Case Against R3

[VikingsGuy]

I generally am not a big fan of "I'm already inside, time to buy locks" arguments. Of course, wildlife and public lands are limited resources. But in a democracy and under the NAM I believe the opportunities should be presented to as many as possible. If that means a few incumbents who have hundreds of hunts under their belts need to have a few less to let someone who is new enjoy their shared resources, then so be it.

Our nation is plagued with a spirit of "not in my backyard," "I was here first so bugger off," and "it works for me so screw the rest". This thinking is incompatible with the management of shared resources. It shouldn't be, "we are all owners of our shared lands and wildlife, it's just that some of us (generally, old, white, rural and male) are more equal than others," or "give us your PR funds, tax dollars, and conservation memberships and your congressional votes, but don't look too closely at who amongst us benefits differentially from your actions/support".

I get it, the incumbents like being incumbents. But it doesn't make it right.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Pretty tired of hearing every single issue becoming a race argument ... "with liberty and justice for all".

When those words become the lived reality of all, then you won't have to worry about hearing that argument.

 

[idelkslayer]

Connecting race to this discussion requires a tremendous imagination.

Matts' article and Steve response were both reasonable and I land firmly in Matt's camp. Several of the rebuttal articles were not as compelling, including the Outdoor life rebuttals.

Lack of opportunity (tags) and lack of access are often put forward as the reasons why people stop hunting or never start. In the west, there is an abundance of access but not an abundance of tags and wildlife. In the east there is an abundance of wildlife but less access due to private land and leasing. R3 efforts need to be specific to the region or they will be detrimental in the long run. Increasing numbers of hunters in the western states will be self defeating if the number of tags doesn't increase and land leasing is becoming an issue here also. R3 will be self defeating in the east if more private land doesn't become accessible.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Nice that the Rinella brothers can disagree and still love each other. I probably need to do more of that.

 

[Mallardsx2]

There was a time in PA where people complained about the lack of hunters in the woods keeping the deer moving.

I heard three people complain that there were too many people in the woods moving the deer around the last time I visited my old stomping grounds after the deer season.

Times have changed and hunting has evolved into something way different than it used to be.

 

[High Desert]

I can't speak to other states but I have to chuckle a little each time I hear hunters in my home state complain about hunting pressure - and they do complain. When I started hunting, you felt lucky if there was only one hunter on each ridge. There were three times as many deer hunters with tags on opening day. Where I hunted on public land, we hiked to the top early and watched an almost unbroken stream of headlights heading up the canyon road and another stream of flashlights heading up the trails. The buck:doe ratio was awful but there were more hunters almost every year. We were excited to be out and most people I knew were content to go hunting and didn't measure satisfaction with a B&C scoring sheet. You could hunt archery, muzzleloader, and rifle every year and buy a tag the day before the season started. (i.e. there was ready access to opportunity)
Now, there is far less pressure but you have to apply for one of the limited number of "general season" deer permits six months in advance and may only draw one every two or three years. I think this rationing of opportunity helps foster an attitude of entitlement that when you do get to go hunting, you'll have little pressure and lots of mature bucks to choose from. It also creates an added intensity of more scouting, more technology, and more days afield per hunter than may have been the norm 40 years ago.
The end result is bitter disappointment when another hunter presumes to hunt your spot or, heaven forbid, shoot your remotely monitored deer. The reaction from many in the hunting community is to further limit tags (opportunity) so that the increasingly rare hunting trip is all-but-guaranteed to meet your expectations. How an unmentored youth is realistically supposed to navigate the complexity, restrictions, and competitiveness (year after year) is a mystery. Not to mention putting up with the sourpusses and misanthropes who can't be bothered by the presence and occasional blunders of new hunters.

 

[Perlodid]

Connecting race to this discussion requires a tremendous imagination.

Matts' article and Steve response were both reasonable and I land firmly in Matt's camp. Several of the rebuttal articles were not as compelling, including the Outdoor life rebuttals.

It really doesn't take any imagination at all. Matt ends his article with this:

Let friends and family recruit the next generation of hunters. That model has worked since the beginning of time.

