If a lion dies a horrible painful death and man didn't do it...

[Enoch the Red]

The claim I was deflecting was the least of that. You said everything I typed was an empty wall of verbiage to disguise that I simply had no knowledge whatsoever.

I don't believe you know as much as you think you do, or you would like us to believe you do. What you are claiming is about as sound as saying because I know a mechanic I am knowledgeable about cars. That being said, I don't know you. Maybe you do have in-depth conversations with your friends, members of your congregation, and acquaintances about hunting, (a topic I had not previously gotten the impression you had much of an interest in). Hunting just is not a subject that I regularly hear brought up in casual conversation with non-hunters, for a variety of reasons. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.

We will NOT take those as a proxy for what the subscribers think. The Economist has a strongly laissez-faire bent to it, does that mean we should conclude that most of its readers share its editorial opinions? No, people read it because it's the most solid mix of international and economic news-reporting around, regardless of its editorial slant. What you're attempting there isn't even at the level of anecodtal information, it's just a logic jump.

And I'm sure you couldn't come to any conclusion about subscribers to Reason, because it's possible they buy in for the investigative journalism, National Geographic for its nudity, or Playboy because they just have such darn good articles, dontcha know. It's a wonder the fine folks at Madison Avenue can run any marketing campaigns at all, with these magazines knowing as little as they do about their market and consumers. Pull the other one. I assure you, PETA members are not the bulk of the subscribers to Field and Stream, eager to learn about the latest conservation efforts, or the best way to prepare their exotic big game. And while it's conceivable that some hunters skip articles on conservation, their target audience is more narrow than you seem to realize. A conclusion I'm sure you would have come to if you ever had chanced to read it. If hunters wanted something tailored only to hunting without the focus on conservation, there are offerings out there. The comparison between Field and Stream and The Economist is faulty.

No, what you said, what I took objection to, is the claim that hunters are frequently the most passionate conservationists. Which I read to be "are the majority of the most passionate conservationists" which was a mistaken word-transposition. Plenty of survey and study data to claim that, in NA, hunters are indeed usually passionate conservationists and so it wouldn't have been an inaccurate claim to say that hunters in general (and not just NA) are often interested in conservation but you explicitly disclaimed that sort of data later on, and still appeared to be talking about the broader group of hunters in general. Yes you'd referenced the NA hunters but your post there gave the impression that you're using the familiar NA sample to generalize to the others, particularly under the mistaken impression that your post #49 said "most hunters."

And maybe that's because the same feelings exist outside North America. Again, my interactions extend to an international bunch, and it might surprise you to learn that they also care passionately about conservation. It's why I'm still looking for evidence from you at why you believe conservation stops at our shores. You have shown that not all countries have a defined or enforced conservation policy, but that speaks nothing to the thoughts and feelings of the individual hunters. In short, you are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of - taking a non-representative proxy and presenting it as meaningful. The difference being you believe a person's country of origin is a better indicator about their approach to and thoughts about hunting than the articles and magazines they read.