Commercial Use Permits - Time for States to Step Up?

[TOGIE]

As @Big Fin suggested, let's start a new thread on this topic. I finally have a few moments since i first posted this stuff in the freakster thread late this morning. The afternoon blew up on me at work then i come home to an evening of dad duty.

So...

I'm well aware Randy get's his permits. One of the multitude of reasons I highly respect him and his content. I think we're also all well aware that overall very few content producers, influencers, hunter celebrities, etc, go through the hassle to grab their permits.

It just got me thinking as this came up up in the Freaky Friday thread - should the states do more? Do you think the states might have more scalability with enforcement?

CPW Warden sends DM to influencer: "Hey, I saw that video you posted on your instagram, I see you have a website, can you shoot me a copy of your commercial take permit? If not, I'll have to initiate enforcement proceedings."

It could all be done digitally. And yes, i know wardens have many more important things to do besides scroll the feed. But you get an idea.

I think of it this way: the film permits required for federal public land filming are in essence a way of compensating the the public for a commercial use of public property, at least as i understand it.

But what about the animals? These are state property. The property of the residents of the states.

Of course generally speaking, every hunting celebrity, content producer, influencer... or whatever, pays their fees in obtaining the tag. Yet, I would say, given the effect in general that I think we all suspect the influencer and content producing crowd has had on western hunting it might warrant a further cost?

It's hard to quantify their effects objectively; the crowding, the point creep, the residents of states wanting more of their pies. Those things would likely happen anyway. But have they been accelerated? Has the culture of hunting changed for the negative? Have influencers changed the intrinsic value of wildlife such that this is less about a personal experience and passion and more about clicks, likes, money, and ego? There's a lot to debate right there alone.

But, given how I generally feel, with some of the chit i see on social media these days, that states ought to clamp down on the use of hunting tags to produce content of any kind that may be generating income. Whether or not this income is a full blown business, or simply a passionate hunter with a day job who pull in some dough on the side from his/her content.

I'm generally concerned about the commercialization of wildlife in this country. I've been writing my state game agency commissioners about it. I'm concerned about the reduction of wildlife back down to the almighty dollar, the very thing that nearly wiped out wild game during our darkest days in the history of wildlife in this country.

Personally, I like the idea of state game agencies adopting "commercial take permits." Permits that go in conjunction with your tag. They are nothing more than an OTC permit. Of course, you still need a tag to hunt. But if you want to produce content with that tag that pulls any amount of revenue, regardless of profit, regardless of how central it is to your livelihood, you need to obtain one.

It goes hand in hand with your tag, you need one for each and every tag you have in a state you intend to produce content for. The price could be high, to the tune of 5k, or it could be 1k, I don't really know. You need to have purchased, officially time stamped prior to your season, and in your possession during hunting.

Basically, I see at as nn economic disincentive. Something to help reduce this, what is in my opinion, an accelerating commercialization of wildlife in this county. Something that "culls" for lack of a better term the over saturation of content that IMO is devaluing wildlife. People like Randy and Steve Rinella IMO are doing great things for hunting. Muley Freak? Well, there's a whole thread on that. I could list more that i think are devaluing wildlife but that's not what this thread is about. Needless to say, i'm sick of what i see on instagram anymore, and i want to see it pulled back. Money, or lack therof, is the only way i could see that working. Along with enforcement and intense punishment. I wanna see state game agencies institude permits that create a hurdle, that if not cleared, have pretty high monetary consequences and if continually ignored have dire consequences.

But, as Randy pointed out:

Good luck getting anything enforced. It's like a lot of things. Some folks follow the rules and some don't.

Is it all moot if the federal rules aren't being enforced, let alone followed, to begin with? Yes, kinda, maybe? Could the states enforce better? Maybe. I dunno. Regardless that doesn't mean we just throw up our hands.

Does any of this matter compared to other issues we're dealing with? Maybe not. I dunno

 

[Oak]

A lot to unpack in your post. I don't have time, and don't want to do a disservice to it. But I'm not sure the federal agency should be essentially regulating the impacts (permitting) to a state-managed resource (game species). And I realize your question addresses just that, state management instead. I don't think there is a tenable solution to the situation as you propose. I don't know what jurisdiction the stat would have. Also see the FILM Act. On life support, but not dead, and maybe not a bad idea?

