The Silent Majority

[JMatthews]

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%.

[MikePal]

I too am done, have reached even my limits

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.

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

[yellow dog]

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

[Sharon]

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.

[welsh]

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.

[Bigbear]

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.

[Waftrudnir]

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)?