Hunt Quietly Podcast 84: Q & A

[Nameless Range]

but on the other hand, at the same time, it is the crux of matts message.

are people killing for themselves or for others? and if others what is it they are getting in return? money? attention and followers, i.e. fame? and the conclusion from that is hard to argue with: we have modern day "market hunters" all over again. are they gonna decimate the tightly regulated populations? no. but are they for all intents and purposes market hunters, securing a product for a profit, and doing many times over to increase the profit? hard to say they're not.

I agree that the crux of Matt’s message is Hunter motivation, and the implications of that across the Hunting population

That said, as buzz highlighted, there’s perfectly reasonable situations where someone might kill many elk in a season.

I do wonder if Matt overestimates the effect social media has on hunter motivations. He does provide an example from a study were folks were less likely to go on a vacation somewhere if they couldn’t post about it on social media. I don’t think hunters are special in their resistance to the incentives of status that motivate so many modern people, but I haven’t looked closely at the study he mentioned or others like it either.

 

[TOGIE]

I agree that the crux of Matt’s message is Hunter motivation, and the implications of that across the Hunting population

That said, as buzz highlighted, there’s perfectly reasonable situations where someone might kill many elk in a season.

I do wonder if Matt overestimates the effect social media has on hunter motivations. He does provide an example from a study were folks were less likely to go on a vacation somewhere if they couldn’t post about it on social media. I don’t think hunters are special in their resistance to the incentives of status that motivate so many modern people, but I haven’t looked closely at the study he mentioned or others like it either.

and i still don't think matt has a problem with buzz, or me, or you, shooting several elk. maybe i'm wrong and he does

it's like you said, the crux really is the motivation and the real reason you're shooting those multiple elk?

i still struggle with a fair amount of matt's message. i appreciate his candidness and his taking aim at what is a pretty disgusting social media presence in hunting.

but i'm more worried about my wildlife commission than losing my deer or elk spot. and i think people underestimate how quickly they could wake up one day and realize they need to worry about their wildlife commission. sometimes, i swear all matt really cares about is people in his elk spot and he decided to take some pretty low pot shots at his famous brother in his attempts to piss and moan about it. and i think what steve has done in a positive light for hunting outweighs many times over the negative of him taking part in crowding up the western woods.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I’ve listened to probably over half of the HQ podcasts. Most of Matt’s guests present a solid argument countering his claim that social media is ruining hunting.

My own take is what we see through hunting social media is little more than a reflection of generational values with available technology. Railing against those values is pretty meaningless.

I admire Matt for exposing a lot of the hypocrisy in the economics of hunting:

-Nonprofits are the advertising arm for the hunting industry.

-Hunting celebrities overwhelmingly avoid discussing dwindling access as the most critical issue facing hunters today because their corporate sponsors would object.

-Hunting is not conservation. Conservation is conservation.

-Perhaps R3 once meant to achieve its stated claims, but for many years now it has become little more than a marketing strategy for the hunting industry.

-Over the last 2-3 years the hunting industry has begun to move away from targeting DIY hunters and instead targets a wealthier clientele who buys their way into access. DIY’ers were just an ephemeral step towards the next target consumer crowd.

Other related takeaways…

-Hunters cannot look to hunting celebrities, hunting nonprofits, or the hunting industry to advocate for the democratization of hunting opportunity. Overwhelmingly those groups have motivations that do not need, require, or even necessarily benefit from hunting access to be available by the masses.

In 50 years the west will be owned by billionaire investors, celebrities, 2 million ranchette transplants, and six legacy ranchers. Ok, more than six, but you probably get the point. I want my grandkids to be able to access public wildlife on public land in a quality hunting experience. How we deal with public trust doctrine, privatization of wildlife, and commodification of hunting NOW will set the trajectory towards if such a thing will still exist by that time.

I already covered how R3 is inherently contradictory in this thread.

Maybe we can’t have more hunters

I don’t mean we shouldn’t have more hunters, or that we can’t afford to have more hunters, or that we won’t have new hunters, but rather that perhaps it’s just impossible to have a greater total number of hunters. Matt Rinella’s newest article struck a chord. I reread his 2019 R3 article, and...

www.hunttalk.com

And the modern revival of market hunting in this thread.

Free hunting social media is not free

Following hunting influencers on social media platforms does not require a fee. Neither does watching influencer content on Youtube. However, both actions cost us access to quality hunting, and drive up costs of licenses, tags, and points. Hunter recruitment will soon be the bane of hunters'...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I mean there are a few points where Matt is spot on and others where there is room for disagreement.

I just think of how bad Utah has gotten in terms of hunting for the average hunter and hope that does not happen to every where else, because of the pursuit of social media fame.

Areas where people used to have access to are now CWMU's that charge thousands of dollars per year to hunt.

Areas that used to be general areas where families could plan on hunting each fall are now a 3+ year draw.

Not to mention the auction tags that are generally about shooting the biggest animal in the state and showcasing it on social media.