 

[TOGIE]

A lot to unpack in your post. I don't have time, and don't want to do a disservice to it. But I'm not sure the federal agency should be essentially regulating the impacts (permitting) to a state-managed resource (game species). And I realize your question addresses just that, state management instead. I don't think there is a tenable solution to the situation as you propose. I don't know what jurisdiction the stat would have. Also see the FILM Act. On life support, but not dead, and maybe not a bad idea?

The laws and questionable legality thereof are something I constantly had in the back of my mind.

But, in the simplest of terms: if the state can dictate when, how, at what cost, under what conditions, where (geographically, not from a land ownership perspective) and even down to what I can wear, in order to shoot an animal they own/hold in trust, can’t they in theory add additional restrictions to the commercial use/taking of that animal? Forget about the land it’s on , the state owns it wherever it is.

But I know, it’s not that simple I’m sure.

 

[TOGIE]

A lot to unpack in your post. I don't have time, and don't want to do a disservice to it. But I'm not sure the federal agency should be essentially regulating the impacts (permitting) to a state-managed resource (game species). And I realize your question addresses just that, state management instead. I don't think there is a tenable solution to the situation as you propose. I don't know what jurisdiction the stat would have. Also see the FILM Act. On life support, but not dead, and maybe not a bad idea?

I’ll have to read up on the film act. Currently burping a baby tho

 

[OriginalOscar]

Less government and end film permits unless it's a true film/tv production project; ie more people behind camera than in front of camera, project over 14 days.

Does anyone believe the hordes of TikTok tourists on public lands are getting permits?

 

[TOGIE]

okay, here's a more succinct way to describe how i'm viewing this:

the NAM did an excellent job at neutering the market for wild game. we decided wild game was too valuable and needed to be shielded from capitalism in this country in order to survive. we decided it's priceless, that these animals were too valuable too participate in free market. and structured a new system around their use that we're all plenty familiar with.

here's my thought. has the NAM been circumvented by a modern technological market? the economy around hunting has become robust and beyond what it ever was in the past IMO. the revenue generated by likes, comments, clicks, and views has got to be a pretty remarkable figure. i'd be interested if we could distill down that portion of the economy of hunting: the profit generated from killing. because at the end of the day, that's what it is and that's what drives interest.

it used to be profit generated from the physical parts of the animal. now the profit is generated from an intangible experience of seeing stuff killed. yes, this has happened forever, in the form of magazines and outdoor writers and newspapers. but technology has changed the game and i think we're at a flash point personally.

i might argue that NAM model has been circumvented - the amount of profit occurring by killing animals has got be somewhat extraordinary in the context of history. let's not forget outfitting.

therefore, might the NAM need to be augmented or adapted for our new times? the spirit of it exists, but the reality is it may be broken.

we couldn't physically sell the animals to get rich anymore so we've discovered a new way to exploit them for profit - advertisements by engaging you on our experience of killing one. again, and again, and again.

is it too extreme to say/think that we're on the path of the of the NAM being broken? if not already? is this basically just a rehash of matt rinellas ranting? i dunno, probably.

so, now, circle back to post number one...

holy shit i just don't know how to succinctly say anything, sorry.

 

[Oak]

Wildlife departments regulate the killing now by issuing licenses/tags/permits. They have the ability to regulate the technology used specifically for the killing, ie., scopes on muzzleloaders. Ultimately, those who make a profit from killing as you say, are already regulated. I understand what you are saying, but profiting from filming a hunt is not a negative impact on the resource.

 

[TOGIE]

I understand what you are saying, but profiting from filming a hunt is not a negative impact on the resource.

yeah, and i totally get that.

hence why i tried to reframe the argument: the spirit of the NAM has been circumvented and is now broken. hunting wildlife has again been distilled down to profit to levels (no, i don't have objective data) not seen since the days of market hunting.

maybe the NAM needs to be adapted to the modern world.

would we be seeing the problems we're seeing in montana if there wasn't so much profit to be had for killing animals? would colorado be so hamstrung by outfitters on allocation and OTC tags if it weren't for the profit?

there is a tenuous argument to be made that profit is negatively impacting the resource or that it will soon. what if montana mule deer become re-enlisted on the ESA due to what is basically unregulated hunting? interest that has exploded further in part from people selling the experience for profit? tenuous as hell, i know. don't flame me. but think about it.

