The Silent Majority

Recently there was a lot of talk about the ‘middle’ , the people in the general public that have no particular allegiance to either side of the Hunter /Anti debates that rage on.

For this purpose, say our society is made up of about say 10% Hunters..10% Anti’s, the remainder, the 80%, the middle or more correctly, the silent majority. They are the ones that could care less whether we hunt or not and will normally show no firm elegance either way.

So when I read these comments in a thread by smallgammer, it got me wondering, (the sign of a good debate topic J )…why would the silent majority be our hope for the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

I can live with that because I steadfastly believe that the future of hunting hinges upon the acceptance of the activity by those who hold the middle ground, those who do not hunt and are not necessarily hugely in favour of it or hugely opposed.

Eighty or ninety percent of the population either has no opinion at all, or leans one way or the other. In order to maintain and grow hunting in the 21st century, it is important to keep the non-hunters (not antis) who do not oppose hunting on our side.”

---

So those comments are what is troubling me; why do you believe that this silent majority, the 80% of the population, our neighbours, that will likely never engage themselves in any practical support; sign petitions, attend meetings or write their MP/MPP or vote on a posted EBR etc etc…are somehow going to be the face of Hunting in the future. When they aren’t even the face in the present or our past.

Here’s an typical scenario/ example;….Sunday Gun Hunting.

It’s an issue that no only directly affects hunters but also involves the community at large. This issue has played out in various townhalls across the province over the years and have strikingly similar attendance numbers based on the population. (yes some have better turnouts but all are still a small fraction of the township population)

This one took place in Mapleton Township;

Quote:

---

“About 25 people attended a special meeting held by council at the PMB arena on May 3rd. The majority of the speakers favoured Sunday Gun hunting, while a call for written submissions generated 37 submission, 29 in favour and 8 against….the motion was defeated in a 4-1 decision”

Mapleton has a population of 10,000.. )

http://www.wellingtonadvertiser.com/...il&itmno=31767

---

Where were the silent majority..the 1000's in the community that would be affected in one way or the other?

So what is the reason that some hunters feel the need to court this silent majority…why is it that some hunters feel the need to try and educate them about hunting, talk with them about share values and look for some form of acceptance….they sure haven’t reciprocating their support in any aspect of our hunting; because it has no bearing on their lives, why would they committ any time or effort to sway an outcome either way.

What is there to be gained, why do we even care what they think ?

How is this silent majority our hope for our future ?

I'm always leery when people make blanket statements like " 80%" like/dislike/don't care. Unless these numbers can be supported by actual scientific research, they are meaningless. If you can show me actual numbers and surveys done properly, then I would believe the numbers. Otherwise it's just someone throwing out numbers to get everyone excited. Show me actual proof, based on scientific methods and I'll believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMatthews

I'm always leery when people make blanket statements like " 80%" like/dislike/don't care. Unless these numbers can be supported by actual scientific research, they are meaningless. If you can show me actual numbers and surveys done properly, then I would believe the numbers. Otherwise it's just someone throwing out numbers to get everyone excited. Show me actual proof, based on scientific methods and I'll believe it.

---

As stated those aren't firm numbers....we know far less 10% of the province are hunters....who don't know how small a fraction of the general population are firm Anti hunters but assume it's not very high, generous at 10%...so the vast majority of the population lies in between..pick a number...it's a vast majority.

I agree,in principle,that there's a 10/10/80 split. Having said that,as far as the 80% go,I think they're quite content to completely ignore the entire issue simply because they're not involved in any way shape or form,they don't believe they have a dog in the fight and are quite happy to leave it that way,much the same as not giving a second thought as to where they're next cheeseburger or T-bone actually comes from. I don't think involving them with their attitude would do our community any good simply because of that. I think we're better off letting sleeping dogs lay,engaging the "anti's" rhetoric directly and forget about involving the 80% that don't really care one way or the other.

At the end of the day, the only percentage that's important are those of the city, town's or regional councillors who will ultimately have the final vote. You can state your case until your blue in the face, but of the council is against hunting etc, they'll have it their way. It's the inner circle that they run with which will ultimately determine any issue good or bad.

I fought council some 25 years ago to have the agreement forest remain open to hunting. After 1 year and playing politics it was left open only to deer hunting in the controlled season along with archery for bow.

If councillors are 80% against it, the 20% will not support you.

There lies the true outcome. Be aware of who you councillors are.

"E"

Whether the silent majority is 80% or 51% is irrelevant, what is important is that there are a lot of people in that camp .... enough to have an impact should their opinion be swayed one way or the other.

Courting them to lean our way is of limited value because they are unlikely to bother attending public meetings or sign petitions in our favour. What is vitally important is that we do not give the cause to lean against us.

I get annoyed with the various threads on here where guys take a belligerent stand over their rights to:
- hang a moose or bear in their front yard
- parade their moose or deer head around town on top of their car
- target practice for hours on end when neighbours find it disturbing
- get upset and argumentative with a post office employee who doesn't know the rules about selling migratory licences
- posting videos on public forums of spearing a bear
While these may be legal actions, they are irresponsible. Many adults do not want to think about their meat coming from a living animal, they prefer to just see it as packaged food. Their children think of Bambi, Thumper and Yogi as loveable characters. Us rubbing their noses in reality will not educate them, it will upset them, making them vulnerable to leaning against us and possibly giving them the impetus to sign the petition or attend the meeting against us.

