The Silent Majority

[MikePal]

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"...

[smallgamer]

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.

[MikePal]

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

[smallgamer]

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.

[MikePal]

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..?

[MikePal]

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.

[smallgamer]

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.

[JBen]

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.

[welsh]

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.

[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 ?

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.