 

[Salmonchaser]

Having pulled CUAs for 20 years I would love to see anyone who profits from film made on Federal land forced to pony up. Do I think that will change the popularity of hunting in Montana or Colorado, nope! The only thing going to change that is limited entry hunting And land owner tags are only good on specific property.

 

[TOGIE]

the film act is interesting. i'm not sure i have a huge opinion on it one way or another. i see the positives and negatives.

if i had a million followers on instagram and made a video of myself going up a cool trail outside of boulder while wearing prana clothing to serve as advertisement. is that really a big deal? should i have to get a permit for that.

some other dude with 150 followers also made a video on that trail and got 20 likes. was the impact on the resource the same? tangibly yes. we both walked up a trail and impacted the resource the same.

but my million followers are now interested in that trail if i divulged it as well as the prana pants i was wearing.

that's almost another conversation.

but man, i still see cam hanes shooting a bull that belongs to the people of colorado and the profit he might make from it, the ego boost he gains from it, the paparazzi group he brings with him, etc, as just simply antithetical to the NAM.

this topic just might be too large, vague, and theoretical to be of much interest. should i post some more Petey Panda photos to stir animosity and rage? man that guys a hoot on instagram.

 

[Firedude]

A few issues I see budding on the horizon. Social media has changed the circumstances from "For profit T.V." to all kinds of scenarios.

@Big Fin would be the one to ask and weigh in on this thread. His advise should weigh pretty heavy. He's in the business AND does it correctly by buying permits. He probably knows best how to be properly inclusive but not flock shoot every video on the internet. I imagine the answer is in the business model and taxes, again... Randy's arena.

Who would have to pay? How would you secure a particular group on social media as needing a permit? There's a difference between somebody going out to make money and sell products and somebody who happens to have a video go viral because something cool is captured on film. You'd need to separate the 2. If someone with 20 friends posts a video and it blows up and money starts getting offered and rolling in, they can't go back and get a film permit. You shouldn't have to get a permit to film and share your hunt just in case it goes crazy. Not saying it can't be done but it does need discussed.

With that thought in mind, what about people who aren't doing the filming to try and sell it? Some people are just crazy popular and their content makes money. It's not their day job. No sponsors, producers, advertising, etc. People just like them. And they make a little money. Would there be a financial crossover point? For example, Make $100,000 one time and similar content needs a permit but make $100 and no need.

Outrageous costs for permits is just not something we should be interested in. The land is the guy filming's just as much as mine. The elk is his just as much as mine. The actual impact of him killing an elk on public is the same as mine, boot prints and a gut pile. Randy posted what he pays, seams fair. We just need to include people that should be included on that requirement.

The issue I have with that is when they have opportunities I cannot have because of their "influence". Like an Outfitter giving one of his allocated tags and his services in exchange for advertising because you used them and express it on T.V. An outfitter getting a tag every year I have 1% of drawing screams favoritism in the first place. Then the "Influencer" gets first chance on buying because of his reach?
Then makes money on filming it. That gets into, "Wait a dang minute..." territory. As far as I can tell Randy draws his tags just like the rest of us. No harm no foul. But I can't be the only one seeing a lot of these guys make content and asking, "How in the hell did they draw all those tags?"

 

[Big Fin]

Lots of good comments here. I'm headed into a couple hours of meetings, but when I'm done I'll try to add some insight to the points and comments that have been provided.

 

[TOGIE]

A few issues I see budding on the horizon. Social media has changed the circumstances from "For profit T.V." to all kinds of scenarios.

@Big Fin would be the one to ask and weigh in on this thread. His advise should weigh pretty heavy. He's in the business AND does it correctly by buying permits. He probably knows best how to be properly inclusive but not flock shoot every video on the internet. I imagine the answer is in the business model and taxes, again... Randy's arena.

Who would have to pay? How would you secure a particular group on social media as needing a permit? There's a difference between somebody going out to make money and sell products and somebody who happens to have a video go viral because something cool is captured on film. You'd need to separate the 2. If someone with 20 friends posts a video and it blows up and money starts getting offered and rolling in, they can't go back and get a film permit. You shouldn't have to get a permit to film and share your hunt just in case it goes crazy. Not saying it can't be done but it does need discussed.

