Matt Rinella is categorically confused

[brocksw]

I have done some listening to Matt's take on what we do in the industry as hunters, media consumers, and media producers. I have arrived at the following conclusions.

1. Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system. The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is? He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money.
2. Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority.
3. I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?
4. Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes.
5. Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does.
6. Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?
7. Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates.

All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway.

1. How much does his podcast cost to listen to? ZERO Dollars. How many sponsors does it have? ZERO. How many advertisements does his podcast have? ZERO.

His Tshirts are made locally in Miles City with multiple colors and some with double graphics. His price could very easily reflect cost, I know because I've had t-shirts made locally. It ain't as cheap as ordering them straight from China, especially if he's doing small batch orders.

2. How does he fail to understand that? Have you even listened to his podcast? You're failing to address the nuance and specifics in his discussions.

3. SEE UPOM

4. That claim is rooted in speculation and completely anecdotal. Most of the people I know that consistently shoot trophy/giant antlered animals, do little to nothing for conservation. In fact, a vast majority of hunters do little to nothing for conversation outside of maybe a $35 membership or going to banquet so they can try and win something. Compare tag numbers to testimonies in the legislature, public comments for management plans, etc. It's not even close. By that I mean, ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE. Matt was more involved than Cammy Hanes, Joe Rogan, and probably you (conjecture).....combined.

5. Weak argument that dodges the actual stance he takes.

6. NO. Go hang out with muley freak and the blowmars.

7. It's because of a lot of things

All in all, your argument and your post in general, is poorly thought out. Cam and Joe aren't "participating in the system". They're gaming it, and exploiting it, and calling the people who actually participate in "the system", "Socialists". Spare me your defense of hunting celebrities.

 

[atlas]

I asked Matt if there was a boost in T shirt sales after his Rogan video. Matt doesn't even know how many shirts are sold because the orders are completely fulfilled by the shop and he doesn't ever handle any of the orders. He'd have to call them to find out.

The T shirt shop is the real winner here

 

[Forkyfinder]

Being a hater of or fan of any of these influencers isnt my point. I am not a regular consumer of hunting media, except meateater and randys associated shows.

The point is - Matt Rinella isnt a bit different than any of the people he is putting down. He is worse - because he's only relevant because of it.

It does not matter if there are 100 hunters or 200,000 in this state - the focus needs to be on management.

The only reason anyone would advocate for less hunters and more game is that they selfishly want to hang on to both quality and opportunity by having less people involved. Its not a formula to win in the long term, not with the state managers, not with landowners, not with the non hunting public.


Besides that - there are MANY places in the south, east, and mid west that NEED more hunters. Excess hunting pressure is something we deal with here in the west, but thats not the story everywhere.

Do people really think the successful elk reintroduction efforts in kentucky, penn, nebraska, and north dakota would be a priority without hunters being adamently interested in them?

 

[atlas]

Elk were restored all over the west before TV and social media. So I don't see why there wouldn't be interest to continue doing so.

 

[Forkyfinder]

1. How much does his podcast cost to listen to? ZERO Dollars How many sponsors does it have? ZERO How many advertisements does his podcast have? ZERO

His Tshirts are made locally in Miles City with multiple colors and some with double graphics. His price could very easily reflect cost, I know because I've had t-shirts made locally. It ain't as cheap as ordering them straight from China, especially if he's doing small batch orders.

2. How does he fail to understand that? Have you even listened to his podcast? You're failing to address the nuance and specifics in his discussions.

3. SEE MOGA

4. That claim is rooted in speculation and completely anecdotal. Most of the people I know that consistently shoot trophy/giant antlered animals, do little to nothing for conservation. In fact, a vast majority of hunters do little to nothing for conversation outside of maybe a $35 membership or going to banquet so they can try and win something. Compare tag numbers to testimonies in the legislature, public comments for management plans, etc. It's not even close. By that I mean, ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE. Matt was more involved than Cammy Hanes, Joe Rogan, and probably you (conjecture).....combined.

5. Weak argument that dodges the actual stance he takes.

6. NO. Go hang out with muley freak and the blowmars.

7. It's because of a lot of things

All in all, your argument and your post in general is poorly thought out. Cam and Joe aren't "participating in the system". They're gaming it and exploiting it and calling the people who actually participate in the system, "Socialists". Spare me your defense of hunting celebrities.

Im not "defending" them. I am saying Matt isnt a dime different than them.

Elk were restored all over the west before TV and social media. So I don't see why there wouldn't be interest to continue doing so.

Really? For what reason? I imagine it was out of the good of their hearts and would have been possible independent of the revenue from hunters, right?

 

[sclancy27]

Being a hater of or fan of any of these influencers isnt my point. I am not a regular consumer of hunting media, except meateater and randys associated shows.

The point is - Matt Rinella isnt a bit different than any of the people he is putting down. He is worse - because he's only relevant because of it.

It does not matter if there are 100 hunters or 200,000 in this state - the focus needs to be on management.

The only reason anyone would advocate for less hunters and more game is that they selfishly want to hang on to both quality and opportunity by having less people involved. Its not a formula to win in the long term, not with the state managers, not with landowners, not with the non hunting public.


Besides that - there are MANY places in the south, east, and mid west that NEED more hunters. Excess hunting pressure is something we deal with here in the west, but thats not the story everywhere.

Do people really think the successful elk reintroduction efforts in kentucky, penn, nebraska, and north dakota would be a priority without hunters being adamently interested in them?

