Is social media hurting the great outdoors experience?

[TOGIE]

you can pull up those old news clippings about Colorado Fish and Game/CPW again @wllm1313

people were moanin about too many people ruining hunting long before social media. i do wonder what they were blaming back then...

"ah that effin outdoors guy on the radio said something about goin elk huntin up by willow crik! now all these yuppies in oldsmobile's are ruinin the place. gosh durnit!"

freakin radio programs, ruining hunting.

 

[jhickman1]

nope. none of that is true. and you are part of the problem. saying that we "need to share this passion to pull more people in" only means: "Money can be made by hunting and fishing and posting about it." Would people devote so much time to "sharing this passion" via social media if they did not receive money or attention???? No sir.

Ok, I’m trying to sort through your point. It seems like you don’t want people to share their passions but then it seems like you just don’t want them to if “someone “ will make money from it. Have you ever mentioned to a coworker that you liked your truck. You better not cause he might buy one and put money in the salesman’s pocket lol. I like my Vortex Bono’s and I may tag them or tell a friend about them. He might go buy a pair. Good for Vortex! That means someone feeds their family tonight. That’s not bad, it’s capitalism.

This logic you are presenting just doesn’t match life. I said that I posted about what I was passionate about… I did not say I got paid. A lot of ppl are on SM…. But probably only the top 5% (or less even)of accounts make anything close to what we would call decent money. I think you are upset that some people make money talking about what they love and in turn help many others make money selling what they love so they can also continue to do what they love. What is the problem with that?

 

[jhickman1]

small-time youtube channels I assume can also slip under the radar and film as they please and say "well my channel isn't even monetized yet therefore it's not for commercial use" or "I'm just documenting my hunts so family can watch later".

Yes, if they aren’t monetized than in fact, it isn’t for commercial use. No different than you coming on the forum and saying “let me tell you about the deer hunt I just had and here is the pic” or a hiker on his IG story filming himself at the top of a mountain he climbed. If you pay taxes, you should be allowed to be there on public land with a camera in your hand.

 

[TripleT LLC]

Way more fishing pressure on the Erie & Ontario trib steelhead than I've ever seen before (then I see YouTube videos and Instagram posts featuring steelhead and it all makes sense). Everyone is hunting coues deer now - pre social media few people even knew that was a thing.

I've also heard social media is making some of Earth's best kept secrets crowded with visitors.

Is it all cyclical and the interest will die off or will it only get worse?

Yes

 

[matechakeric]

Yes, if they aren’t monetized than in fact, it isn’t for commercial use. No different than you coming on the forum and saying “let me tell you about the deer hunt I just had and here is the pic” or a hiker on his IG story filming himself at the top of a mountain he climbed. If you pay taxes, you should be allowed to be there on public land with a camera in your hand.

But if you require 1000 subs and x hours if watch time to get monetized by YouTube ads, and you make money off affiliate sales, you can still be under that 1000 sub threshold but be growing towards the goal by filming without permit

 

[VikingsGuy]

The entertainment and advertising industries have completely changed since , , , whatever , , , the 80s.

FIFY

 

[Deleted member 28227]

you can pull up those old news clippings about Colorado Fish and Game/CPW again @wllm1313

people were moanin about too many people ruining hunting long before social media. i do wonder what they were blaming back then...

"ah that effin outdoors guy on the radio said something about goin elk huntin up by willow crik! now all these yuppies in oldsmobile's are ruinin the place. gosh durnit!"

freakin radio programs, ruining hunting.

Same problems 50 years ago

------------------
#11

 

[Deleted member 28227]

FIFY

 

[The Hedgehog]

Without Facebook instagram and hunting forums - what in the absolute hell would there be to mimic, make fun of, and laugh about while hunting?

 

[TOGIE]

------------------
#11

ah yes, nothing like taking in the pristine beauty of the alpine lake in a button up and slacks or a waist drop dress with a belt.

 

[Cornell2012]

Do you think filming hunts (with a permit) and selling the filmed content has a positive or negative (overall in the long-run) impact on the future opportunity AND quality of hunting? If positive impact, how? If negative, then why do you do it?

I think it is a long-term positive, though we are in a period of change and there are some pains associated with it. Buckle in, this is going to be a long post.