Not to mention that landowner tags can be good for the whole hunting unit and are an easy way to jump ahead of the line and they can be transferrable to other people as well.

I get that the Utah population is growing, but shouldn't the solution be trying to give more areas for people to hunt rather than shoving more people in a tight area to hunt.

Like if you can spend 15-25k on Utah Deer and Elk hunts a year, then Utah hunting is some of the best in the world. If you can only spend $100 on resident tags per year, then you should probably take up bird hunting; because the state does not take your interests as seriously as a big dollar players.

I think I should invest in a bumper sticker

"Don't Utah, my Wyoming"

It is kind of an issue creeping into a lot of western states and social media does play a part in it. Listening to Jonathan Haidt in some interviews I've come around to the idea, that social media is not good for our health and the health of the upcoming generation. Too many people hunting for likes for a feeling of status and when those likes do not come there is a level of depression. That can affect some very deeply.

And some of the companies that we buy hunting gear from are only making the issue worse than what it is, because they want to sell products. Big animals sale products. Big animals are easier to obtain in limited accessed sometimes privatized lands.

Hunting is becoming a rich man's game for success in obtaining permits faster at the Utah level and hopefully that does not translate into the end game in a lot of western states.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

There's another whole issue not being considered.

I apply for elk tags in, most years: UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO, and MT.

Odds are garbage in any of them. I can tell you, one year I snagged a great elk tag in MT and another great tag in WY. Another year I had one in AZ and WY. I want to hunt other states for elk, I don't care if Matt Rinella thinks I shouldn't shoot more than one elk a year. I don't know when I'm going to draw with a random system, or even with points I have no idea.

So Rinella thinks I should just for-go hunting one of those tags because he doesn't think I should hunt more than one elk?

I tend to agree somewhat with his message in general regarding the whole hunt quietly thing. But I think he's falling victim to his own hypocrisy, he's producing content to stir the pot without really putting thought into what he's doing and saying. Telling someone how many tags a year HE thinks another hunter should have is really none of his business.

For Pete's sake, they're thinking about passing legislation in Wyoming to kill elk from helicopters and leaving them lay to keep the numbers in check. They already paid 2 guys to kill 129 elk here last winter. Oh, but high horse Matt thinks I'm a monster for killing 2 additional elk out of that same mountain range, with essentially OTC opportunity for anyone that wants to?

He needs a new tree to bark up...and something new to be faux outraged about.

He ought to take his own advice and keep his mouth shut sometimes.

I haven't gotten the impression he gives two shits about someone like you discuss who gets lucky on multiple draws in a season or helps with antlerless tags issued to reduce populations as long as you dont have bragging with dead animals on social media to feed your ego, get sponsors, or make $ off of as a primary motivation for pursuing those tags.

 

[TheTone]

It’s straight up market hunting; just instead of selling meat it’s selling likes, views and products. I’d guess some influencers essentially have a calculation figured out for how much each dead critter is worth to them and their sponsors. You can basically watch the change in the hunts they do as the money rolls in and they have to keep the kills coming to stay on the gravy train. They’ll start with OTC hunts anyone can do and then it morphs to guided hunts and super expensive exclusive opportunities.

If I had the money to spend on better hunting i absolutely would but I also don’t think I’d be pimping it to the level some are or being as much a show off/braggart in need of likes and internet fame

 

[nastynate]

I think I disagree with you on this. Or at least the black and whiteness that I perceive in your argument. I absolutely need meat. And this is the best, most environmentally sustainable meat that exists, so yes, I need it. But when I can't get it, there are inferior alternatives.

Not to go too far off point, but the environmental sustainability of hunting is very context dependent and I think we have a tendency to overestimate it. Shot a deer on the back 40? Pretty outstanding way to get meat, environmentally speaking. Flew to Alaska to get a 30lbs of Sitka deer meat or drove across the entire country to shoot a few pheasants? Maybe not so much. But the standard meat industry is pretty horrific, environmentally and ethically speaking. That being said, I probably travel less than a lot of my non-hunting peers (certainly fly less) so maybe it’s a wash. They never bring home quality organic meat from their vacations…

Edit: just started thinking about it. I’d hate to know the pounds of poultry per gallon from my upland hunting.

 

[Irrelevant]

Not to go too far off point, but the environmental sustainability of hunting is very context dependent and I think we have a tendency to overestimate it. Shot a deer on the back 40? Pretty outstanding way to get meat, environmentally speaking. Flew to Alaska to get a 30lbs of Sitka deer meat or drove across the entire country to shoot a few pheasants? Maybe not so much. But the standard meat industry is pretty horrific, environmentally and ethically speaking. That being said, I probably travel less than a lot of my non-hunting peers (certainly fly less) so maybe it’s a wash. They never bring home quality organic meat from their vacations…

I find it hard to believe that this:

With all that goes into it, the entire chain of events, actions, and impacts.

Could ever be more environmentally sustainable than driving across the country, using a few hundred $ in gas, and killing a deer. Let alone going out and hunting an area close to home. Outside of your gas, there is effectively zero environmental impact.

