Selfishness and Hunting, Meet Matt Rinella and Tag Allocations

[BlazerBeam]

As a positive example would be this recent corner crossing case, even though Matt may not like Steve's platform, to deny its usefulness is to deny reality. He put out the corner crossing on one of his platforms (instagram I think) and within 24 hours about 30K in donations poured in. Donations that could potentially open up a bunch of public land for all of us.

I agree with everything you've said. However, EFFECTS from hunting social media are in two categories to me: benefits to hunting overall or detriments to hunting overall. Many people on here state some round about benefit of hunting social media and completely ignore the harm that it is doing to hunting overall.
In this corner crossing issue or the opening up of public land, I can't help but feel that the social media celebs and the R3 effort are a major reason why we have to be so concerned with these issues now. So as nice as it is to see Steve Rinella post something and get donations put forward, it would be much nicer to hear him say: "Look, I've helped create a monster that is harming the hunting experience more than helping. And I did it for my own gain. I will go find a real job now that contributes to improving people lives in some other way."

 

[Gerald Martin]

I have found it incredibly transformative to point out to everyone how their selfishness is taking away my opportunity to experience to my full satisfaction whatever they are doing that competes with what I am doing.

Guys that shoot bull elk that in the area I also hunt are just the worst. If they weren’t so selfish and would hunt elsewhere I could have far more than I do now.

 

[MTTW]

I have found it incredibly transformative to point out to everyone how their selfishness is taking away my opportunity to experience to my full satisfaction whatever they are doing that competes with what I am doing.

Guys that shoot bull elk that in the area I also hunt are just the worst. If they weren’t so selfish and would hunt elsewhere I could have far more than I do now.

This. ^If everybody else would quit shooting dinks we could all shoot big bucks. Translated... if you all would not shoot a deer then I could shoot a big buck.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The one place that I believe Matt Rinella is being extremely selfish on is the positive side of social media on hunting ISSUES. I learn of a lot of issues either via forums, email, etc. Issues that I would have likely not heard about any other way.

As a positive example would be this recent corner crossing case, even though Matt may not like Steve's platform, to deny its usefulness is to deny reality. He put out the corner crossing on one of his platforms (instagram I think) and within 24 hours about 30K in donations poured in. Donations that could potentially open up a bunch of public land for all of us.

So, I think maybe even Matt is being a bit selfish when he only looks at the downside of how Steve's platforms are impacting him negatively. There is some upside to be considered as well.

Who has all the right answers?

I agree wholeheartedly, and likewise that's how I learn about a lot of issues.

That said, I've listened to Matt on both podcasts and he does address this multiple times. He's specifically against showing strangers dead animals.
- Private Insta accounts
- Public Insta/facebook
- Doesn't have an issue with Steve's podcast talking about hunting, or his non grip and grin posts.

Seems he equates HT and RS to brag boards at sportsman's shops and thinks there fine-ish

 

[TheJason]

That is the issue with R3 that I'm having a hard time reconciling with the need for more hunters. Are we REALLY creating anything other than more consumptive users and crowding the woods? I'd have to say if we are creating advocates, I'm either blind or there just aren't that many advocates being created. I think R3 and websites like these have given already existing hunters more readily available information (meaning they apply all over the place), hunt harder in their own states, and mine areas better than where they used to hunt.

Just lately on a couple threads here, season setting meeting in Helena 20 people show up as an example. One would think with 130K+ Resident elk hunters, there would be a better turn out. Same thing in Wyoming, same faces for the most part attending meetings, pushing for change, securing habitat, yada yada.

I don't think R3 is having the desired results and if it is, someone is going to have to show me some conclusive evidence to the contrary.

I willingly admit I had a more naive outlook on this years ago than I do now. If anything, I’m almost convinced hunters are more willfully ignorant than they were a couple of decades ago. Too much information is there for the taking to be uninformed.

I agree completely with your last paragraph b

 

[Deleted member 28227]

how much different is this conversation if we focus on the "recreates" portion of the OP vs the hunting portion?