This sounds nice on paper to someone who already hunts. This model has worked, but it hasn't worked for everyone. Like a lot of people here, I grew up hunting because my dad did, and his dad did, etc. But you have to realize how this comes off to someone who does not have that connection to the outdoors built into their family structure anymore. The best response to the argument that race is not involved in this conversation is from Steve himself in his response:

Everyone isn’t that lucky. Following the Civil War, we enacted aggressive legislation and policy that was deliberately intended to dissuade African Americans from hunting. If you want to pretend this can’t be true, go read “Hunting and Fishing In the New South: Black Labor and White Leisure after the Civil War” by Scott Giltner. With their personal hunting networks severed in the past, does that mean African Americans should be discouraged from taking a seat at the table now? And what about Native Americans, who were removed from their ancestral hunting grounds many generations ago?

The lack of hunting participation from other races in America is not by accident, and it is not their fault. And having an extremely smart person such as Matt Rinella say that he doesn't want any changes to the classic model of hunter recruitment looks questionable to someone on the outside, or someone who struggles to get into the sport on their own. I don't think this was Matt's intention at all, and Steve corroborates that as well - but it is absolutely worth it to discuss hunter recruitment in a racial context. Of course, I agree that opportunity and access are essential to this entire discussion but the concerns from groups like HOC should not be dismissed so easily.

 

[LopeHunter]

The number of core American golfers (those playing eight rounds or more per year) has fallen between three and 4.5 percent every year since 2006. There was plenty of opportunity. Golf course closures were from a lack of business rather than some out-of-stater bought up a chunk of land resulting in public lands being blocked.

Hunters, unlike golfers, have seen access reduced. We also need more animals on the mountain. But, just as golfers have fallen in number, so have big game hunters. Many of us on this forum are buying more state hunting licenses that a decade ago. Are we hunting more days a year for big game that a decade ago? Not likely but we the past decade we were forced to buy a license in more states in order to submit an application and the point systems had us by the short hairs so we paid up as another state made that change.

Big game hunting is in decline. Is easily over $1000 door to door if you want to hunt out of state for big game. Can be closer to $2500 if you want to have a quality hunting experience out of state as likely will have taken years of unsuccessfully applying while each year paying for a license, application fees, habitat stamps, credit card convenience fees, etc then you need to buy the tag when are eventually drawn. If want to jump the line then are paying several times over the cost of a tag to get a landowner tag with an outfitter or to hire an outfitter to take you deep into OTC country. The price per pound for that elk meat if you punch your tag will exceed fresh lobster.

For many of us drawing a high quality tag is a once or twice a decade event. Lots of studies show you have to spend a few 1000 hours of practicing to have a chance to develop elite level skills. Hard to practice elk hunting when in the woods 5-10 days a year every few years. That can be intimidating. Elk harvest rates for tags is around 20% the last I checked. So, how many adventures will a hunter go on before wants to fill a tag finally? The easiest elk hunts to nab a tag are the crowded ones or ones with a lot of warts like sub-10% harvest rates so is easy to feel are not making progress.

Why do 3 million golfers a year leave their sport? Did they die? Did they have less leisure time? Did they have smaller recreational budgets? Golfers that quit cite courses were designed to be more difficult to play, harder to schedule a round on good courses, slower to complete a round, more expensive to buy leading edge gear, golf outing became more expensive and physical health declined.

I would say hunting has more challenges and one is older hunters stop when younger members of their family system are not hunting. That certainly was a factor for me.

 

[jzoller]

I liked the article personally. It brought out good information and the opposite side of the story from R3. I honestly can't see what the fuss is all about. We should be able to hear an opinion opposite of our own and listen to see if there is any validity.

The piece from HOC states "So when we looked at our notifications this morning and saw an article titled". This is a bigger problem to me. Instead of taking a day to think about what the Meat Eater article says and trying to see Matt's point of view, they instantly have to write a rebuttal and start complaining why he's wrong and how he hurt their feelings.

