The Silent Majority

[smallgamer]

And this. Again bold font added by me.

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.

[MikePal]

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...

[MikePal]

, 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 )

[smallgamer]

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.

[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.

[JBen]

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.

[Gun Nut]

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

[MikePal]

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,"

[smallgamer]

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.

[MikePal]

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....