This is also Steves fault…

Everest Exped on Instagram: "@everester_rohtash_khileri : Waiting for climbing up. . 🎥 @everester_rohtash_khileri #everestexped #adventureawaits #mountainboarding #natgeoexpeditions #nepaltheplanet #summit #mountaineeringlife #explorehimalayas #sum

5,126 likes, 105 comments - everestexped on December 20, 2021: "@everester_rohtash_khileri : Waiting for climbing up. . 🎥 @everester_rohtash_khileri #everestexped #adventureawaits #mountainboarding #natgeoexpeditions #nepaltheplanet #summit #mountaineeringlife #explorehimalayas #summits...

www.instagram.com

 

[FI460]

This is also Steves fault…

Everest Exped on Instagram: "@everester_rohtash_khileri : Waiting for climbing up. . 🎥 @everester_rohtash_khileri #everestexped #adventureawaits #mountainboarding #natgeoexpeditions #nepaltheplanet #summit #mountaineeringlife #explorehimalayas #sum

5,126 likes, 105 comments - everestexped on December 20, 2021: "@everester_rohtash_khileri : Waiting for climbing up. . 🎥 @everester_rohtash_khileri #everestexped #adventureawaits #mountainboarding #natgeoexpeditions #nepaltheplanet #summit #mountaineeringlife #explorehimalayas #summits...

www.instagram.com

Can't believe they just dropped the exact name of the mountain on the podcast like that. You know how many people listened to that episode? Probably half the guys in that video.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'

 

[Irrelevant]

This is also Steves fault…

Everest Exped on Instagram: "@everester_rohtash_khileri : Waiting for climbing up. . 🎥 @everester_rohtash_khileri #everestexped #adventureawaits #mountainboarding #natgeoexpeditions #nepaltheplanet #summit #mountaineeringlife #explorehimalayas #sum

5,126 likes, 105 comments - everestexped on December 20, 2021: "@everester_rohtash_khileri : Waiting for climbing up. . 🎥 @everester_rohtash_khileri #everestexped #adventureawaits #mountainboarding #natgeoexpeditions #nepaltheplanet #summit #mountaineeringlife #explorehimalayas #summits...

www.instagram.com

Metaphorical Steve

 

[Pucky Freak]

Re: OP. I see nothing wrong with being selfish. The opposite of selfishness is misery, not generosity. Person A, go ahead and continue being selfish regarding wants and intangibles, and continue being generous too.

Person A is not being selfish by wanting to continue to enjoy their lifestyle and recreational opportunities for themself and their descendants. However, they are being unrealistic if they think that is actually going to happen though.

My public land deer honey hole of 2020 got blown up after a coworker spotted my truck, knowing my buddy and I pulled bucks off it opening weekend. My 2021 public land deer honey hole was great until gun season when drivers pushed the piss out of it, shooting everything that moved and leaving them for dead. No drivers the previous 3 years. My 2020 public land duck honey hole tanked after the DNR decided to literally raze 100 acres of native wood duck habitat to create introduced pheasant habitat.

I take these events for granted, and don’t bat an eye. It’s reality. I’m good at scouting, I’m resourceful, and I’m not afraid to hunt a new place every year. I can count on increased pressure, more competition, and constantly needing to adjust tactics. I make it fun.

A corollary to the West loses much in translation, but I’ll argue that some principles do carry over. If Person A wants to continue to enjoy the things they love, they’re going to need to relocate, travel, fight like hell, or some combination thereof. In all but a few places of the Rocky Mountain West there is only so much that can be done to stem the tide of population growth and it’s effects on lifestyle and public hunting.

TLDR: be selfish but for the sake of your kin don’t be naïve.

 

[Austin_Smedley]

I can see both sides and don’t 100% agree with either. I own a few square miles of ground that happens to be in decent mule deer country. I didn't buy it. It‘s what’s left of my great great grandfather’s cattle ranch and I inherited it. I‘m not a man of means but I spend thousands of hard earned dollars every year keeping it up, maintaining things and generally trying to make it better though. If I let everyone who asked to hunt there every year do it, it would be counter productive to all the work and money I’ve put in for decades. I don’t feel selfish telling people no. At the same time, it seems selfish to me in later years to just keep it to myself, so invite a few folks who are new or having a hard time every season. I realize that isn’t a public land example but it correlates in my mind. I think Matt‘s probably a good dude and I think he means well but I also think he’s wrong about most of what he’s preaching

 

[88man]

That's great and good on you and your friends for helping others.

Just curious how many of those you've helped have invested anything else other than buying a license paying it forward.

That is the issue with R3 that I'm having a hard time reconciling with the need for more hunters. Are we REALLY creating anything other than more consumptive users and crowding the woods? I'd have to say if we are creating advocates, I'm either blind or there just aren't that many advocates being created. I think R3 and websites like these have given already existing hunters more readily available information (meaning they apply all over the place), hunt harder in their own states, and mine areas better than where they used to hunt.

Just lately on a couple threads here, season setting meeting in Helena 20 people show up as an example. One would think with 130K+ Resident elk hunters, there would be a better turn out. Same thing in Wyoming, same faces for the most part attending meetings, pushing for change, securing habitat, yada yada.