Open dialogue about hunting issues won't be the down fall of hunting, closed minded attacks against each other will be. Chill people!

Note: I have only been hunting for 5 years (I'm 37), so what do I know!

Good luck to everyone this year!!

 

[jakenbake]

There was a time in PA where people complained about the lack of hunters in the woods keeping the deer moving.

I heard three people complain that there were too many people in the woods moving the deer around the last time I visited my old stomping grounds after the deer season.

Times have changed and hunting has evolved into something way different than it used to be.

Gotta admit, opening day of gun season here in Maryland hasnt been the same since PA moved to open the same day a couple years back. Used to have the public woods I learned to hunt packed with PA guys moving everything around. Felt like a literal war zone with all the lead flying around. Now... it's quiet and I see way, way fewer deer. Pressure ain't always bad.

 

[bullbugle307]

It really doesn't take any imagination at all. Matt ends his article with this:

This sounds nice on paper to someone who already hunts. This model has worked, but it hasn't worked for everyone. Like a lot of people here, I grew up hunting because my dad did, and his dad did, etc. But you have to realize how this comes off to someone who does not have that connection to the outdoors built into their family structure anymore. The best response to the argument that race is not involved in this conversation is from Steve himself in his response:

The lack of hunting participation from other races in America is not by accident, and it is not their fault. And having an extremely smart person such as Matt Rinella say that he doesn't want any changes to the classic model of hunter recruitment looks questionable to someone on the outside, or someone who struggles to get into the sport on their own. I don't think this was Matt's intention at all, and Steve corroborates that as well - but it is absolutely worth it to discuss hunter recruitment in a racial context. Of course, I agree that opportunity and access are essential to this entire discussion but the concerns from groups like HOC should not be dismissed so easily.

I'm not sure advocating for recruiting via inviting friends and family vs. R3 is denying people of color any opportunity for recruitment into the outdoors. That's assuming that no white people are friends or family with people of color and that they also wouldn't invite them to enjoy the outdoor pursuits. That doesn't jive with my experience at all frankly.

I know I'm only one person, but for what it's worth I've invited more than one friend who is a person of color camping, fishing, and hunting. Most haven't taken me up on the offer, but I've helped a number of folks that aren't white with info on how to and places to check out for hunting, fishing etc. I know several other white people in my small network who have introduced friends and even family of color to the outdoors also.

Should it happen more? Sure! But I'm not sure I buy the argument that Matt's statement even contained a "blind spot". That argument, to me, is all based on the false assumption that white people won't recruit people of color who are their friends and family. I don't think that will be true, especially going forward. And if I was a betting man, I'd bet that whole assumption doesn't match with Matts feelings and actions prior to writing his R3 piece.

All that being said, the discussion on this issue is good. It's got a lot of people thinking.

 

[Knight.54]

This is what I think too.

IMO, I think R3 has worked way too well...and I also believe we sort of got the cart squarely in front of the horse.

It would have made more sense to look at the actual amount of opportunity there was, accessible land to hunt, all that stuff before implementing R3. With the huge uptick in NR applications all through the West, its pretty apparent the pressure relief valve on the success of R3 is elk, deer, pronghorn in the West.

I think it makes sense if the various organizations and states wanting to continue to pump R3, they better start investing in places for all these new hunters to hunt. The West isn't going to take much more and easier opportunities are drying up or in many cases no longer exist. Pronghorn in WY for a perfect example...when I moved here in 2000, there were lots of units I could walk into walmart and buy a tag in the middle of the season, the day before I wanted to go. That ship sailed. Many areas used to be available on second choice tags, now take 1-4 points to draw first choice.

I would like to see States in the midwest, south and east start doing things to accommodate all these new R3 hunters in their states. Also, I don't see as much R3 work in regard to small game and bird hunting...its mostly big-game oriented.

I don't think R3 was implemented with the available resource in mind, and that was a huge mistake.

Buzz,
Here’s a great example of how BHA’s North Carolina Chapter is doing just that...