Tact, discretion and respect are our best defence and a far better offensive strategy than standing up for our rights in matters that don't really matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMatthews

I'm always leery when people make blanket statements like " 80%" like/dislike/don't care. Unless these numbers can be supported by actual scientific research, they are meaningless.

---

In this case, they are supported by repeated polling which consistently show similar results.

Let's not get hung up on a useless argument of whether the 80% figure is scientifically accurate. It doesn't matter one wit. For arguments sake,let's accept that there's a wide chasm between us and the anti's. I believe this is where the battle lies. We KNOW they deal with emotionalism and very little common sense. That's their Achilles Heal and that's what we need to attack and expose at the political level because it's the politicians that do the most damage. The "silent majority" will make their own decision.....if they think about,at all.

Attacking "emotionalism" with statistics, etc., is a failed approach.

A good paper to read on this is "More Statistics, Less Persuasion," by (IIRC) Dan Kaman and Donald Braman. Clearly Tovar Cerulli has been reading these guys, as he bases his arguments on their work.

The idea that antis are emotional and hunters are not is bunk. Pro-hunting arguments are not immune to knee-jerk opinion, bad evidence, and bad logic, but we fail to look at our own ideas critically.

There is really no reason that "emotionalism" should be discounted. This is a cultural conflict, cultures are built out of values, and our attachment to our values is emotional, not logical. The law is not a logical instrument, but an expression of agreed values: we agree that killing people is wrong, that cheating people is wrong, and (in the fish and game sphere) that hunting ought to involve fair chase. These values find expression in laws. As such, the law is as much an emotional instrument as a pragmatic one. There is absolutely no reason for Parliament not to enact a law banning all hunting, even if that law was based entirely on "emotionalism," save of course that the public does not want such a law.

Politicians are drawn from the ranks of the general public and as a whole they share the views of the general public. They do not stand apart as a special class susceptible only to logic. Also, they are motivated chiefly by a desire to be reelected, and as a result are keenly interested in which way the wind blows with public opinion, so the views of the general public matter a great deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

.......why do you believe that this silent majority, the 80% of the population, our neighbours, that will likely never engage themselves in any practical support; sign petitions, attend meetings or write their MP/MPP or vote on a posted EBR etc etc…are somehow going to be the face of Hunting in the future. When they aren’t even the face in the present or our past.

---

I never said they are somehow going to be the face of hunting. Re-read my statement in your opening post.

Northern Grouse gets it, bold font added by me:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernGrouse

Whether the silent majority is 80% or 51% is irrelevant, what is important is that there are a lot of people in that camp .... enough to have an impact should their opinion be swayed one way or the other.

Courting them to lean our way is of limited value because they are unlikely to bother attending public meetings or sign petitions in our favour. What is vitally important is that we do not give the cause to lean against us.

I get annoyed with the various threads on here where guys take a belligerent stand over their rights to:
- hang a moose or bear in their front yard
- parade their moose or deer head around town on top of their car
- target practice for hours on end when neighbours find it disturbing
- get upset and argumentative with a post office employee who doesn't know the rules about selling migratory licences
- posting videos on public forums of spearing a bear
While these may be legal actions, they are irresponsible. Many adults do not want to think about their meat coming from a living animal, they prefer to just see it as packaged food. Their children think of Bambi, Thumper and Yogi as loveable characters. Us rubbing their noses in reality will not educate them, it will upset them, making them vulnerable to leaning against us and possibly giving them the impetus to sign the petition or attend the meeting against us.

Tact, discretion and respect are our best defence and a far better offensive strategy than standing up for our rights in matters that don't really matter.

---

And this. Again bold font added by me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Politicians are drawn from the ranks of the general public and as a whole they share the views of the general public. They do not stand apart as a special class susceptible only to logic. Also, they are motivated chiefly by a desire to be reelected, and as a result are keenly interested in which way the wind blows with public opinion, so the views of the general public matter a great deal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

I never said they are somehow going to be the face of hunting. Re-read my statement in your opening post.

---

OK poor choice of words, sorry.....how about ..."are somehow going to be our allies the future. When they aren’t even our allies in the present or our past. "

The point; a large percentage of the silent majority doesn't even vote in provincial /federal elections. They don't rally, they don't take up causes...the issue of Hunting is so far removed from the vast majority of society the idea that they could be counted on to support the Hunting Culture in any cause is ludicrous.

Take for example the Spring Beer Hunt....The MNR only received 35347 comments in the EBR...this is in a province with a population of 13.6 million....that is less than .3 %......that is .3% .Dare say all hunter/anti votes, virtually NO input from the vast majority of the population of the province to support the Hunting community.

Your right, in that we have to always remember that they can be very vocal body.....but that 'voice' it's usually done when we have been put in a bad light with a video on YouTube, which was your point...but you won't see that kind of response when it comes to support for the Hunting Community, which is my point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

, so the views of the general public matter a great deal.

---

Views like opinions seldom translate into action when it comes the majority of the general public...

Issue affecting the Hunting Community will always be a battle between the Hunters and the Antis...with a very large audience that just doesn't really give a rats behind. ..