With that thought in mind, what about people who aren't doing the filming to try and sell it? Some people are just crazy popular and their content makes money. It's not their day job. No sponsors, producers, advertising, etc. People just like them. And they make a little money. Would there be a financial crossover point? For example, Make $100,000 one time and similar content needs a permit but make $100 and no need.

Outrageous costs for permits is just not something we should be interested in. The land is the guy filming's just as much as mine. The elk is his just as much as mine. The actual impact of him killing an elk on public is the same as mine, boot prints and a gut pile. Randy posted what he pays, seams fair. We just need to include people that should be included on that requirement.

The issue I have with that is when they have opportunities I cannot have because of their "influence". Like an Outfitter giving one of his allocated tags and his services in exchange for advertising because you used them and express it on T.V. An outfitter getting a tag every year I have 1% of drawing screams favoritism in the first place. Then the "Influencer" gets first chance on buying because of his reach?
Then makes money on filming it. That gets into, "Wait a dang minute..." territory. As far as I can tell Randy draws his tags just like the rest of us. No harm no foul. But I can't be the only one seeing a lot of these guys make content and asking, "How in the hell did they draw all those tags?"

very good points.

lot's of unaddressed details you bring up. but more my overarching point is this: has money become too big of a driver in the modern world of hunting? let's be more clear by "money." i mean revenues, and in lots of cases profits, generated from killing animals. i think so.

let's broadly bucket the two primary groups

• outfitters
• content creators

i think both those groups existing and one of them in particular's ever increasing influence over wildlife management decisions has the NAM on a bad path. a path driven by money.

i want to think of ways to neuter that. most of them are high flying dreams that'll never happen.

but certainly, the idea of a commercial take permit being issued by states for producing revenue deriving content featuring the death of an animal owned by said state is one such idea i'm floating around. lots of interesting issues with such an idea as you and oak have pointed out.

appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Firedude]

very good points.

lot's of unaddressed details you bring up. but more my overarching point is this: has money become too big of a driver in the modern world of hunting? let's be more clear by "money." i mean revenues, and in lots of cases profits, generated from killing animals. i think so.

let's broadly bucket the two primary groups

• outfitters
• content creators

i think both those groups existing and one of them in particular's ever increasing influence over wildlife management decisions has the NAM on a bad path. a path driven by money.

i want to think of ways to neuter that. most of them are high flying dreams that'll never happen.

but certainly, the idea of a commercial take permit being issued by states for producing revenue deriving content featuring the death of an animal owned by said state is one such idea i'm floating around. lots of interesting issues with such an idea as you and oak have pointed out.

appreciate your thoughts.

I should have addressed that as well. I just don't disagree with you and didn't think to express it.

I agree it's getting to money driven. I feel like there's a shift from being able to make money at something you love and film it to a you need to be full throttle and make mad money from hunting attitude. And to make the money fast people are definitely breaking rules. I agree.

All I ask is to be carefull when asking for new rules or laws. Even well meaning changes can have harsh unforseen implications.

Edit. I just realized how much I name dropped Randy. I guess I felt it appropriate since on this forum he's probably the most informed AND most likely affected by any change.

 

[CycleFishHunt]

The NAM is very hunter-centric. It's been discussed a lot on HT that hunting is not the only activity that removes wildlife from the landscape. It's just the most obvious. Development is not really relevant to your point, but recreation is. Based on your logic, however, you cannot make the argument, that media personalities, influencers, etc. in the non-consumptive space are directly profiting off of wildlife (maybe birders?). They are, however, often profiting a public resource, the land, and everything that depends on it, when they film on public land.

if i had a million followers on instagram and made a video of myself going up a cool trail outside of boulder while wearing prana clothing to serve as advertisement. is that really a big deal? should i have to get a permit for that.

So to answer this question, maybe, but I also imagine there might be a First Amendment issue here.

If you could stretch the NAM to incorporate other profiteering on wildlife, I am not unsure of the impact, other than more $ to agencies to help manage the resource. But there is a lot that does not fall under the NAM, that is also making things worse.

The more I think about these issues the more strongly in favor I am on the so-called "REI tax"

Note: made a few edits and additions after the initial post.