 

[Hunting Wife]

I'm not sure advocating for recruiting via inviting friends and family vs. R3 is denying people of color any opportunity for recruitment into the outdoors. That's assuming that no white people are friends or family with people of color and that they also wouldn't invite them to enjoy the outdoor pursuits. That doesn't jive with my experience at all frankly.

I know I'm only one person, but for what it's worth I've invited more than one friend who is a person of color camping, fishing, and hunting. Most haven't taken me up on the offer, but I've helped a number of folks that aren't white with info on how to and places to check out for hunting, fishing etc. I know several other white people in my small network who have introduced friends and even family of color to the outdoors also.

Should it happen more? Sure! But I'm not sure I buy the argument that Matt's statement even contained a "blind spot". That argument, to me, is all based on the false assumption that white people won't recruit people of color who are their friends and family. I don't think that will be true, especially going forward. And if I was a betting man, I'd bet that whole assumption doesn't match with Matts feelings and actions prior to writing his R3 piece.

All that being said, the discussion on this issue is good. It's got a lot of people thinking.

I don’t think that was the assumption at all. It has nothing to do with whether white people will or won’t recruit POC they are friends with. For a very long time, and for many reasons, there just isn’t a lot of overlap between the POC and white hunter populations, which makes that friends and family model really ineffective. That’s the whole point of the HOC article.

There are certainly folks like yourself out there that make the effort, but knowing someone like you or me is not the norm for most POC in this country. Heck, I’m not even sure it’s the norm for anybody anymore in this country.

 

[NDGuy]

Response from Steve

MeatEater Founder Steven Rinella Addresses R3 Op-Ed

I recently caused quite a stir among our audience with an op-ed published to our website. The piece, titled “The Case Against Hunter Recruitment,” was written by my brother Matt Rinella. It focuses on Matt’s distrust with what is known in the hunting industry as R3. While it sounds like a droid...

www.themeateater.com

Well said by Steve, glad he addressed it.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Late to the party here, but seems like a classic example of "everyone's right." I don't see these different opinions as being mutually exclusive.

We need to keep a decent hunting population in this country and at least in some areas, that's going to mean recruitment efforts.

We need those hunters to value public land and that's going to mean opportunity on public land being shared by the old farts and the newer hunters.

We need to consider the resources we're trying to promote the "extraction" of and that probably means focusing hunter recruitment efforts away from elk and pronghorn in the west, and more towards whitetails, waterfowl, small game, etc. We need to recognize that hunter recruitment is simply not an issue in some areas, while it is in others.

We need to recognize that the way we're seen, as hunters, is almost as important as our numbers and that new hunter recruitment might not always be a net gain for hunting and wildlife. (see above) We should all be clear that the goal is NOT to turn everyone into a hunter. We NEED a large portion of the population to not hunt.

We should be especially eager to bring in/make welcome more people of color to the hunting world, as we all benefit from a more diverse community and the political future of public lands and hunting are going to depend on those voters.

Personally, I think we need to make access one of the biggest features of the R3 effort. This includes creating more public land and also a big focus on getting private land opened up to public hunting. The less public land there is in an area, the more important it is to take this route.

This whole thing seems to me, to be less of an argument between factions and more of a process of refinement of our shared beliefs.

 

[bullbugle307]

I don’t think that was the assumption at all. It has nothing to do with whether white people will or won’t recruit POC they are friends with. For a very long time, and for many reasons, there just isn’t a lot of overlap between the POC and white hunter populations, which makes that friends and family model really ineffective. That’s the whole point of the HOC article.

There are certainly folks like yourself out there that make the effort, but knowing someone like you or me is not the norm for most POC in this country. Heck, I’m not even sure it’s the norm for anybody anymore in this country.

Fair point. It's not right for me to project that assumption onto everyone, but it certainly seems to me that some people are making that assumption. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, who knows.

You bring up another interesting point that knowing someone who will recruit you into the outdoors isn't the norm for anyone really. I would agree with that. I guess that's just a factor of us making up such a small percentage of the population overall.

