Rinella article.. CUT AND PASTED

[westbranch]

The newest meateater podcast did not have Matt. Maybe next week.

This week was pretty good covering the corner crossing and a few other conservation topics with Dave Willms from NWF and Nephi Cole form NSSF.

 

[BlazerBeam]

Is showing people pics of your dead critters any worse for promoting hunting that reading Jack O'Conner stories about far off lands and game?

"promoting hunting" should stop. Why does it need to be promoted at all? Defending hunting, preserving hunting, increasing opportunities for hunting is not done through selling hunting and packing the woods mon-sun in the fall months

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I met Steve Rinella while hunting pigs on Tejon Ranch. He was an arrogant, "too good to mingle with the peons" kind of guy. Joe Rogan was with him, and he was just the opposite. Friendly, hang out and have a beer around the fire with us. He was full of funny stories and enjoyed hearing ours.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

So I agreed more with Matt's article than I did that podcast. I came away after listening that he's just a cranky hypocritical old man.

Is showing people pics of your dead critters any worse for promoting hunting that reading Jack O'Conner stories about far off lands and game? How can you be fine with O'Conner and not Steve or Randy? Did Outdoor Life not sell ads alongside Jack's stories?

He seems to be more against the general idea of profiteering off public resources.

Yeah I think the over-the-top spin on some of his angles hurts his credibility and makes it hard for some people to gather the main points. I also think we'd be about where we are in the hunting world regardless of what the names were in hunting media.
There's no way Matt's deal is going to turn any tides, regardless of whether that's good or bad...but if it spurs some people to take a breath and self-evaluate their motives that's a very good thing IMO. That and it's absolutely reasonable to call some of the overmarketed BS exactly what it is.

 

[redhub1]

What are you smokin? why do folks not understand that decreased opportunity and access is because of the rapid growth of interest. These are two things working directly opposite of one another.


Exactly the point. They've inspired too many of you


suck at drawing tags??? how does one suck at that?

"They've inspired too many of you."
Here we go again. Me/us vs. You/them. Everyone has just as much of a right to hunt as you, even if they are a newcomer.

"why do folks not understand that decreased opportunity and access is because of the rapid growth of interest"
Because it's much more complex than "too many new hunters." Larger populations = more housing developments and shopping centers = less animal habitat and populations. You can't stop a growing nation. The only way to get better hunting opportunity is with a time machine.

 

[88man]

"promoting hunting" should stop. Why does it need to be promoted at all? Defending hunting, preserving hunting, increasing opportunities for hunting is not done through selling hunting and packing the woods mon-sun in the fall months

what doesn't grow dies

 

[Wrong Burgundy]

Oh heavens no. I left prior to that. The hardcore bro culture with no semblance of conservation ethic wore me out.

I was "kicked off" or whatever they do to one's account when I questioned the validity of someone's covid 'cure' as well as you know who's genius idea of ingesting bleach, etc. and I apparently was not allowed to question or make fun of their "Respected Supreme Leader Comrade" for his insane/dangerous ideas....but as a whole, Rokslide seems like a lot of conspiracy theorists who also hunt. Pass.

 

[88man]

Hunting is becoming like golf> Lots of folks say they golf but in reality how often do they play. They buy really expensive clothing and footwear and clubs but they watch golf more than they play. Because they watch so much they become experts rather quickly. Course is always crowded > conditions are not as good as they should be> I'm jealous of those guys who join the country club.
Just replace with Hunting.

 

[RobertD]

The number of people in the U.S. is expanding exponentially.

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, so please don't take it that way. But I highlighted this statement because in every thread similar to this one, someone repeats this myth.

According to the most recent census data, US population increased about 7 percent from 2010-2020, down from the rate of about 9 from 00-10, and lower than any decade since the 1930s.

Also, birth rates in large segments of the population are below replacement level, and I don't see much impetus for relaxed immigration policy to counteract the fact.

In short: Our country's population is growing, but much more slowly than people seem to think, and it may well continue to slow if nothing changes.