That's a pretty interesting take as he is the only one that does actual ecology work and has a career based on improving the quality of habitat.

 

[brocksw]

That's a pretty interesting take as he is the only one that does actual ecology work and has a career based on improving the quality of habitat.

And he's volunteered (look it up Cam and Joe) on behalf of conservation efforts.

He's also not taking sponsorship money, hunting ultra premium ranches, or killing for content....

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I have done some listening to Matt's take on what we do in the industry as hunters, media consumers, and media producers. I have arrived at the following conclusions.

1. Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system. The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is? He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money.
2. Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority.
3. I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?
4. Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes.
5. Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does.
6. Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?
7. Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates.

All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway.

I would venture to say Matt loses money on his endeavor to ask people to hunt quietly. So you lost me at number 1.

 

[WapitiBob]

I’m not but clearly the people of wyo have had enough… so they are telling us via cuts, which is their right, now where will all those guys go? Will Randy give all the newbies strategies for that. Guess what lots of places are shutting their doors. All I’m saying is maybe we don’t need to sell more t-shirts or advertise more for a resource that is already not available at the scale that it was a handful of years ago because of elevated interest.

WY cut Pronghorn tags because of herd counts, they slightly increased nr Elk tags for 2024 with the elimination of the 7250 cap.
I've had a license for the last 56 years and have dealt with new hunters and the issues they create for decades. Buy a tag at the store, gone. Hunt with bow then rifle, gone. Hunt most of the state OTC, gone. I deal with it because I don't deserve a tag any more than the next guy. Especially a new guy that doesn't live out here and has never been hunting.
There aren't more hunters at Rinellas trailhead unless it's in an unlimited otc area. In those areas, you can absolutely see addl hunters, probably due to SM, forums, and friends. No argument from me there. But again, I deal with it. Same as I do for draw hunts. Does it suck my odds are in the crapper? yep, so I spend more time figuring stuff out.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The hammering flatbillers will be along shortly pounding the like button.

Seems like there are more people worshipping at the altar of matt than anything else.

That's a pretty interesting take as he is the only one that does actual ecology work and has a career based on improving the quality of habitat.

What he does for a career isnt what im arguing, obviously.

His position on "less hunters" being inherently good for conservation because hes sick of hunting pressure is what im disagreeing with. Thats an issue in the west, particularily Montana - because of management.

 

[Gellar]

Matt is a heck of an ecologist.

Could the positions he takes through Huntquietly ever have a negative impact on his career with the state of Montana?

edit: Sorry I see now he works for the USDA.

 

[FREAK]

I have done some listening to Matt's take on what we do in the industry as hunters, media consumers, and media producers. I have arrived at the following conclusions.

1. Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system. The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is? He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money.
2. Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority.
3. I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?
4. Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes.
5. Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does.
6. Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?
7. Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates.

All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Could the positions he takes through Huntquietly ever have a negative impact on his career with the state of Montana?

edit: Sorry I see now he works for the USDA.

Hunt quietly podcast.

Thats about like a bomb peacefully war.

 

[sclancy27]

Seems like there are more people worshipping at the altar of matt than anything else.


What he does for a career isnt what im arguing, obviously.

His position on "less hunters" being inherently good for conservation because hes sick of hunting pressure is what im disagreeing with. Thats an issue in the west, particularily Montana - because of management.

The position of "more hunters" being inherently good is nonsense also. We have more hunters in the west than ever before, how many people are showing up to commission meetings and fighting....?

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Seems like there are more people worshipping at the altar of matt than anything else

He has 6,000 followers on Instagram just how relevant do you think Matt is? Money must just be rolling in like the movie blow! Just bedrooms stacked with cash! Lol.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Seems like there are more people worshipping at the altar of matt than anything else.

Matt ain't saving the hunting world, nor is anyone else; he's just asking hunters to think about their motives a bit. The vehement defensiveness of some is reliable and telling.

Oh also welcome to HT.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I have done some listening to Matt's take on what we do in the industry as hunters, media consumers, and media producers. I have arrived at the following conclusions.

1. Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system. The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is? He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money.
2. Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority.
3. I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?
4. Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes.
5. Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does.
6. Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?
7. Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates.

All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The position of "more hunters" being inherently good is nonsense also. We have more hunters in the west than ever before, how many people are showing up to commission meetings and fighting....?

If the comission decides to shit on a public resource, what are the ramifications if theres no interest in the public resource?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

If the comission decides to shit on a public resource, what are the ramifications if theres no interest in the public resource?

What if there's declining interest in the public resource, because it's over-exploited and hammered to oblivion? It just goes in circles.

 

[sclancy27]

If the comission decides to shit on a public resource, what are the ramifications if theres no interest in the public resource?

Your position is more is better. I'm saying that isn't the case or it would show in those meetings.

Further, I would almost guarantee that there is an inverse relationship between 'dollars in' for game agencies (a surrogate for hunter #'s) and hunter acceptance. More dipshits = more problems

There is simply no data to suggest that more hunters does us any bit of good. The argument that more hunters will give us a leg up against legislation is a joke, we are a huge minority, always have been always will be. This issue is we need to be innocuous to the general voting public. With more hunters we get more bad behavior that, unfortunately, gets filmed or otherwise captured to be used against us with normal voting people. We will never convince anti-hunters that hunting is good. What we need to do is make sure that the average voter doesn't see hunters acting crazy and doing dumb shit and unfortunately more hunters and more hunting media does just that.