 

[TOGIE]

So to answer this question, probably, but I also imagine there might be a First Amendment issue here.

i guess that's where the line becomes blurry regarding "commercial" in the current federal permit?

is it blatant disregard of the 1st amendment for randy to have to get film permits? no court has said it's unconstitutional yet, tho i'm sure many firmly hold that it is. under what criteria and at what point does it currently become a commercial activity requiring a permit per the federal rules?

 

[Big Fin]

I have a few minutes between meetings, so here are a few thoughts

the revenue generated by likes, comments, clicks, and views has got to be a pretty remarkable figure. i'd be interested if we could distill down that portion of the economy of hunting: the profit generated from killing. because at the end of the day, that's what it is and that's what drives interest.


it used to be profit generated from the physical parts of the animal. now the profit is generated from an intangible experience of seeing stuff killed. yes, this has happened forever, in the form of magazines and outdoor writers and newspapers. but technology has changed the game and i think we're at a flash point personally.

i might argue that NAM model has been circumvented - the amount of profit occurring by killing animals has got be somewhat extraordinary in the context of history. let's not forget outfitting.

I'm interested in following this discussion and I will chime in when asked or when I think my comments might be helpful. I have bolded a couple lines that might help with some clarification; notions often assumed by folks commenting against videos or other content. Thanks to @TOGIE for taking the initiative to start a thread on such.

I appreciate that you have used the term "has got to be." That indicates that you don't know for sure or you are making some assumption that such is the case. It is an assumption I think most people attach to if they aren't familiar with the business models of creating digital content.

The revenue generated by likes, comments, clicks and views is not a pretty remarkable figure, and it is not extraordinary in the context of history. Rather the amounts are small and in the context of advertising spend on TV and print, digital spend is still small compared to those legacy media platforms. Part of that is due to the legacy of ad agents being older and having relationships with the older folks controlling TV and print ads/content. The other factor is that a lot of spend in the outdoor space is from firearm, ammo, and knife companies, which are industries blackballed from digital advertising by FB, IG, YT, and some of the other ad-based tech companies.

So, from a historical context, print and TV are still getting far more of the ad dollars due to artificial barriers in place by "socially enlightened" ad-based companies. If the hunting space followed other industries in the migration to digital and ad-based tech platforms did not throttle firearms, ammo, and knives, there would be historically high ad dollars in digital, though still in line with where the eye balls are. Right now it is artificially slanted toward TV and print, even though eyeballs and ears are/have rapidly migrated to digital.

From a "revenue generated" standpoint, the "pretty remarkable figures" is not the case, at least not for me and not for most that I know. I could get rid of my FB and IG channels tomorrow and it would not change the revenue of my business by even a dollar. There is no money paid by FB or IG for clicks/likes/views. Contracts, at least mine, do not have any incentives based on number of clicks, likes, or views. So, the statement often made, "for the Gram" is probably true that some do it for whatever reasons they have IG, but not for revenue from "the Gram."

I will say that a lot of people trying to be "influencers," whatever the hell that is, are completely focused on the metrics you mention. And almost all of these "influencers" are doing it for a free backpack or a free bow, or whatever, not as a day job. They are not getting paid for a single click, like, or view on social media by FB/IG. A few have 500K+ followers and that does get the attention of ad agencies.

On YouTube, you get paid based on views, actually per 1,000 views, or CPM, as it is called. You first must have a large enough channel with enough hours of views before YT will let you monetize your channel. But, even at that, you do not get paid very much, relative to the cost of production, cost of trips, film permits, etc. Here is an example, using my 2021 goat hunt we released in the last month.



You will see that it was pretty popular at launch, relative to most of our videos. Even at that, the YT revenue isn't even enough to cover the film permit fees I paid for that hunt. And if this video was not "trending" as popular under the YT algorithm, the video would have earned far less than what it did. So, to sustain a business model, even at break even, there has to be revenue from other sources. 90% of the views come in the first two weeks, so this video has run its course and companies will not bid into it at rates they did the first two weeks, so the CPM we realize will drop to single digits and the views will trickle in.

The point of my explanation is this - the real financial foundation that keeps platforms afloat is not from clicks, likes, comments, but usually from product or merchandise sales (which I have virtually no revenue from), sponsorship, and/or affiliate commissions.