1. The big names in hunting media are doing a better job of teaching ethical hunting, and showing that there is more to a hunt than the trophy shot. I've got to hand it to Meateater - they are really the poster child for making hunting about more than the rack on the wall. They have huge reach and I appreciate the work that they've done. The fact that they managed to get on Netflix means that they have an absurd amount of reach. I'm comfortable with them being the face of hunting, especially when considering the alternatives that we had previously (which, frankly, were embarrassing). The only reason that hunting didn't get hated out of existence is that the shows were on an obscure channel where the average Joe didn't really find them.

I feel like Meateater alone has prolonged the political life of hunting by at least a generation. The more advocates we have (including those that do not hunt but have a positive view of it) the easier it will be to keep the sport alive.

2. Based on my anecdotal evidence, the new hunters tend to be more respectful of the land, and safer hunters. There are some people that I will not hunt with because they are not safe. Very few of them are new to hunting. It seems that there is a strain of "this is how my family has always done this so I don't need to follow the rules." New hunters are coachable and tend to be cognizant of the fact that they are toting around a lethal weapon. A greater percentage of new hunters are in it for the meat or the experience than they are the trophy at the end. I think that competition for the biggest rack can drive people to behaving poorly. As part of hunting media, we see it as our responsibility to help people get out in the field in a safe and respectful fashion.

3. The new hunters tend to look less like me, and come from a variety of backgrounds. This is helping break the stereotype of hunters as racist rednecks (which is a hard image to fight for). Hunting is a way to introduce guns and shooting sports to a group of people who may have never thought about shooting a gun before. I think this helps us in the war of public opinion against anti-hunters and overreaching gun control.

4. The current system has flaws, and the increased numbers are just bringing them to the forefront. Preference point draw systems are a racket (this could be an entire post by itself - let's just say I would be happy to give up my points to move to a system that doesn't lock out those who didn't happen to be born to a hunting family). There are states where new hunters will literally never live long enough to draw a premier tag, yet newcomers are still going hunting. They tend to congregate in places that have opportunity, usually easy to draw or OTC tags on public land. As @VikingsGuy said, they have the privilege to recreate on the land just as we do. If a newbie is hiking 5 miles in to your favorite back woods hunting spot, it seems like they have discovered a real passion - I know plenty of longtime hunters that won't go more than a quarter mile from the truck. I can't find issue with someone putting in the work to try and find success. I think part of why hunting was suffering not long ago is that the barrier to entry was too high. Hunting media has helped get them over that initial hump. It is my personal opinion that anyone who has the desire and drive to go hunting should have the opportunity to do so.

5. Part of the crowding issue is due to people losing access to private land. I don't have any stats, but I've heard a number of stories where this has happened. My gut feeling is that this is happening more as big corporations take over smaller plots of land, or as owners realize that they can make money off of leasing land. The hunters who weren't invested will probably quit, but those that are will continue to hunt, likely moving to public land where they can get access.

6. We are still far from the days of overhunting animals. We have structures in place to help conserve populations (though as I mentioned earlier, I feel they could be improved). At the same time, we have populations that could stand to have significantly more hunting pressure (thinking of the Light Goose Conservation Order, or even overpopulated deer in some areas of the east coast). If we have sustained interest in hunting, then over time we might see some OTC units move to limited entry. This happened for Oregon's archery elk seasons this past year. I'm actually okay with this as it means we are still listening to our biologists.

7. As more people get in to hunting, more money goes towards conservation, and land managers have better justification to keeping it open to the public and relatively undisturbed. I think that three long-term threats to hunting will be loss of access, a change in political opinion, and issues with climate change (right now it is looking like droughts are hitting some places hard, but this can be anything from wildfires to exceptionally hard winters). If we have better footing for public access, I only see that as a benefit to hunting.

With all of these together, I think that hunting as a sport is the healthiest it has been in some time. We're doing a better job at getting people outdoors in a responsible fashion. We're winning advocates that we hopefully can keep on our side. We're helping to fund programs that will benefit hunters long-term. The tradeoff is that certain places are getting more use. We have mechanisms in place to prevent the worst impacts of overuse. I don't think hunting media is responsible for 100% of these changes, but I do believe it has had an overall net benefit.

 

[DouglasR]

I confess that I had a sinking feeling last year when I approached another hunter while I was deer hunting and he said, "I recognize you from Randy's site." Made me rethink my posting strategy for sure.

I would’ve asked for a photo.
No joke.