(or by a politician with an agenda :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

OK poor choice of words, sorry.....how about ..."are somehow going to be our allies the future. When they aren’t even our allies in the present or our past. "

Your right, in that we have to always remember that they can be very vocal body.....but that 'voice' it's usually done when we have been put in a bad light with a video on YouTube, which was your point...but you won't see that kind of response when it comes to support for the Hunting Community, which is my point...

---

I didn't say allies either. You are choosing words to put in my mouth. I don't expect the 80 +/- % to rally at Queen's Park on our behalf. I ask that the hunting community give them no reason to rally against us.

Nobody is arguing that anyone is going to be our "allies" on an ongoing basis. You are erecting simplistic straw men.

Three arguments are being advanced:

1. Hunters do not all share the same views and it is silly (and counterproductive) to expect them to speak with one voice.
2. Hunters as a whole need to be aware of the image of hunting and avoid doing things that tend to discredit hunters in the eyes not of the antis, but of a wider public that generally supports hunting; and,
3. Hunters can engage productively with that wider public by talking about shared values.

The point is not to win over the general public as permanent allies on all matters, but to improve people's understanding of hunting, and to win support on specific issues. This is something that has happened in the past, and happens now, when people actually try talking about things instead of squawking from entrenched positions.

Life is not a paint-by-numbers kit. The population is not divided into allies and enemies. Most people's opinions are not set in stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

I never said they are somehow going to be the face of hunting. Re-read my statement in your opening post.

Northern Grouse gets it, bold font added by me:

---

Exactly, and worth repeating

Whether the silent majority is 80% or 51% is irrelevant, what is important is that there are a lot of people in that camp .... enough to have an impact should their opinion be swayed one way or the other.

Courting them to lean our way is of limited value because they are unlikely to bother attending public meetings or sign petitions in our favour. What is vitally important is that we do not give the cause to lean against us.

Currently all polls, all statistics show they are largely in our corner. The vast majority of non hunters are ok and support hunting for food. From there opinions will start changing. But the take away should be what Northern Grouse or what's been said a handful of times the past few days

Hold the middle (and hopefully gain more, especially children).

Guess Mike we should just take your approach and when we die off, because we button our lips, only discuss contentious things here among other hunters where we feel safe, because we don't believe engaging the "middle" is worthwhile, and on those occasions where criticism flies our way we should circle the wagons...

No one will be left.

Conversely, and using this bear incident. It is turning the tide "against" us. Hence why we should in fact be "irate". Obviously asking you to think about Campaigns the Antis run and why they do so, did no good.
One more try.

What was Shad using?
Oh yeah, orphaned cubs?
Why do you think that is? For whose benefit? To tug at our hearts? Politicians? Or the irrelevant middle?

Likewise the broader public the past handful of years is turning against or abandoning PETA? Why?
A few too many outlandish stunts.....These days theres a fair bit of back lash against when something occurs as well. Unfortunately we haven't learned yet and shoot ourselves in the foot way more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Nobody is arguing that anyone is going to be our "allies" on an ongoing basis. You are erecting simplistic straw men.

Three arguments are being advanced:

1. Hunters do not all share the same views and it is silly (and counterproductive) to expect them to speak with one voice.
2. Hunters as a whole need to be aware of the image of hunting and avoid doing things that tend to discredit hunters in the eyes not of the antis, but of a wider public that generally supports hunting; and,
3. Hunters can engage productively with that wider public by talking about shared values.

The point is not to win over the general public as permanent allies on all matters, but to improve people's understanding of hunting, and to win support on specific issues. This is something that has happened in the past, and happens now, when people actually try talking about things instead of squawking from entrenched positions.

Life is not a paint-by-numbers kit. The population is not divided into allies and enemies. Most people's opinions are not set in stone.

---

Well said Welsh! Who ever is not against you is your friend. Its not necessary they actively support your every initiative, but rather view them as fair, otherwise they may become swept up in the hysteria of those who would act against you.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

I didn't say allies either. You are choosing words to put in my mouth.

---

cut and dry..explain; "I can live with that because I steadfastly believe that the future of hunting hinges upon the acceptance of the activity by those who hold the middle ground,"

Holy Cow Mike, what can be more cut and dry than that straightforward statement!? Acceptance.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/acceptance


Use definitions 3 & 4

Not "faces of" not "allies". If you're not gathering what I have clearly said in my post and has been re-iterated approaching ad nauseum by myself and like minded forum members, you really need to take a break from the internet and consider some reading comprehension coaching. I don't intend to be mean but like I said...Holy Cow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The point is not to win over the general public as permanent allies on all matters, but to improve people's understanding of hunting, and to win support on specific issues. This is something that has happened in the past, and happens now, when people actually try talking about things instead of squawking from entrenched positions.

---

examples when input for a change was lobbied by someone other than Hunters or Antis ?

not being adversarial..actually curios if you know of any....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Holy Cow Mike, what can be more cut and dry than that straightforward statement!? Acceptance. Not "faces of" not "allies". If you're not gathering what I have clearly said in my post and has been re-iterated approaching ad nauseum by like minded forum members, you really need to take a break from the internet and consider some reading comprehension coaching. I don't intend to be mean but like I said...Holy Cow.

---

Obviously I'm not understanding what you said...so I'm asking you to explain what you meant by your words "the future of hunting hinges upon the acceptance of the activity by those who hold the middle ground"...

https://media3.giphy.com/media/E2USislQIlsfm/200_s.gif

The future of hunting hinges upon the acceptance i.e. the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable by those who hold the middle ground. If enough of them decide hunting is archaic and needs to be made illegal it will be. Go back and read Welsh's post #9 in this thread.