Hunting companies have migrated some of their advertising spend from TV and print to digital advertising, but not in proportions to the migration of hunter's eyes/ear to digital. Since digital content has much lower barriers to entry than TV and print, you see a lot more of the smaller platforms trying to grab some of those dollars migrating to digital, with what I suspect is limited success.

As has always been the case, hunting media, like all our media, is funded via advertising dollars. In the hunting space, companies were late to the digital game, though hunting companies have started to adopt digital advertising models, still not at rates in other verticals.

Yes, some companies look at the size of some FB and IG platforms and sponsor them due to their size and reach. Content platforms still primarily focused on TV distribution and print use IG and FB for communicating to audiences, not as direct revenue sources. Most of the smaller social media platforms you see don't come close to numbers needed to attract the ad dollars that interest ad agencies representing these companies.

If you have a large enough YT audience, companies will have interest in your content, with two ways to get in your content; 1) Sponsor your content directly through their ad agency, or 2) buy the pre-roll or mid-roll ads that YT serves in your videos (so long as they are not in the firearm, ammo, or knife category).

I can't say for any of the other platforms, as I don't see their contracts. If I get a billion likes and comments on IG or FB, or if I get zero on IG or FB, it doesn't change our financial picture one bit. If not for the value of communicating with audiences who prefer to consume media on those two platforms, I would junk them tomorrow. I hate them, with hate maybe being too kind of a word.

Your observation that there is a proliferation of digital content is correct. Your observation that FB/IG gives the appearance that a ton of money is there for these small (relative) platforms, is reasonable. Hopefully I've given some background as to the business realities that come with "the Gram" and FB. For me, they are just one more communication option with the audience, even if I must plug my nose and have Paul (employee in charge of social media) post images on platforms I despise.

I'm sure a lot of what you see on digital is truly "for the Gram" and the likes, comments, views, and the rush some get from that. Most of them will never have a sustainable business model, but they are responding to the fact that the majority of our society is spending huge amounts of time on IG/FB and that is where much of this stuff is being distributed.

 

[Big Fin]

Now for a few paragraphs of additional commentary that seems to often escape these discussions, as these topics most often focus on the content producer and ignore the content consumer.

Matt Rinella, regardless of what you think of his presentation style/tact, is dead on with some of his ideas, though it is an unrealistic expectation that hunters, being a cross section of larger society, would not use/adopt social media for their content consumption. I welcome Matt's efforts, however imperfect, as his work brings to light the question of how much responsibility does the hunting audience bear for the proliferation of "the Gram," FB, YT and other platforms, compared to how much responsibility the content creator bears.

I've shared this with Matt on his podcast and on phone calls/emails. Though we do very few "grip and grins" on social media, mostly because I don't think it is necessary for our message, the engagement on those G&G posts is way, way higher (5-15x higher) than our conservation or advocacy posts.

And the selection by viewers is equally disproportionate in video content. We've spent $30K+ on each of our numerous YouTube conservation and advocacy films. We've spent tons of employee resources on videos about how to advocate, how to engage in policy, on conservation efforts by volunteers and organizations. We do a lot of podcasts on conservation topics. Yet, those get a fraction of views, clicks, likes, and download that we get from content that might have a dead buck or bull. That's just a reality proven time and time and time again. The majority of hunters don't want to waste their time on that type of content.

If I were to measure what content to produce and what platforms to focus on solely for financial reasons, I would never touch another conservation topic, I would quit doing podcasts on legislation or policy, I would close down Hunt Talk, all my social media posts would be G&G, I would do YT videos showing ridiculous shots at long ranges, and so on. Hunter behavior around content makes that route a much more profitable and popular content model. And so long as hunter content consumption continues down that path, expect to be fed more of the content many claim to despise and claim is the problem that needs to be solved with measures such as this thread might suggest.

Matt is correct; so long as that is what hunters watch, like, follow, share, comment on, that is what you are going to get more of. And whether good or bad, it likely isn't changing. That is why I hope Matt has success in his efforts and I will do what I can to support what he is doing.