I don't think R3 is having the desired results and if it is, someone is going to have to show me some conclusive evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, and not to just bust the chops of those entering the sport, there are thousands upon thousands of hunters that have been at it a long time that also do nothing more than buy a license each year. Never write a letter, never attend a meeting...so they're not above my criticism of those that only consume our areas and wildlife.

The one place that I believe Matt Rinella is being extremely selfish on is the positive side of social media on hunting ISSUES. I learn of a lot of issues either via forums, email, etc. Issues that I would have likely not heard about any other way.

As a positive example would be this recent corner crossing case, even though Matt may not like Steve's platform, to deny its usefulness is to deny reality. He put out the corner crossing on one of his platforms (instagram I think) and within 24 hours about 30K in donations poured in. Donations that could potentially open up a bunch of public land for all of us.

So, I think maybe even Matt is being a bit selfish when he only looks at the downside of how Steve's platforms are impacting him negatively. There is some upside to be considered as well.

Who has all the right answers?

Buzz
"That's great and good on you and your friends for helping others.

Just curious how many of those you've helped have invested anything else other than buying a license paying it forward."

Very few under 40 years old have helped at all
The over 50's have contributed money and some time> also very dedicated to promoting youth experiences/opportunities/education
The younger guys in our clubs and associations seem to be to autonomous just my thoughts
I still have hope

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Person A is not being selfish….However, they are being unrealistic.

I think that is a perfect summation.

 

[BlakeA]

Selfish

 

[jryoung]

That's great and good on you and your friends for helping others.

Just curious how many of those you've helped have invested anything else other than buying a license paying it forward.

That is the issue with R3 that I'm having a hard time reconciling with the need for more hunters. Are we REALLY creating anything other than more consumptive users and crowding the woods? I'd have to say if we are creating advocates, I'm either blind or there just aren't that many advocates being created. I think R3 and websites like these have given already existing hunters more readily available information (meaning they apply all over the place), hunt harder in their own states, and mine areas better than where they used to hunt.

Just lately on a couple threads here, season setting meeting in Helena 20 people show up as an example. One would think with 130K+ Resident elk hunters, there would be a better turn out. Same thing in Wyoming, same faces for the most part attending meetings, pushing for change, securing habitat, yada yada.

I don't think R3 is having the desired results and if it is, someone is going to have to show me some conclusive evidence to the contrary.

I'm hoping that in our push for R3 that the advocacy will come in time. Learning about hunting and everything associated with it can feel like drinking through a firehose for the adult onset hunter. I'm hopeful that as people get through the basics, they turn to wanting to do more. I've seen a number of people come through the California Chapter of BHA looking to help and get involved. They all fit a pretty consistent mold of adult onset hunters ages 30-45. Here it feels like more and more are starting to tune into Commission meetings (aided by zoom now) and submit comments when available. Hopefully this trend picks up steam and continues.

Perhaps it'll be similar to the stages of a hunter that we learn about in Hunter Ed.

 

[Cornell2012]

I agree with everything you've said. However, EFFECTS from hunting social media are in two categories to me: benefits to hunting overall or detriments to hunting overall. Many people on here state some round about benefit of hunting social media and completely ignore the harm that it is doing to hunting overall.
In this corner crossing issue or the opening up of public land, I can't help but feel that the social media celebs and the R3 effort are a major reason why we have to be so concerned with these issues now. So as nice as it is to see Steve Rinella post something and get donations put forward, it would be much nicer to hear him say: "Look, I've helped create a monster that is harming the hunting experience more than helping. And I did it for my own gain. I will go find a real job now that contributes to improving people lives in some other way."

A big portion of the debate focuses on whether social media is net positive or net negative.

Is having more hunters inherently good or inherently bad? I'd argue it is neither. Gaining 1 million hunters that follow the rules, hunt safely, and give back to the landscape seems good. Gaining 1 million that go out and trash everywhere they touch? Seems a lot worse.

Is social media inherently good or inherently bad? Hard to say. It can be used to show the good side of hunting and to create advocates even among the non-hunters. It can also be used poorly and create enemies. Grouping all hunting social media into one group or another doesn't make sense to me.

I think that this discussion about Matt's points is healthy for hunters to have. I don't want to see effects that are detrimental to hunting. I think that there is a lot of positive content out there for hunters. I would hate to see that positive content decrease and get overshadowed by the negative content.

I also find it ironic that the only reason anyone cares about this is because of Matt's last name. Matt is literally using social media and his brother's name recognition to bring attention to a cause that he feels strongly about in hopes of improving the outcome.