I take it then you can't explain how you figure the 'middle' will control our future hunting privileges.

I was editing during your last post. I was actually trying to find a gif demonstrating one beating ones head on the desk. I have explained it. Others have explained it. Look at my last post, I took the bait and explained it again. If you still don't get it, and I believe you won't not because you are a dullard but because you choose not to, I can't help you.

It find it disappointing that on this forum there is such a lack of decorum in having discussion or debate.

Why do discussion always end up posters openly displaying a lack for respect for others peoples views/ opinions, post responses filled with condescending, arrogant comments and down right personal attacks. It’s counter productive and discourages open debates.

I set this up to be a debate on the premise that the middle ground, the non hunters , the ambivalent silent majority, had influence on our rights and privileges as a hunting community. And questioned, based on past history , why should we, as hunters, feel the need to educate and court their favour when they have never provided any meaningful support to our hunting privileges ..ie Spring Bear Hunt and Sunday Hunting etc etc.

Do we need to ‘hinge’ our future on the ambivalent middle..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

If enough of them decide hunting is archaic and needs to be made illegal it will be.

---

Hunting is granted to us in this province as a privilege thru the FWCA and the MNRF. We are, you could say, agents of the MNR in the management plan for native species. Hunters don't 'need' support of the general public...they only need to defend the lose of those privileges.

I don't disrespect your opinions or views. You opened this debate and I as well as others have responded, again I say, almost ad nauseum. You are simply regurgitating the same question, one already answered. I don't mean to be disrespectful. I am serious when I say if you are not getting it, you need to really look at getting reading comprehension tutoring. I also did not say you are a dullard, if that's the way you took it. I said you choose not to "get" the explanations provided by myself and others despite not being one. If you took it differently, I accept the fault. Now, I have responded to your prodding as much as I intend to. Please feel free to carry on.

Mike from our private conversations, you know I have no problems with debate, don't have any issues at all, with other people's opinions. Happen to lack people who discuss things be they friends of Dr Zuzuki (ITD) or socialist like FisherM and more. As welsh said above its healthy (in different words).

A a number of us have been saying the same and similar things in different ways. We and the antis are the squeaky wheels. We passionate about hunting, they are passionate about animals. Countering and offsetting forces. Please us, and the politicians will hear from them, they will be making noise, and vice versa. No one has the upper hand. So who will they listen to?

the silent majority.

the are two great examples you won't "accept". The spring bear hunt. It took how many years before the liberals felt safe enough to undue it? Do you really think they undid it because of our lobbying? Or because the middle had not only come to see the need first hand, our more accepting/on our side? Seriously?

coyote/wolf mutts?
a part of me has wondered if that's a bone being tossed to the antis, to give them something in light of the spring hunt. Even in the thread/discussion much has been made about the um curious name change that tugs at the middles emotions. I'm not holding out hope it doesn't go through. The Algonquin Wolf is so romantic sounding.....

with respect to the future. Not sure what to say about that. If you think we hunters or hunting will continue without engaging the broader public, as Smallgamer said, it hinges on their acceptance, and without promoting shared values, without drawing more youth and women into it ( hmmmm, noticed how many more females are getting into it these days) where do you think they will come from???? The old boys and old school is getting old you know.


There are also large waves of society moving towards healthier living. Understanding the crap we were raised on (processed foods) the crap in cows, GMOs, Fish farms, growing their own veggies, (just more shared values), the benefits of organic foods...living smaller and on and on

well are truly lost then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

examples when input for a change was lobbied by someone other than Hunters or Antis ?

not being adversarial..actually curios if you know of any....

---

Okay ... not being adversarial, but more or less accusing me of lying? While asking me to prove something I never said, i.e. that someone other than antis or hunters is lobbying for change?

Your habit of continually distorting what people say is tiresome, and I'm done playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The point is not to win over the general public as permanent allies on all matters, but to improve people's understanding of hunting, and to win support on specific issues. This is something that has happened in the past, and happens now, when people actually try talking about things instead of squawking from entrenched positions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

examples when input for a change was lobbied by someone other than Hunters or Antis ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Your habit of continually distorting what people say is tiresome, and I'm done playing.

---

Distorting, don't think so.....just asking you to clarify when this has happened in the past..merely asking for clarification.

If you wonder why discussions become disrespectful, look to your own behaviour.

Read my post again, the thing you quoted. Then read your response. You're putting up a straw man, again. I never said anything about people lobbying for a change, yet you demand I provide examples -- and suggest I don't know of any, thereby accusing me of lying.

Erecting straw men is a dishonest form of argumentation. It's disrespectful to the people you're talking to. Don't make a habit of it and then complain when people respond to your disrespectful behaviour in kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

the are two great examples you won't "accept". The spring bear hunt. It took how many years before the liberals felt safe enough to undue it? Do you really think they undid it because of our lobbying? Or because the middle had not only come to see the need first hand, our more accepting/on our side? Seriously?

---

The spring bear hunt was re-instituted, according to the EBR..due to public safety concerns....nothing about Liberals.