 

[Irrelevant]

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, so please don't take it that way. But I highlighted this statement because in every thread similar to this one, someone repeats this myth.

According to the most recent census data, US population increased about 7 percent from 2010-2020, down from the rate of about 9 from 00-10, and lower than any decade since the 1930s.

Also, birth rates in large segments of the population are below replacement level, and I don't see much impetus for relaxed immigration policy to counteract the fact.

In short: Our country's population is growing, but much more slowly than people seem to think, and it may well continue to slow if nothing changes.

 

[BlazerBeam]

"They've inspired too many of you."
Here we go again. Me/us vs. You/them. Everyone has just as much of a right to hunt as you, even if they are a newcomer.

"why do folks not understand that decreased opportunity and access is because of the rapid growth of interest"
Because it's much more complex than "too many new hunters." Larger populations = more housing developments and shopping centers = less animal habitat and populations. You can't stop a growing nation. The only way to get better hunting opportunity is with a time machine.

"right to hunt"
I hate that phrase. What if you don't have a single tag next season? Or for the next 10 seasons, because there were so many people who applied? Do you still have the "right to hunt" for the next 10 years?? No. So the direction things are headed with so much more interest in hunting, there will be limited opportunities. You and I, and many other hunters will slowly lose their "right" to hunt in a round about way. So, sure keep supporting the youtubers, and hunting propaganda and "recruitment" efforts and ignore the outcome. I'm not saying to cut off the number of hunters that try it out each year. I'm saying quit selling hunting and yelling it from the rooftops and calling it good for the sport and tradition of hunting.

 

[BlazerBeam]

what doesn't grow dies

very ghandi-like, but yours and your posterity's individual opportunity to hunt will slowly die if growth through selling hunting does not come to an end.

 

[D_Walt]

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, so please don't take it that way. But I highlighted this statement because in every thread similar to this one, someone repeats this myth.

According to the most recent census data, US population increased about 7 percent from 2010-2020, down from the rate of about 9 from 00-10, and lower than any decade since the 1930s.

Also, birth rates in large segments of the population are below replacement level, and I don't see much impetus for relaxed immigration policy to counteract the fact.

In short: Our country's population is growing, but much more slowly than people seem to think, and it may well continue to slow if nothing changes.

True, but western states are growing rapidly, more people less game will decrease opportunity, especially for NR’s. There will still be hunting opportunities, perhaps just not a dozen tags a year. Fortunately our forefathers, who unlike Matt Rinella, gave a damn about the future and future generations and established incredible public lands and a system to hold them in the public trust that will ensure hunting recreational opportunities in perpetuity, IF there are enough people who continue to care and advocate for such a cause.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

True, but western states are growing rapidly, more people less game will decrease opportunity, especially for NR’s. There will still be hunting opportunities, perhaps just not a dozen tags a year. Fortunately our forefathers, who unlike Matt Rinella, gave a damn about the future and future generations and established incredible public lands and a system to hold them in the public trust that will ensure hunting recreational opportunities in perpetuity, IF there are enough people who continue to care and advocate for such a cause. Screw Matt Rinella.

This is what I mean…“screw Matt Rinella”? Did you read the article? There are some things in there that I can't imagine someone who wrote what you just did disagreeing with with, despite the tone and some points that are off-putting, maybe even wrong.

I'm not sure how many peer reviewed papers you have out there on noxious weed control and ecosystem restoration, but I don't think he's quite the useless human you make him out to be.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's some great treatise we should all worship, but there's a lot of country between all right and all wrong.

 

[Cornell2012]

I agree with Matt R on many points, but think he's overlooking some important aspects. One is the context of which service is used. Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube have huge userbases that span across a variety of demographics. In these cases, we need to be aware of how hunting is being presented to non-hunters. Forums like HT are made up of self-selected users who presumably are interested in hunting content. I've stopped posting pictures of dead animals on my personal pages after my girlfriend's non-hunting family was scandalized by dead duck photos a few years back. My most recent hunting content on my personal page? A timelapse of a duck blind from earlier this year and a photo of my bull from 2018 bedded down a few minutes before I shot. When I post hunting content to my personal page, I try to show more of the story than just shortcutting to the kill shot.

