The Silent Majority

[MikePal]

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?

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;

“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 ?

[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.

[MikePal]

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.

[trimmer21]

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.

[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"

[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.

[welsh]

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.

[trimmer21]

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.

[welsh]

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.

[smallgamer]

.......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:

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.