Quote:

---

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) heard increasingly from Ontario communities that they are concerned about conflicts with bears. In response, in 2014 and 2015 the ministry implemented a two-year spring bear hunting pilot program in eight Wildlife Management Units (13, 14, 29, 30, 36, 39, 41 and 42) to see if it would have effects on human-bear conflicts.

---

Why would that be questioned...and unless you have proof otherwise, I'm sticking with what appears to be a legitimate reason and recorded fact.

To many with preconceived paronia and not enough spending time to learning and accepting the facts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I never said anything about people lobbying for a change, yet you demand I provide examples -- and suggest I don't know of any, thereby accusing me of lying.

---

"To win support on specific issue" ..."this is something that has happened in the past"..

Straight forward, no strawman..as I said before, I'm not being confrontational ..just looking for an example..not a dance around the question. If you don't have an example, that's fine, just say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

"To win support on specific issue" ..."this is something that has happened in the past"..

---

Do you know what "lobbying" means? Do you think that lobbying for something has an equivalent meaning to supporting something?

This is the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about. Here, you double down by citing something I wrote as if it means something it clearly does not. Why would I even bother continuing to discuss this seriously with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Why would I even bother continuing to discuss this seriously with you?

---

Like I said..if you don't have an example to support your comments, just say so..save you the effort of dancing around the question.

Ok Mike your right. Policitians, the MNR and or other ministries are to be taken as straight up and straight forward honest people who never lie, never blow smoke, never spin things to suit their purposes. And it wasn't because they knew they were in trouble and might need some Northern ridings, and they also didn't know the back lash from the same GTA ridings that fell hard for orphaned Cubs back in 1999 was going to be minimal, because they were a little wiser, more on our side, and it was a good political move.

I thought you had a better handle on politics but I guess not. No wonder the province is in the shape it's in. You know, once upon the very same admin said "wind farms would provide tens of thousands of jobs". Another ministry said, "auto insurance premiums will be reduced by 15%", another ministry said too many Cubs were being orphaned.

The f act that it took 16 years, during which they ranged further and further south. To the point where for the last 5 years, bears were entering the GTA with regularity. And more that was predicted....

Your "proof" carries about as much weight as a goose feather. Or do you only cite that as "proof" to the contrary when it suits your purpose which none of can figure out given so much.

But do note, in their presser "concerned residents" aka people in the middle. Aka people in the middle, non hunters you claim as being irrelevant, got on board. Accepted many things hunters, the OFAH and more predicted. Aka as Welsh has repeatedly tried to say.....

i am am quite literally stunned you take politicians words as gospel. I'm surprised you aren't arguing the Liberals didn't in fact do anything "wrong" with the gas plants, or deleted emails, because well. They say so

Oh and Mike. The "pilot program" which was limited to just a few WMUs, and residents only. The MNR claimed it was to measure the impact spring hunting would have on bear populations.

Anyone and their uncle saw right through that. Most of here did. Because we knew such a limited data set would show nothing. And guess what...stats from the pilot were useless. But it sure did give them time to measure which way the winds were blowing, especially in the GTA their strong hold where the loss of a couple ridings......

but the MNR said it was to measure how much impact such a small, hunt/data set. So that must be so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

I thought you had a better handle on politics but I guess not.

---

We weren't talking politics...I was actually surprised, we almost got thru a full discussion without the Liberals being mentioned until your post...LOL..

You said the Liberals reinstated the bear hunt...I pointed out the MNR documentation (ie the goose feather) says the spring bear hunt was reinstated due to public safety concerns and included a link to the document that initiated the change in the law...maybe the feather was turned into an old fashion pen :)

What are you posting to support the premise that the Liberals initiated it ? Unsubstantiated statements are worth about as much as 'goose droppings'...LOL

Good night folks ....it's been a slice ..LOL...

Lol, jeez Mike. :)
this entire discussion and topic is all about politics. In part some of us have been saying that, a lot. :)
first and foremost politicians do what their polling says to do. Which way the winds are blowing. Secondly, they say what they think they need/have to say to get elected. It's a rare, rare day when we actually get unfiltered honest to goodness truth and honesty.
Decisions that affect hunting, fishing the MNR have long and now are all about politics. And what comes down from the top, is based very largely on the winds. Not what we are lobbying for or fighting to prevent. Ontario, due to the make up of ridings and the choke hold Toronto/GTA has on QP, is a little special (Toronto is special alright) it permeates everything. Especially the MNR/hunting/fishingn

if 3 seats in the GTA are worth 1.3b and breaking laws over....lol bears in North, or Coyote mutts are nothing. And for the record I do suspect there's a good chance. Now that they know there's no backlash from the middle in the GTA over the spring hunt.....a bone to mollify the antis...makes very good political sense for them.

The fence sitters or middle ground non-hunters had very little effect on the return of the spring bear hunt. Having been involved right in the middle of this mess, I can tell you that it was municipal and provincial police agencies who had by far the biggest impact of having the hunt returned. They were fed up with doing what most perceive as MNR's responsibility-=-that is controlling nuisance bears and they let the sitting government know.

That I can credit Sawbill, but the "question" still remains. With everything we know about this admin. Do you really think they'd have gone ahead if opposition in the GTA was still stiff, and as a result it might cost them a few seats, no matter how much residents in the north were griping, no matter how much leo was griping and we were lobbying.

Lets not forget the MNR has griped about the lack of funding and manpower for the last 30 years........Hasnt accomplished much.

