Randy Newberg on Matt Rinella's Podcast

[Flatbrimmer]

Wow. I want so badly to listen. I couldn’t make it thru the first 5 minutes. That was like listening to the asthmatic kid from Malcom in the Middle.. Guy couldn’t spit it out lol

 

[Gerald Martin]

I know. In my business I deal with a lot of bankers and such that put on this “awe shucks I’m just a guy that grew up in a small town” schtick. My takeaway from the podcast is that Randy says what his intentions are but there is no reflection on if what he is doing is actually helping his stated cause. 10 plus years later I honestly don’t think he could say with a straight face it is. I would advise him that if his purpose is 100% what he says it is he should reorganize as a NONprofit and enjoy the preferences that would grant his organization.

I would bet $20 that when Randy read this comment he snorted with laughter because he has essentially run his entire production platform without profit.

 

[hearteater]

I would bet $20 that when Randy read this comment he snorted with laughter because he has essentially run his entire production platform without profit.

Yeah that’s what he says. Like was mentioned… a great politician. Didn’t your mom teach you that you can’t believe everything someone says. Let’s see the tax returns.

 

[DFS]

I would bet $20 that when Randy read this comment he snorted with laughter because he has essentially run his entire production platform without profit.

Come on Gerald I suspect his “not for profit” has paid for a lot if not all of his hunting expenses. Still waiting to see the wildlife benefit from it. Maybe you have seen it? Enlighten me.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

 

[375H&H]

My friends in Colstrip and other SE Montana towns have all said this video has improved their hunting experience and helped the wildlife there so maybe Randy is doing good work. Oh wait…

 

[Gerald Martin]

I listened to the podcast and thought it was a great conversation.

Matt is definitely passionate about attempting to alter the negative impacts to his and others hunting experience that come from increased hunter concentration on less accessible areas.

Matt calling attention to the negative aspects of what hunters post on social media has a lot of value if it can influence hunters to be more thoughtful of the image they present with the content they post.

I came away from listening to the episode with the impression that Matt is so fixated on social media and hunting TV as the source of all that’s wrong with hunting that his desire to do away with all social media depiction of dead wildlife is more emotional in origin than a well rationalized path towards better policies and approaches to protecting the quality of hunting.

He is promoting a simplistic (and unattainable) solution to solve complex issues. If he could attain his desired goals it wouldn’t achieve the hoped for results.

It is my impression that he is attempting to promote his personal aesthetic as the metric by which all “appropriate” hunting should be measured.
Social media is a communication tool. What the tool is used for and how it is used is what determines whether the benefits outweigh the negative impacts of the tool.

There is no doubt that there are some negative impacts to hunting because of social media’s influence. However, at the end of the day it is the responsibility of managing agencies and us as hunters holding them accountable to ensure that proper management policies are in place to protect our resources.

Having a mental snapshot of the “good ole days” as our point of reference to aim for and bemoan that things have changed tends to shift the focus of concerned individuals to a “glass half empty” negative approach rather than looking for ways to improve and adapt to present challenges.

I know personally, that if it wasn’t for the platforms of Hunttalk and social media, I would have never become informed or ventured into advocating for our interests at Helena and when wildlife management policies are up for discussion at FWP meetings. I was ignorant of the need for advocacy and the means by which I could become an advocate. How effective I am is probably debatable, but I know I wouldn’t even be engaged in the process without the influence of individuals who use social media as an effective tool.

 

[hearteater]

I listened to the podcast and thought it was a great conversation.

Matt is definitely passionate about attempting to alter the negative impacts to his and others hunting experience that come from increased hunter concentration on less accessible areas.

Matt calling attention to the negative aspects of what hunters post on social media has a lot of value if it can influence hunters to be more thoughtful of the image they present with the content they post.

I came away from listening to the episode with the impression that Matt is so fixated on social media and hunting TV as the source of all that’s wrong with hunting that his desire to do away with all social media depiction of dead wildlife is more emotional in origin than a well rationalized path towards better policies and approaches to protecting the quality of hunting.

He is promoting a simplistic (and unattainable) solution to solve complex issues. If he could attain his desired goals it wouldn’t achieve the hoped for results.