 

[Oak]

I would’ve asked for a photo.
No joke.

I'm way less impressive in person. That's the magic of social media.

 

[jt13]

Social media, especially forums and podcasts, has shaped my personal and professional life. Everything that I learned to go hunting out west was through some type of internet based information until I got out there to learn on my own. Just because I saw it read it online or listened to it in a podcast does that devalue it’s importance or my experiences?

I bet lots of the anti-social media folks bought stuff like Bill Jordan’s “Realtree’s Monster Bulls of 1994”. I watched someone like Randy on YouTube. There is no difference...

 

[BlazerBeam]

Ok, I’m trying to sort through your point. It seems like you don’t want people to share their passions but then it seems like you just don’t want them to if “someone “ will make money from it. Have you ever mentioned to a coworker that you liked your truck. You better not cause he might buy one and put money in the salesman’s pocket lol. I like my Vortex Bono’s and I may tag them or tell a friend about them. He might go buy a pair. Good for Vortex! That means someone feeds their family tonight. That’s not bad, it’s capitalism.

This logic you are presenting just doesn’t match life. I said that I posted about what I was passionate about… I did not say I got paid. A lot of ppl are on SM…. But probably only the top 5% (or less even)of accounts make anything close to what we would call decent money. I think you are upset that some people make money talking about what they love and in turn help many others make money selling what they love so they can also continue to do what they love. What is the problem with that?

my problem/point is this:

Elk and deer are not unlimited. Ford can make as many trucks as the market demands. However, the mountains cannot produce as many critters as the hunting "market" will soon be demanding. Either the hunting "market"/demand burns up the resource, or a given hunter will only be able to hunt every X number of years. So either the quality of the hunt diminishes or the opportunity to hunt diminishes. In my opinion that is where things are headed. If there is truth to that, then why do guys continue to sell and market hunting?
You cannot compare a manufactured good to a very fragile resource and say that both fall within the realm of capitalism.

 

[noharleyyet]

I'm way less impressive in person. That's the magic of social media.

 

[wolfpup]

It's a double edge sword for sure! I feel we on the forum get a false sense of security with other members on the forum and feel that we are all a close group of friends around the campfire and want to share our stories and get carried away by saying this place in this unit. Sometimes I start a post and then reread and think holy cow I almost said the exact spot for the hundreds of others that see this can go right to the same place I just had success.

 

[BlazerBeam]

I think it is a long-term positive, though we are in a period of change and there are some pains associated with it. Buckle in, this is going to be a long post.

1. The big names in hunting media are doing a better job of teaching ethical hunting, and showing that there is more to a hunt than the trophy shot. I've got to hand it to Meateater - they are really the poster child for making hunting about more than the rack on the wall. They have huge reach and I appreciate the work that they've done. The fact that they managed to get on Netflix means that they have an absurd amount of reach. I'm comfortable with them being the face of hunting, especially when considering the alternatives that we had previously (which, frankly, were embarrassing). The only reason that hunting didn't get hated out of existence is that the shows were on an obscure channel where the average Joe didn't really find them.

I feel like Meateater alone has prolonged the political life of hunting by at least a generation. The more advocates we have (including those that do not hunt but have a positive view of it) the easier it will be to keep the sport alive.

2. Based on my anecdotal evidence, the new hunters tend to be more respectful of the land, and safer hunters. There are some people that I will not hunt with because they are not safe. Very few of them are new to hunting. It seems that there is a strain of "this is how my family has always done this so I don't need to follow the rules." New hunters are coachable and tend to be cognizant of the fact that they are toting around a lethal weapon. A greater percentage of new hunters are in it for the meat or the experience than they are the trophy at the end. I think that competition for the biggest rack can drive people to behaving poorly. As part of hunting media, we see it as our responsibility to help people get out in the field in a safe and respectful fashion.

3. The new hunters tend to look less like me, and come from a variety of backgrounds. This is helping break the stereotype of hunters as racist rednecks (which is a hard image to fight for). Hunting is a way to introduce guns and shooting sports to a group of people who may have never thought about shooting a gun before. I think this helps us in the war of public opinion against anti-hunters and overreaching gun control.