I agree with Matt that social media is a powerful force. It consumes large portions of the average American's life. Where I disagree is that we should be silent on social media. We need to be proactive in portraying hunting in the best light possible and bringing attention to anything important for the industry. How exactly we do that is an entirely different can of worms. I know that there is hunting content on social media that I do not approve of. I also know that hunting exists because the majority of the population allows it to exist. Normalizing hunting as an activity and showing that hunting is not an activity only for sociopathic killers (as PETA might have you believe) is important to make sure hunting continues to be tolerated by the masses. If we abandon social media (especially the easy-to-reach platforms like Instagram), we leave this generation's most powerful tool under firm control of the anti-hunters. I'd like to see posts that are not just grip and grins. For us hunters this conveys a story and brings back memories of hunts - they serve as a short of shortcut in our brains for everything that goes into a hunt. Non-hunters do not have this background context and I can see where grip and grins could be offensive.

Also in this article is talk of spots getting overrun with hunters. I'd love to be able to take credit for getting millions of people into the sport. I'm not sure anyone other than Steve could legitimately make that claim. I think there is something in his point about increased crowding on public land, though I'm not sure this is primarily due to social media. We've had an increase in new or reactivated hunters in recent years (for a variety of reasons). They typically won't have extensive connections of private landowners, so it makes sense that they would go to the land they can access. Social media will blow up some spots, no doubt, but as private lands get consolidated under corporate ownership, more people will get pushed to public. Now that we have this expanded hunter base, the next step is to get them to help out with more conservation and push for better access to existing public lands.

I get where Matt is coming from and I understand his points of frustration. I've just arrived at a different conclusion than he has. As hunters we need to do better. We need to make better content. We need to be better stewards of the lands. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. Steve has done hunting a huge favor by shifting the narrative and presenting the value of hunting from a more modern perspective. We should not abandon that work, but build on it.

 

[woods89]

Yeah I think the over-the-top spin on some of his angles hurts his credibility and makes it hard for some people to gather the main points. I also think we'd be about where we are in the hunting world regardless of what the names were in hunting media.
There's no way Matt's deal is going to turn any tides, regardless of whether that's good or bad...but if it spurs some people to take a breath and self-evaluate their motives that's a very good thing IMO. That and it's absolutely reasonable to call some of the overmarketed BS exactly what it is.

I agree with this. Nobody has it completely figured out, and Matt is no exception. But there is a lot of food for thought in that article.

 

[Nick87]

I've stopped posting pictures of dead animals on my personal pages after my girlfriend's non-hunting family was scandalized by dead duck photos a few years back

Scandalized? Not sarcasm wondering wgat happened?

 

[D_Walt]

This is what I mean…“screw Matt Rinella”? Did you read the article? There are some things in there that I can't imagine someone who wrote what you just did disagreeing with with, despite the tone and some points that are off-putting, maybe even wrong.

I'm not sure how many peer reviewed papers you have out there on noxious weed control and ecosystem restoration, but I don't think he's quite the useless human you make him out to be.

Fair point, no he’s not all bad and it is definitely a complex issue - I realize my cavalier keyboard warrior ending to the comment really added nothing to the conversation. Truth is, I liked and agree with most of the article, but I can’t get past the overall impression I get that it boils down to “don’t screw up my draw odds”.

 

[BenInMT]

I‘m guessing it’s hard for a lot of us here to put all this in perspective having come to hunting with the right intentions before social media existed. These stupid influencers only have power because people choose to follow their antics. We must mock them and unfollow them until all they are left with is the bots that just about every single one of them has purchased to beef up their follower count. I agree with Matt, especially his remarks about Joe Rogan, that guy should stick to talking about DMT until he actually goes out and kills an elk on his own.