Every hunter who consumes content should ask this question when it comes to these topics - How much responsibility does the hunting audience bear for clicking, liking, following the traditional grip and grin posts or the "shoot 'em up, bang bang" videos of 100+ yard archery shots and 800+ yard rifle shots versus the platforms that focus on those "click baiting" topics or similar content that is popular to complain about?

Matt is on target that if hunters stopped clicking, liking, following the content folks don't like, the social media algorithms would feed us a lot less of it. So long as hunters continue to click, like, comment, and follow, that is what content the algorithms are going to feed us.

While that is the trend in hunter media consumption, the reality is that content about advocacy, conservation, education, history, and other important topics gets pushed to the bottom of the algorithms, only produced by folks committed to (dumb enough) producing such and being subsidized by either private money or by revenue streams from sponsorship.

Hopefully some of that makes sense. Thanks for probing these topics with this thread. I'm not shy about jumping in when the topics are about positive change and how to make content better for hunting. I find the topics helpful to examine what messages we are producing, and likewise, what messages and content we are consuming.

 

[Big Fin]

So to answer this question, maybe, but I also imagine there might be a First Amendment issue here.

That is how Department of Interior lost the Price case. Film permits were deemed to be a financial encumbrance on First Amendment rights. The case was appealed and overturned. Price has to decide if he wants to appeal and seek the next level of jurisdiction.

I don't mind paying the fees. I don't see it as an encumbrance on the First Amendment. But, what matters is what the courts think. And, what it shows is that when policies start to use fees or taxes to influence creation for content that falls under the First Amendment, the mud gets pretty soft.

Right now, DOI has decided to keep their tentative orders in place; that being the orders to not require film permits on DOI land. The USFS has not changed anything due to the Price case. I think we will see better guidance from DOI after the new Congress is seated in January. I suspect they will go back to charging film permit fees. Not that it will matter, as compliance will be single digit.

 

[TOGIE]

So, from a historical context, print and TV are still getting far more of the ad dollars due to artificial barriers in place by "socially enlightened" ad-based companies. If the hunting space followed other industries in the migration to digital and ad-based tech platforms did not throttle firearms, ammo, and knives, there would be historically high ad dollars in digital, though still in line with where the eye balls are. Right now it is artificially slanted toward TV and print, even though eyeballs and ears are/have rapidly migrated to digital.

of the many great points and insight in your first post, this is a good one for me to hear and start understanding.

Matt is correct; so long as that is what hunters watch, like, follow, share, comment on, that is what you are going to get more of. And whether good or bad, it likely isn't changing. That is why I hope Matt has success in his efforts and I will do what I can to support what he is doing.

Every hunter who consumes content should ask this question when it comes to these topics - How much responsibility does the hunting audience bear for clicking, liking, following the traditional grip and grin posts or the "shoot 'em up, bang bang" videos of 100+ yard archery shots and 800+ yard rifle shots versus the platforms that focus on those "click baiting" topics or similar content that is popular to complain about?

Matt is on target that if hunters stopped clicking, liking, following the content folks don't like, the social media algorithms would feed us a lot less of it. So long as hunters continue to click, like, comment, and follow, that is what content the algorithms are going to feed us.

i agree here and with matt. this is the crux of it. forget the dollars. the "likes" serve functionally enough as a currency in this regard driving this digital economy and acting as a revenue stream for those participating. and we're all paying them with likes. and they are gobbling them like up, getting fat and happy, and proliferating like horny bunnies it seems. the problem is very real to me.

i really didn't follow many folks besides you, rinella and number of folks associated with rinella until recently. i only started following some other folks in the last month cause i wanted to keep better tabs on some of the ridiculous chit they're posting. but, that adds to their following nonetheless.

i think there is still much value in much of the content. especially from some of the quality outlets.

i have previously argued that matt hits the nail on the head. but i also think he is throwing the baby out with the bath water, specifically in regards to his brother. not that it's quantifiable, but i think people like steve are doing monumentally more good for the resource than bad. of course i think the newberg brand ranks right up there too.



i still can't help but look at the situation, and see what feels like a devaluation of wildlife, for the sake of likes, clicks, money, whatever and think that the cost to obtain those likes, clicks, and money ought to be a little higher. social media is still so infant in the big scheme of things and i think many of the unintended consequences are only beginning to reveal themselves and many far from being realized.


lots still to chew on in your thoughts. appreciate the discussion thus far.