 

[bullbugle307]

Another point of discussion. Are we sure that R3 will succeed in significantly diversifying recruitment over the friends and family model? I feel that assumption is also being made by some folks, but I'm not so sure that via R3, industry and non profits are going to succeed where the old model failed.

Recruitment, retainment, and reactivation. Two of the 3 focus topics, retainment and reactivation, have a target audience right now that I think we can all agree is majority white and male. Could I not then argue that since two of the 3 Rs are not likely to be big diversifiers, the R3 model is also flawed in regards to adding diversity?

For the record, I'm not against either model over the other. I just think maybe we need to take a step back and really dissect this thing, especially in regards to any assumptions that may be being made.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Fair point. It's not right for me to project that assumption onto everyone, but it certainly seems to me that some people are making that assumption. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, who knows.

You bring up another interesting point that knowing someone who will recruit you into the outdoors isn't the norm for anyone really. I would agree with that. I guess that's just a factor of us making up such a small percentage of the population overall.

I think your first point still stands. While there has not historically been a significant overlap between POC and hunters, there is one now more than ever. I can't speak for others but I would venture a guess that most of us have a more diverse friend (and family for that matter) group than ever before. And almost certainly we all have a more diverse friend group than our parents. In my opinion, that situation is already in process of being solved by virtue general association. Unless we're making the assumption that white male hunters are more likely to ask their white male friends to go hunting with them despite equally strong connections with POC.

If someone is interested in getting into hunting, there are plenty of ways regardless of who you are or the color of your skin. The interested individual has more information at their fingertips online about hunting and getting started (whether one is a POC or not) than ever before. Literally all it takes is jumping on Google and typing, "How can I go hunting?" to get started. I understand that there are barriers for entry due to complications associated with regulations, etc., but literally everyone can find enough information to get started online.

Is it more intimidating for a POC than a white guy? Probably. But that probably also ties to the POC making some assumptions about those that hunt. There is also quite a bit of information about getting into hunting as a POC online from what I can tell (although I had to search for "Hunters of Color" specifically before I got that site to pull up on the first page. They need some SEO help.) It's quite easy to find several articles about the need for recruiting non-white hunters into the fold (interesting, one of several MeatEater articles popped up on the first almost no matter what I typed).

However, if someone isn't interested by themselves first, I'd bet it's almost impossible to pull them in. Getting someone interested in the beginning will still likely require a personal connection to introduce, explain, excite, etc. That personal story telling often breeds the initial interest. And that gets us back to friends and family recruitment which is probably the most genuine. The odds of me, as a white male, being able to draw POC to hunting that outside my friend circle are probably very low. If one is getting into an endeavor via assistance from a total stranger, I'd bet that human nature would incline all of us to, consciously or subconsciously, seek out a stranger most similar to ourselves. It reminds me of an ad playing on YouTube right now where a male POC talks about how nervous POC might be about the vaccine and how they should turn to doctors of color for information they can trust. POC hunters are likely going to experience a significantly higher percentage of success when recruiting other POC to hunting.

Sorry for the ramble, thanks for your time lol.

 

[Nameless Range]

Montana license sales at an all-time high. A more than 30% increase in block management use in a single year. At what point, if ever, will Montanans realize that we are very close to being off the rails.

Is this massive increase in hunters and use equating to more advocates?

I think it may be time to slow down for a second, and I don’t think saying that makes someone a “gatekeeper”.

Sportsmen’s license sales in Montana at all-time high as new FWP commission settles in

For those who thought last fall’s hunting season felt a little crowded, early indications are that this fall will be even more so. That could put even more demand on an inexperienced Fish, Wildlife & Parks commission.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Hunting Wife]

I guess from my perspective, I don’t think there’s as much overlap in the friends and family department as some of you do. Maybe in Bismarck or Billings. Doubtful in LA or New Orleans. And it isn’t so simple to just “Google it and figure it out” when you are 10 or 12 years old, live with a single mom and don’t have a computer at home. Granted, the emphasis of most of what I work with in getting people outdoors is youth-oriented so my view is skewed that direction.