How many things can we rhyme off where the North, or the MNR has been screaming for years to have addressed. How much does QP listen?

Recall it was announced just months ahead of the election, a time when they were going to fall.
And don't forget the NDP were a threat (vis a vie many expected them to pick up seats, people were so pissed and fed up). Many people expected a Con Minority, and many Liberals to vote NDP....Na, buying some favour in the north doesn't conveniently address that. This is the same admin that was so afraid of losing three seats in the GTA they.............Not a hope in hell they do it, if the "middle" was against it.

And really, the pilot show that. Both how limited it was ( and many here pointed that out, including you if memory serves) and its duration, which gollly gee whiz is up just before the next election. A built in fail safe to pull the plug if opposition in the GTA.....Im sure they will say it's being pulled because to many Sows are being shot during it though.
Please.
:)

The best lies.
The best spins and smoke screens.
Contain just enough "truth"........aka "concerned about residents safety"
Gee I was pretty sure for years the MNR/politicians claimed there was no appreciable increase in bear/human encounters following the cancelation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

The fence sitters or middle ground non-hunters had very little effect on the return of the spring bear hunt. Having been involved right in the middle of this mess, I can tell you that it was municipal and provincial police agencies who had by far the biggest impact of having the hunt returned. They were fed up with doing what most perceive as MNR's responsibility-=-that is controlling nuisance bears and they let the sitting government know.

---

That's what I'm told,too,along with GTA cottagers who are sick and tired of having their properties ravaged by hungry Blackies and walking into one mell of a hess every weekend. The squeaky wheels get the grease,but,only in Liberal vote-rich Toronto. LOL

Trimmer wouldn't that fall under the "middle" becoming more onside?
We predicted for years nothing would change until the problem up North, started affecting the residents in the GTA. Eventually it did get to the point where.

A) They became very numerous and a problem in Central Ontario (aka Cottage country)
B) A kid in the GTA got mauled. The past 6-7 years bears have been turning up in Oakville, Pickering, Whitby, New market with regularity. At first a trickle, now its "common".

Cause ( all those things listed above ) and Effect ( The non hunting middle being ok with a spring hunt). And for the politicians who don't give a hoot about us ( the public/electorate) or whats right (sometimes they do hard things that cost them votes but its rare). What matters most to them is getting elected/re-elected. Done.

There is no way to prove/disprove what might be different.aka settle a "what if"...aka What if, the middle in the GTA wasn't on our side finally and the risk of public backlash was still good/great that it might/would have cost them seats. However we do know this party will do anything, say anything to get elected....Not the least of which is brown nosing, pleasing the GTA. Or doing things that POs them ( see what the fear of losing just 3 seats is worth).

Does anyone doubt for 1 second that if the greater public though a gun registry was a good thing and not the waste we had been screaming about for years. JT wouldn't have it in by now? No, he won't touch that because the "middle"........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Trimmer wouldn't that fall under the "middle" becoming more onside?
We predicted for years nothing would change until the problem up North, started affecting the residents in the GTA. Eventually it did get to the point where.

A) They became very numerous and a problem in Central Ontario (aka Cottage country)
B) A kid in the GTA got mauled. The past 6-7 years bears have been turning up in Oakville, Pickering, Whitby, New market with regularity. At first a trickle, now its "common".

Cause ( all those things listed above ) and Effect ( The non hunting middle being ok with a spring hunt). And for the politicians who don't give a hoot about us ( the public/electorate) or whats right (sometimes they do hard things that cost them votes but its rare). What matters most to them is getting elected/re-elected. Done.

There is no way to prove/disprove what might be different.aka settle a "what if"...aka What if, the middle in the GTA wasn't on our side finally and the risk of public backlash was still good/great that it might/would have cost them seats. However we do know this party will do anything, say anything to get elected....Not the least of which is brown nosing, pleasing the GTA. Or doing things that POs them ( see what the fear of losing just 3 seats is worth).

Does anyone doubt for 1 second that if the greater public though a gun registry was a good thing and not the waste we had been screaming about for years. JT wouldn't have it in by now? No, he won't touch that because the "middle"........

---

I think it definitely falls to the "middle" and this may be a classic example. Everything you've stated is absolutely correct and suddenly everything we've been telling the "middle" is,now,staring them right in their faces. Seeing is believing and the evidence is irrefutable. One of the "middle" that I worked with had his cottage broken into three times over the course of two seasons,each time he claimed damage on his insurance. After the third time,his insurance company cancelled his policy with the usual notification sent to the mortgage company who promptly fired off a letter that he had to find an insurance carrier or pay off the mortgage. It was SHTF time,then,let me tell ya. He found a carrier,but,his premiums quadrupled and his coverage was bare-bones minimum. It sure got his attention,right quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Trimmer wouldn't that fall under the "middle" becoming more onside?..

---

grasping JBen...:)

A letter from the town council (mayor) requesting service of the Ministry of Natural Resources (maybe thru the local MPP regardless if NDP/Lib/Con, wouldn't matter) to address the issue of the Bears becoming a Public Safety falls well shy of being considered the general public 'coming onside'...

And I dare say no party..NDP/Lib/Con would not address it…can you imagine the backlash if they ignored such a request and there was a bear/human conflict that caused death in that township.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

grasping JBen...:)

A letter from the town council (mayor) requesting service of the Ministry of Natural Resources (maybe thru the local MPP regardless if NDP/Lib/Con, wouldn't matter) to address the issue of the Bears becoming a Public Safety falls well shy of being considered the general public 'coming onside'...