It is my impression that he is attempting to promote his personal aesthetic as the metric by which all “appropriate” hunting should be measured.
Social media is a communication tool. What the tool is used for and how it is used is what determines whether the benefits outweigh the negative impacts of the tool.

There is no doubt that there are some negative impacts to hunting because of social media’s influence. However, at the end of the day it is the responsibility of managing agencies and us as hunters holding them accountable to ensure that proper management policies are in place to protect our resources.

Having a mental snapshot of the “good ole days” as our point of reference to aim for and bemoan that things have changed tends to shift the focus of concerned individuals to a “glass half empty” negative approach rather than looking for ways to improve and adapt to present challenges.

I know personally, that if it wasn’t for the platforms of Hunttalk and social media, I would have never become informed or ventured into advocating for our interests at Helena and when wildlife management policies are up for discussion at FWP meetings. I was ignorant of the need for advocacy and the means by which I could become an advocate. How effective I am is probably debatable, but I know I wouldn’t even be engaged in the process without the influence of individuals who use social media as an effective tool.

You boys in Montana are sure doing a good job at advocating … let’s kill elk virtually year round and every deer as soon as his antlers fork

 

[DFS]

I listened to the podcast and thought it was a great conversation.

Matt is definitely passionate about attempting to alter the negative impacts to his and others hunting experience that come from increased hunter concentration on less accessible areas.

Matt calling attention to the negative aspects of what hunters post on social media has a lot of value if it can influence hunters to be more thoughtful of the image they present with the content they post.

I came away from listening to the episode with the impression that Matt is so fixated on social media and hunting TV as the source of all that’s wrong with hunting that his desire to do away with all social media depiction of dead wildlife is more emotional in origin than a well rationalized path towards better policies and approaches to protecting the quality of hunting.

He is promoting a simplistic (and unattainable) solution to solve complex issues. If he could attain his desired goals it wouldn’t achieve the hoped for results.

It is my impression that he is attempting to promote his personal aesthetic as the metric by which all “appropriate” hunting should be measured.
Social media is a communication tool. What the tool is used for and how it is used is what determines whether the benefits outweigh the negative impacts of the tool.

There is no doubt that there are some negative impacts to hunting because of social media’s influence. However, at the end of the day it is the responsibility of managing agencies and us as hunters holding them accountable to ensure that proper management policies are in place to protect our resources.

Having a mental snapshot of the “good ole days” as our point of reference to aim for and bemoan that things have changed tends to shift the focus of concerned individuals to a “glass half empty” negative approach rather than looking for ways to improve and adapt to present challenges.

I know personally, that if it wasn’t for the platforms of Hunttalk and social media, I would have never become informed or ventured into advocating for our interests at Helena and when wildlife management policies are up for discussion at FWP meetings. I was ignorant of the need for advocacy and the means by which I could become an advocate. How effective I am is probably debatable, but I know I wouldn’t even be engaged in the process without the influence of individuals who use social media as an effective tool.

Still waiting for how the wildlife have benefited from this scheme? Name specifics. Name one win for wildlife, I can’t think of any or haven’t seen any.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Come on Gerald I suspect his “not for profit” has paid for a lot if not all of his hunting expenses. Still waiting to see the wildlife benefit from it. Maybe you have seen it? Enlighten me.

How many advocates for conservation and wildlife management has your negativity and criticism inspired to get engaged and actively participate? Enlighten me.

 

[DFS]

How many advocates for conservation and wildlife management has your negativity and criticism inspired to get engaged and actively participate? Enlighten me.

Several of my buddies, which is exactly how it should work. Still waiting for how exploiting wildlife has helped things Gerald?

 

[Gerald Martin]

You boys in Montana are sure doing a good job at advocating … let’s kill elk virtually year round and every deer as soon as his antlers fork

Classy. Mock the advocates who try to change the status quo because they aren’t able to completely counter the lobby of UPOM, MOGA, and the agriculture lobby in Helena. Thanks for all your help the past few sessions.

 

[hearteater]

Classy. Mock the advocates who try to change the status quo because they aren’t able to completely counter the lobby of UPOM, MOGA, and the agriculture lobby in Helena. Thanks for all your help the past few sessions.

So it sounds like what Randy is doing is helping? Or is empowering moga and others by increasing demand and competition for the resource and thus making it more lucrative and valuable??? The direction of game management in Montana is headed south and has been for a long time I suggest you stop digging your heals in and attempt different tactics

 

[Gerald Martin]

Several of my buddies, which is exactly how it should work. Still waiting for how exploiting wildlife has helped things Gerald?