Do I think Steve has created a monster? No. He's definitely created a highly influential media empire. I haven't seen where he's been corrupted by greed or power. He still emphasizes hunting for reasons that are palatable to emerging demographics. He brings attention to issues that he thinks are important. I'm much more comfortable with Meateater being the standard bearer than I would be if it was Pig Man Nation or similar that we were putting all our hopes behind.

We keep doing this because we think in the long run we are a net benefit to hunting. Are we correct about that? I'd like to think so. Only time will tell one way or another.

 

[Sagebrush1]

This relates to the advocacy part of the equation, and ones ability to generate a healy selfishness. I think that social media - images, how-to info, story videos, blogs - provide a replacement for the mentor role.

And as a replacement, it is missing the nuance, and the ethics that are provided by the mentor-mentee dynamic when it is based on time afield, time with those more experienced, and on a prolonged learning phase.

It speaks to the instant gratification part in us all. It neglects the critical, but less-than-glamorous parts of the puzzle such as ethics, regional demands, proprietary, etc. I think that new hunters get a not necessarily incorrect view, but a drastically incomplete one.

So to wrap it up, without those missing pieces, I think more hunters lack a deep appreciation of the heritage and the struggle. That does not make a good advocate.

 

[CRMarks]

This is definitely an interesting discussion thread. Personally, I read into the description of Hypothetical Person A left an underlying feeling of entitlement by this individual for "enhanced" rights to the outdoor recreational activities on the basis of their charitable contributions supporting this and other causes. I may be reading too much into this, but when this is a common sentiment that I have observed across several issue areas in dealing with other members of the community.

I am a career government employee, so I'd like to bring that perspective into this discussion. As civil servants, state/federal wildlife managers provide information to citizens requesting assistance/guidance in accessing and recreating on public lands. Like the lands themselves to which access is an equal right regardless of additional contribution (beyond those of the taxes levied for the maintenance of those lands), the information/guidance provided by these civil servants is fully available to any citizen but must be provided to an extent/in a manner that is objectively and uniformly applied across all requesting individuals. Civil servants should never show favoritism in any area of government function.

With this in mind, Hypothetical Person A should respect that their monetary contributions will be applied in the form/fashion that the receiving entity sees fit to accomplish their mission. This person's support of public lands by definition supports the access/benefits to all other citizens. So, this individual should not "expect" to steer or enjoy any additional rights/benefits from their contributions. With that said, in my opinion, Hypothetical Person A is under no moral obligation to share information that he/she obtained through their own efforts with any other individual and be deemed selfish. My personal assessment is that selfishness necessitates that resources obtained by an individual/entity be disproportionately withheld to the detriment of another party. In the example provided, the lack of sharing of information by one party to another by their choice is not detrimentally impacting the basic fundamental rights enjoyed by all parties to access their public lands.

That was a long-winded way of saying that, to me, choosing not to share earned information is not selfish, but making an underlying implicit or explicit expectation of disproportionate access/enjoyment of the recreation opportunities is both flawed and discriminatory.... being a possible form of selfishness.

Thanks OP for posting such a thought provoking topic and all the fellow community members for sharing. This has been a really interesting read.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Is having more hunters inherently good or inherently bad? I'd argue it is neither.

That’s an easy argument to make when you can drop in to landlocked public from a helicopter, and your parents started buying you PP’s before you could say “bison”. No doubt, if that was my situation I would take advantage of those gifts the same as you do. I think it clouds your assessment of the effects of more hunters though.

The vast majority of public land hunters lack the means to avoid pressure and crowding. Dwindling access, rapidly rising costs, and a degraded hunting experience both erode and embolden a conservation ethic.

For those of us who are emboldened, there is a deserved scrutiny of public land prostitution. The lands might not be up for an outright transfer sale, but jurisdictions everywhere sell or freely permit rights to film and photograph content by for-profit influencers, who take most of their revenue from commercial product sponsorships. Market hunting has undergone a 21st century rebirth, and I’m optimistic that its days are numbered.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Do I think Steve has created a monster? No. He's definitely created a highly influential media empire. I haven't seen where he's been corrupted by greed or power. He still emphasizes hunting for reasons that are palatable to emerging demographics. He brings attention to issues that he thinks are important.

“MeatEater, Inc. brings together leading influencers in the outdoor space to create premium content experiences and unique apparel and equipment.” Earlier this year the mission statement was to create educational and entertaining outdoor content. It appears that it was updated to encompass their growing emphasis on commercial products.

Steve’s company is built on wildlife held in the public trust, and public land. It will continue to consume these resources to enrichen corporations. It’s poorly-bridled capitalism let loose over poorly-protected public resources. Steve’s positive messaging masks just enough of the crap taste of that dynamic to make his products and content palatable to a large hunting audience.