudry.jpg

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?

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

Pig dogs

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)

Merger proposal

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 dictionary.com 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)

Table

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.67.142.178.22 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)