---

Letters from town councils are considered about as much as our individual concerns are when it comes to the arrogance and omnipotence of any government ministry. Bureaucrats don't give a rat's a** about anything.

I think the thing that is much more troubling than "the silent majority", is that in a population of 10,000, only 29 people [presumably hunters) bothered to make "pro" submissions and an even smaller number attended the council meeting.

Mike its you that grasping, arguing the inarguable ( that the middle isn't important), despite so many clear examples (in this case both the cancellation and reinstitution of the spring bear hunt being used to illustrated what should not have to illustrated, let alone debated) where the middle has factored heavily and will continue to, and without their acceptance we are doomed, and hence why people growing very exasperated.

And if you need any more "proof" Mike, although this is a poor example to illustrate the power of the "middle" because other things like $$ is the root and its not a case of the "middle" being the single largest by far determinant.

How much good are letters to town councils, MPs and more, comments on "EBRs" blah blah blag doing to stop wind farms. There are dozens and dozens of entire townships against them.....
Please just stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Letters from town councils are considered about as much as our individual concerns are when it comes to the arrogance and omnipotence of any government ministry. Bureaucrats don't give a rat's a** about anything.

---

Pretty much. But that's the fault of our small town Mayors and their councils who don't seem to understand that they are in the driver's seat when it comes to exerting pressure on MPs and MPPs. A local Mayor, who uses the local press properly, can sink an upper tier politician in no time. But it isn't done. Part of the reluctance is because there is this kind of "fellowship" among politicians, and it would be seen as somehow unfair to publicly point out that MPP Whatshisname and his government are letting locals down. The other reason is that the public demonstrates nothing but apathy or indifference anyways, so local councils have no need to get worked up. Everyone meekly accepts that "we wrote them a letter but they told us no" is all that a local council could and should do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbear

I think the thing that is much more troubling than "the silent majority", is that in a population of 10,000, only 29 people [presumably hunters) bothered to make "pro" submissions and an even smaller number attended the council meeting.

---

It is a good example of apathy by the general public...unless it affects them directly, they are not getting involved.

We have town council that is very frustrated with the lack of interest shown by the general population into township matters. It's appallingly dismal and that is for money matters...when it come to something affecting the hunting community..even less interest..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbear

Everyone meekly accepts that "we wrote them a letter but they told us no" is all that a local council could and should do.

---

Well in the case of the spring bear hunt, it eventually worked and the MNR responded.

Omg.
mike give us one or two example if you can, of an issue where there's "two sides". Those strongly in favour and those strongly against and a "middle". Where the vast majority mostly favour the "pro", but ultimately it doesn't affect them. Or more specifically you. Give us one or examples, where you are one of those people in the middle...and YOU become active. Written letters, attended meetings, lobbied for change. I'm 52, getting old. Figure I have about 20 years to wait for it, so please don't take too long finding them.

I too am done, have reached even my limits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

give us one or two example if you can, of an issue where there's "two sides". Those strongly in favour and those strongly against and a "middle".

---

Goes to prove you haven't being paying attention for the entire theme of the debate; that is exactly what I have been asking since the first post...for someone to provide me with an example of where our hunting future was 'hinged' on the acceptance of the middle class.

Welsh wrote: "but to improve people's understanding of hunting, and to win support on specific issues. This is something that has happened in the past, and happens now"

I asked him provide me an example, he danced but couldn't.

Now your asking me to do provide the same thing...I wouldn't keep asking if I knew of any ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Or more specifically you. Give us one or examples, where you are one of those people in the middle...and YOU become active.

---

I am in the silent majority, I have absolutely no interest in anything that goes on around me that doesn't affect me. That's why I know exactly why only 29 people in a population of 10,000 people in a township would go in and support local hunters trying to get Sunday Hunting privileges.

You'd get a better turn out on a vote to put in a new walkway between the church and the parking lot.

That's also why I know there is no point expecting even a minuscule percentage of the 13.6 million people in this province to come forward and support an issue like the re-institution of the Spring Bear hunt or to block the suspension of the coyote hunt near the park.

They are called the silent majority for a reason and courting them for favour is pretty much a waste of time.

Far better off aggressively attacking the Anti's and defending our hunting culture...much like the OFAH does with their Sunday Hunting presentations.

Mike, the reason I'm no longer engaging you is your ongoing habit of dishonestly distorting what I say, combined with your previous public admission that you simply enjoy trolling me, suggests there's no point in trying to have a serious discussion.

I'll just be putting you on ignore.

I'm sure you'll now mock me again. Go ahead. If you're unable to understand how the ranks of the antis grow, for example, then I don't know what to say to you.

Oh and by the way, Sunday gun hunting presentations....

How do you think they succeed? Do you think they win over hardcore antis on council? Or do you think that maybe they are winning the support of those council members who belong to that MIDDLE? By, you know, appealing to them, rather than by throwing muck at anti-hunters? The OFAH doesn't "attack the antis" with these presentations; they provide information and present arguments. They talk about values such as public safety. They appeal to the middle. The OFAH goes to municipalities not to fight a move by the antis, but instead to make an appeal to the middle ground with the aim of expanding hunting opportunities.

