I don't understand antis

[impact]

Bottom line is that the human brain is very weak and gullible. We can be made to believe anything that a person with a hidden agenda and is a good orator can deliver.

[sharps4570]

People who live in the urban environment (sez here: "citiots) were never exposed to outdoor life,so,all they know is the bull shyte other people feed them. They haven't the intelligence to discern fact from fiction or do their own research to,at the very least,have an informed opinion.

I notice the word "citiot" expressed often and freely whenever topics such as this thread come to surface.....

Well, upon evaluation of a blanket statement such as the one above, does it not also create an impression that folks who live in rural environment have really not much clue as to what they may be talking about?

BTW, it may help to bear in mind that its actually the term "Village Idiot" that is far more utilized and recognized universally!

[trimmer21]

I notice the word "citiot" expressed often and freely whenever topics such as this thread come to surface.....

Well, upon evaluation of a blanket statement such as the one above, does it not also create an impression that folks who live in rural environment have really not much clue as to what they may be talking about?

BTW, it may help to bear in mind that its actually the term "Village Idiot" that is far more utilized and recognized universally!

I didn't want to use the term "village idiot" because it would have been impolite.

[Bluebulldog]

I was once at a gathering during the Winter holidays. A friend of mine who was a chef at a very nice TO restaurant took some of the goose breasts I had harvested that Fall, and had made a lovely smoked pate out of it.

When some of the guests commented on how good it was, and where he got it, he told them.

I was then confronted by about 4-5 women, ( 3 of whom were teachers in the high school system), who decried my activities as barbaric, and how dare I? Canada Geese are protected.

I calmly listened, and asked why they were under the impression that Canada Geese were a protected species? They haughtily replied that they just were, and everyone knows that....

I excused myself, asked if i might return to speak with them in a few minutes. Went out to my truck,and returned with a copy of the regs. Opened it to the section on migratory birds, and then politely asked, that if the species was protected, why then did it say that I could harvest 6 in a day?

Quiet, some muttered apologies....and an overall enjoyable evening afterwards.

Always be polite ( even in the face of abject stupidity), if you can educate even one, do so.

[werner.reiche]

I'm not really sure how this post flipped from a woefully uninformed women tourist to all urbanites being antis and citiots.
The demographics of Toronto show that a number somewhere around half come from somewhere else. Many of those would be coming from rural or much less urban Canada and/or countries where they fended for themselves before arrival and were exposed to guns and hunting.
It's the all or nothing attitude expressed here that will turn the undecided or not yet informed against.
I for one would prefer to be judged for my opinions rather than my postal code.

CA in TO (Toronto)

The "somewhere else" is not rural Canada - it's foreign countries. 50% of Torontonians were born outside of Canada. People from rural areas tend not to move to Toronto.

But - I will agree that idiots can be found anywhere - not just the city. Ottawa and the surrounding area has its share. Rural eastern Ontario (east of Ottawa) has a surprising number given that its rural.

[MikePal]

BTW, it may help to bear in mind that its actually the term "Village Idiot" that is far more utilized and recognized universally!

Rural eastern Ontario (east of Ottawa) has a surprising number given that its rural.

Ahhh, but amongst the many normal idiots in any town...only a select few... get the title of 'Village Idiot'

[welsh]

Always be polite ( even in the face of abject stupidity), if you can educate even one, do so.

Here's the thing: there's been a ton of public opinion research on attitudes to hunting, and it's all remarkably consistent. About 80% of the public thinks "legal, regulated hunting" is okay, and only about 10% think hunting in general should be banned.

But those attitudes are coloured heavily by questions about why people hunt and what people hunt. If you change the question and ask if people think "sport hunting" is okay, then support drops to around 50%. Change that to "trophy hunting" and support drops below 20%. If you look at the quarry, support drops significantly when we get into predator hunting and whenever people perceive that the hunted animal is somehow threatened.

That kind of situational opposition to hunting is based on values concerning animal welfare and the inherent value of wild animals. And hunters, for the most part, actually share those values. We just have a different understanding of the facts, of which animals are threatened and which are not and of the reasons people hunt. To Impact's point above, people's values can't really be shifted but people are generally gullible about facts, and people often believe things are true based on subjective impressions and half-remembered ideas from childhood.

But factual errors are hard to correct when you are adversarial or when they link directly to some cultural conflict. The urban-rural cultural divide can be defined in two words: "redneck" and "citiot." If you come off as a redneck, the discussion becomes a cultural conflict and facts become irrelevant.

The future of hunting lies in the hands of hunters, who enjoy wide public support but can easily lose it. Calling people "citiots" and believing that they are any more stupid and gullible than you are is a mistake. Those attitudes don't help us. Present what you do in the right light and most people will support you ... unless you're a coyote hunter, in which case you're SOL.

[trimmer21]

Here's the thing: there's been a ton of public opinion research on attitudes to hunting, and it's all remarkably consistent. About 80% of the public thinks "legal, regulated hunting" is okay, and only about 10% think hunting in general should be banned.

But those attitudes are coloured heavily by questions about why people hunt and what people hunt. If you change the question and ask if people think "sport hunting" is okay, then support drops to around 50%. Change that to "trophy hunting" and support drops below 20%. If you look at the quarry, support drops significantly when we get into predator hunting and whenever people perceive that the hunted animal is somehow threatened.

That kind of situational opposition to hunting is based on values concerning animal welfare and the inherent value of wild animals. And hunters, for the most part, actually share those values. We just have a different understanding of the facts, of which animals are threatened and which are not and of the reasons people hunt. To Impact's point above, people's values can't really be shifted but people are generally gullible about facts, and people often believe things are true based on subjective impressions and half-remembered ideas from childhood.

But factual errors are hard to correct when you are adversarial or when they link directly to some cultural conflict. The urban-rural cultural divide can be defined in two words: "redneck" and "citiot." If you come off as a redneck, the discussion becomes a cultural conflict and facts become irrelevant.

The future of hunting lies in the hands of hunters, who enjoy wide public support but can easily lose it. Calling people "citiots" and believing that they are any more stupid and gullible than you are is a mistake. Those attitudes don't help us. Present what you do in the right light and most people will support you ... unless you're a coyote hunter, in which case you're SOL.

Well,welsh,you made an excellent point....right up until "coyote hunters being SOL."

[welsh]

Well,welsh,you made an excellent point....right up until "coyote hunters being SOL."

There is a widespread perception that predators are disappearing due to human encroachment and ought not to be hunted. This despite the fact that coyotes are on the increase. It goes hand in hand with the feeling that predator hunting is intended to wipe out populations, which is based on past policies towards predators.

These ideas don't prove as susceptible to change. When we look at attitudes towards hunting based on the quarry, predator hunting has the lowest levels of support.

So yes, in terms of broad public support, predator hunters are pretty much SOL. That's true whether you want to believe it, or not.

[LowbanksArcher]

When we look at attitudes towards hunting based on the quarry, predator hunting has the lowest levels of support.

I assume bear hunting falls into that category as well. The opening of the pilot spring bear hunt this year brought out a lot of loud opinions from anti's and ARA's. One that surprised me was the assumption that bears are killed for their fur, and the meat is tossed. Once again, there's an opportunity to educate those who don't know better, and keep the 80% on neutral ground.