4. The current system has flaws, and the increased numbers are just bringing them to the forefront. Preference point draw systems are a racket (this could be an entire post by itself - let's just say I would be happy to give up my points to move to a system that doesn't lock out those who didn't happen to be born to a hunting family). There are states where new hunters will literally never live long enough to draw a premier tag, yet newcomers are still going hunting. They tend to congregate in places that have opportunity, usually easy to draw or OTC tags on public land. As @VikingsGuy said, they have the privilege to recreate on the land just as we do. If a newbie is hiking 5 miles in to your favorite back woods hunting spot, it seems like they have discovered a real passion - I know plenty of longtime hunters that won't go more than a quarter mile from the truck. I can't find issue with someone putting in the work to try and find success. I think part of why hunting was suffering not long ago is that the barrier to entry was too high. Hunting media has helped get them over that initial hump. It is my personal opinion that anyone who has the desire and drive to go hunting should have the opportunity to do so.

5. Part of the crowding issue is due to people losing access to private land. I don't have any stats, but I've heard a number of stories where this has happened. My gut feeling is that this is happening more as big corporations take over smaller plots of land, or as owners realize that they can make money off of leasing land. The hunters who weren't invested will probably quit, but those that are will continue to hunt, likely moving to public land where they can get access.

6. We are still far from the days of overhunting animals. We have structures in place to help conserve populations (though as I mentioned earlier, I feel they could be improved). At the same time, we have populations that could stand to have significantly more hunting pressure (thinking of the Light Goose Conservation Order, or even overpopulated deer in some areas of the east coast). If we have sustained interest in hunting, then over time we might see some OTC units move to limited entry. This happened for Oregon's archery elk seasons this past year. I'm actually okay with this as it means we are still listening to our biologists.

7. As more people get in to hunting, more money goes towards conservation, and land managers have better justification to keeping it open to the public and relatively undisturbed. I think that three long-term threats to hunting will be loss of access, a change in political opinion, and issues with climate change (right now it is looking like droughts are hitting some places hard, but this can be anything from wildfires to exceptionally hard winters). If we have better footing for public access, I only see that as a benefit to hunting.

With all of these together, I think that hunting as a sport is the healthiest it has been in some time. We're doing a better job at getting people outdoors in a responsible fashion. We're winning advocates that we hopefully can keep on our side. We're helping to fund programs that will benefit hunters long-term. The tradeoff is that certain places are getting more use. We have mechanisms in place to prevent the worst impacts of overuse. I don't think hunting media is responsible for 100% of these changes, but I do believe it has had an overall net benefit.

thank you for the concise reply. These are all very good points. However, I just have not seen something that you and other folks keep alluding to: that hunting was being threatened and was on the brink of being done away with and therefore we needed to recruit millions of additional hunters to "have on our side" to protect the sport. I don't get that. And it is my personal opinion that that is just a talking point to justify business pursuits that pertain to hunting.

 

[2rocky]

I'm way less impressive in person. That's the magic of social media.

 

[jhickman1]

my problem/point is this:

Elk and deer are not unlimited. Ford can make as many trucks as the market demands. However, the mountains cannot produce as many critters as the hunting "market" will soon be demanding. Either the hunting "market"/demand burns up the resource, or a given hunter will only be able to hunt every X number of years. So either the quality of the hunt diminishes or the opportunity to hunt diminishes. In my opinion that is where things are headed. If there is truth to that, then why do guys continue to sell and market hunting?
You cannot compare a manufactured good to a very fragile resource and say that both fall within the realm of capitalism.

Trucks run on oil. Is that a fragile resource?

Look I don’t want every game animal shot out. I lived in an area in NC for years where anything bigger than a spike may be the best deer you’d see all season. They shot every deer that walked by. I also don’t want to have an overcrowding issue. That one in particular should be sorted out with the availability of permits at the state level though. I also don’t want to only get to hunt every few years. I applied for a MT deer tag this year (used to be a 100% successful draw) and didn’t get a tag.

Failing to draw a tag didn’t make me upset that there are “professional” and “semi-professional” hunters out there. I realize that everyone in this country deserves their chance to chase deer in MT or antelope in WY or whatever you like to do. Personally a NV ram tag would be a dream come true for me but, I realize I would have to wait my turn for it… maybe 20 years or more.

I think one fix for all of these issues is proper conservation efforts. These cost a lot of money and the more ppl we can recruit in to help support these causes the stronger the herds will be, the better trophy opportunities and the more tags that can be available. It’s a known fact that hunters contribute more to wildlife conservation than anyone. I just don’t want us to hide that mission from the world.