This is how the OFAH works all the time, and is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to. The examples are so numerous that we take them for granted. Thanks for coming up with one.

Mike, save the snide comments. "Follow along", "pay attention" some others.
at issue apparently is that because the middle doesn't lobby for us, attend meetings, write letters. They are next to meaningless and that the broader larger opinion doesn't factor in much ( utterly dismantled, and why it had to be, is beyond me)

further and/or our future doesn't hinge on their acceptance. At this point I no longer know how to illustrate and am less inclined. Because I suspect once again your arguing for the sake of arguing, being obstinate. Nothing anyone says....

A few post ago, you said to someone "their apathy"...so I asked you to give us an example where you got involved. Just because a very great many people aren't active on issues they aren't passionate about or doesn't affect them.....

well duh!!!!!!!

does NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST mean their acceptance (or disapproval) isn't critical to the continuance of hunting. I think at one time a great many people were in the middle on all kinds of things/activities that now are done and gone. Slave labor being one? I just can't be bothered anymore because........

/bangs head against wall and face palms

I consider myself a slave. In all seriousness though the middle is where we should be trolling for support. The extremes will never change and yes I am an extremist. So gradual gains is likely the the best strategy as opposed to big public battles. The OFAH seem to be the ones who are in the background nibbling away. Maybe the gun owner associations should take notes?

It's pretty hard to get actual numbers but here are some that have been published for Ontario. I was surprised that the percentage of individuals with firearms permits and the number of hunting licences sold was so small.
These numbers are for 2014

From RCMP 560,618 Ontario residences with possession (157,589/ acquisition (398,339) and minor (50)

MNR Hunting Licences sold 612,000

Ontario Population 13.6 Million

Registered gun owners 4.12% of the population
Hunting Licences 4.5% of population

The numbers are well below the estimated 10%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

I too am done, have reached even my limits

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Because I suspect once again your arguing for the sake of arguing, being obstinate.

---

For someone who says they have reached their limits and is back in 3 hrs arguing some more you sure it's not you who arguing for the sake of arguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I'll just be putting you on ignore.

---

You make that sound like a bad thing :)

This is not the first time when you have shown the inability to handle a debate Welsh, I gave you plenty of opportunity to back up your statement and in stead of just saying you couldn't you went on the personal attack..your trademark 'tell'. That last time you just deleted the thread rather than admit I was right.

I put this debate forward, taking the position that the 'middle' or silent majority do not hold the future of Hunting and only thru activities we take to defend our ourselves from the Animal Rights activist and Anti Hunting advocates are we going to survive.

Anyway, fade to black...

Mike

I just got back in from a beautiful weekend fishing the little Rideau with family and friends. Go outside and enjoy the beautiful weather !! ! These debates with MikePal never end ! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elvis

At the end of the day, the only percentage that's important are those of the city, town's or regional councillors who will ultimately have the final vote. You can state your case until your blue in the face, but of the council is against hunting etc, they'll have it their way. It's the inner circle that they run with which will ultimately determine any issue good or bad.

I fought council some 25 years ago to have the agreement forest remain open to hunting. After 1 year and playing politics it was left open only to deer hunting in the controlled season along with archery for bow.

If councillors are 80% against it, the 20% will not support you.

There lies the true outcome. Be aware of who you councillors are.

"E"

---

You don't look like Elvis. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMatthews

The numbers are well below the estimated 10%.

---

Not necessarily ... only people who are old enough to vote matter, so using the overall population as the divisor is an error that tends to lower the estimate. Not having any hard numbers for the size of the electorate at hand, I'd ballpark it at 75% of the population, or 10.2 million, so about 6% of the electorate are hunters, which, uh, rounds up to 10, right? :)

So your point is fair that 80 - 10 - 10 isn't the truth.

The good news is that the percentage of the electorate that are hardcore antis (i.e., people who identify as activists and join repeated campaigns and protests) is even smaller. I don't have any firm numbers handy, but I recall seeing estimates of 1 - 2 percent, and I think in truth it is probably less than that. They appear numerous because they are highly vocal.

But it's the "80" (which in this case looks like > 90) that matters, and here the picture is complicated. According to repeated surveys, eighty percent or better support the idea of hunting for food, but that support drops dramatically when it comes to "trophy hunting." In that case, a clear majority of the electorate would count as "antis."

And of course, just what constitutes trophy hunting is a subjective judgment, which is where the communications problem comes in. Whether people support hunting depends to a significant extent on how hunters present themselves -- which is why attacking the antis is much less productive than appealing to the attitudes of the majority.

Sometimes I think the hunting community should be making its argument along the lines of reason; appealing to the majority of the population that (a) eats meat, and (b) can accept reason.

Surely there's a way to get people on board by diplomatically (sensitively) promoting the ties that bind us: steak, hamburger, fowl? After all, the only difference is that I do my own killing and butchering, whereas all these meat-eating non-hunters have someone else do it for them. And a cow's big brown eyes aren't much different than a doe's.

Minorities rule - not majorities!
I kind of had 15% as critical mass in mind, but looks like people are easier to influence now than ever
http://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902

This is why propaganda works; always has and always will - no matter the topic, no matter if you have facts to support it or not.
The average human is lazy, too lazy to think and likes to follow the loudest leader like a lemming.
So let me ask: Who is louder - the Antis or we? Who has the ear of the media (both social and mass media)?