Define “exploiting”. Is it the FWP who is funded by license sales? Is it outfitters who sell hunts? Is it landowners who lease property for the hunting of wildlife? Is it the residents of Montana who shoot animals for food and enjoyment? Is it anyone who kills an animal or who makes money from the sale of equipment?

Or, are the only exploiters of wildlife the individuals who video the process and promote it on social media?

 

[hearteater]

Define “exploiting”. Is it the FWP who is funded by license sales? Is it outfitters who sale hunts? Is it landowners who lease property for the hunting of wildlife? Is it the residents of Montana who shoot animals for food and enjoyment? Is it anyone who kills an animal or who makes money from the sale of equipment?

Or, are the only exploiters of wildlife the individuals who video the process and promote it on social media?

It’s the people who profit greatly off of it. Have you seen the new GoHunt headquarters? Heard it’s nicknamed the house that Randy built. That’s who is benefiting

 

[Gerald Martin]

So it sounds like what Randy is doing is helping? Or is empowering moga and others by increasing demand and competition for the resource and thus making it more lucrative and valuable??? The direction of game management in Montana is headed south and has been for a long time I suggest you stop digging your heals in and attempt different tactics

The folks buying up multi million dollar ranches and posting no trespassing signs and outfitters and hunt clubs leasing private ranches aren’t coming to Montana because they watch Fresh Tracks with Randy Newberg.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Still waiting for how the wildlife have benefited from this scheme? Name specifics. Name one win for wildlife, I can’t think of any or haven’t seen any.

What did you think of Randy's series on the elk restoration in Kentucky?

QQ

 

[hearteater]

The folks buying up multi million dollar ranches and posting no trespassing signs and outfitters and hunt clubs leasing private ranches aren’t coming to Montana because they watch Fresh Tracks with Randy Newberg.

Does “Fresh tracks with Randy Newberg” lessen pressure on public lands? I don’t think it does or he would be failing horribly at his stated goal

 

[DFS]

Define “exploiting”. Is it the FWP who is funded by license sales? Is it outfitters who sale hunts? Is it landowners who lease property for the hunting of wildlife? Is it the residents of Montana who shoot animals for food and enjoyment? Is it anyone who kills an animal or who makes money from the sale of equipment?

Or, are the only exploiters of wildlife the individuals who video the process and promote it on social media?

All players in the game. Bringing more people to the table certainly hasn’t helped anything. If anything we have made things way worse. I would love to see wins for wildlife whoever leads it and however it happens.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Does “Fresh tracks with Randy Newberg” lessen pressure on public lands? I don’t think it does or he would be failing horribly at his stated goal

No, Randy’s show does not lessen pressure on public lands. Does it create and influence advocates for conservation? Yes it does.

The hunting landscape in the West has been changing for a long time. Loss of access to leasing and amenity ranches is a major factor affecting hunters. Loss of access because of poor hunter behavior is a factor. Gross mismanagement of wildlife on public lands because of management policies forced on hunters by the legislature to accommodate demands of ranchers who want less competition from wildlife is a huge negative factor.

The influence of Randy’s show and other media influencers has a negative impact in crowding in terms of showing the availability of accessing public land. It is my opinion that the positive influence of raising awareness and creating advocates to counter the lobbying and influence of more exploitive interests is a net positive for hunters. Complain all you want about the effects of Newberg’s media presence. If his presence were not part of the picture hunting in Montana would be much worse today.

Look at the dozens of terrible wildlife bills advanced during the past legislative sessions. Bills that would open the door and pave the way to increased privatization of public trust resources. Bills and movements that would have advanced the transfer of federal public lands to state control and eventual private sale. Many of those bills would have passed if it weren’t for this platforms and other media presences and personalities like Randy.


Look at Matt’s own brother, Steve. He has probably done more than any other person in the past decade to influence adult onset hunters and improve the image of hunters and hunting with mainstream society. Matt himself has participated in the production of Meateater episodes.

To point out only the negative aspects without acknowledging the positives because it isn’t “like it used to be” and I don’t want competition is more self interested in origin than concern for the future of hunting.