 

[nastynate]

I find it hard to believe that this:
View attachment 293262
With all that goes into it, the entire chain of events, actions, and impacts.

Could ever be more environmentally sustainable than driving across the country, using a few hundred $ in gas, and killing a deer. Let alone going out and hunting an area close to home. Outside of your gas, there is effectively zero environmental impact.

100% agree, and it’s not like I’d sit at home and live out of my garden if I didn’t hunt and I would still travel, so really it might be a wash. And all the industrial food travels to us anyways. But still I think we tend to overestimate how sustainable hunting is when there’s substantial travel involved.

 

[woods89]

I find it hard to believe that this:
View attachment 293262
With all that goes into it, the entire chain of events, actions, and impacts.

Could ever be more environmentally sustainable than driving across the country, using a few hundred $ in gas, and killing a deer. Let alone going out and hunting an area close to home. Outside of your gas, there is effectively zero environmental impact.

I grew up riding with my dad hauling hay into Grant Co Feedyard just south of Ulysses, KS, which at the time was one of the largest feedyards in the country. My wife's family is heavily involved in growing chickens for Tyson and Pilgrims Pride, and she has one brother raising hogs on a large scale as well. More and more, its just hard to see large scale feeding operations, there's just a lot of ugly aspects.

But I sure love a good steak. And only a tiny fraction of people can fill their meat needs with wild game. Maybe the most palatable option I see is the grass fed beef and poultry operations that exist here in the Ozarks, but they are absolutely on a tiny scale compared to corporate ag. My hypocrisies definitely exist, and I don't have good answers.

Big dairies have pretty much made the small local dairies here unsustainable. I really hate to see that.

 

[FREAK]

What happened between these photos?

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I find it hard to believe that this:
View attachment 293262
With all that goes into it, the entire chain of events, actions, and impacts.

Could ever be more environmentally sustainable than driving across the country, using a few hundred $ in gas, and killing a deer. Let alone going out and hunting an area close to home. Outside of your gas, there is effectively zero environmental impact.

Something, Something, Joel Salatin

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I grew up riding with my dad hauling hay into Grant Co Feedyard just south of Ulysses, KS, which at the time was one of the largest feedyards in the country. My wife's family is heavily involved in growing chickens for Tyson and Pilgrims Pride, and she has one brother raising hogs on a large scale as well. More and more, its just hard to see large scale feeding operations, there's just a lot of ugly aspects.

But I sure love a good steak. And only a tiny fraction of people can fill their meat needs with wild game. Maybe the most palatable option I see is the grass fed beef and poultry operations that exist here in the Ozarks, but they are absolutely on a tiny scale compared to corporate ag. My hypocrisies definitely exist, and I don't have good answers.

Big dairies have pretty much made the small local dairies here unsustainable. I really hate to see that.

Sorry—organic farming is actually worse for climate change

The practice cuts greenhouse-gas emissions only if you ignore the inconvenient fact that it requires a lot more land.

www.technologyreview.com

Probably not the right place for this, but factory farming is actually better for the environment than organic farming and in some cases better than free range farming when looking at cattle. With Chickens, because they take up a much smaller footprint it is better to free range them or use the Salatin model.

Factory farming on many levels is efficient than other methods of farming. Which is difficult to see when you look at pictures as the one with the cattle above.

We see the land over a relatively small area completely destroyed, but with the same amount of cattle you would need a lot more land to feed them if they were organic.

Each cow can up to 2-4% of their body weight a day which is about 20-40 pounds of feed (dry feed) for a 1,000 pound cow per day while consuming 30-50 gallons of water per day (which is like a bathtub)

If you have 1,000 cows then you should have at least 1,000 acres per cow for pasture as a rule of thumb for grazing.

Which takes up a lot more land than 1 acre factory farm with supplemental feed and water.

You also get the advantage of the cows with the supplemental feed getting better feed, which allows them to grow faster.

Factory farmed cows do not have to burn as much energy to put on weight, so they grow faster.

Like I said, factory farming is efficient.

Small Area, Nutrient rich feed, access to water, less overall energy per cow, and weight gain faster (shorter life of the cow).

The issue with western free range cattle is the cattle grow slower, have to eat more less notorious food, cover more land for the same amount of feed per day, find an adequate amount of water to drink, and have to escape predators which costs energy.

Now, I think the biggest argument against it is the treatment of animals. Which you could make a case.

There are a lot of weird things in terms of what is better for the environment even though on first glance there is no way that is the case.

Like paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic bags. Which is fun to point out when you go to Jackson where they believe they need to otherwise and feel the need to charge you at the grocery store for paper bags.

 

[woods89]

Sorry—organic farming is actually worse for climate change

The practice cuts greenhouse-gas emissions only if you ignore the inconvenient fact that it requires a lot more land.

www.technologyreview.com

Probably not the right place for this, but factory farming is actually better for the environment than organic farming and in some cases better than free range farming when looking at cattle. With Chickens, because they take up a much smaller footprint it is better to free range them or use the Salatin model.

Factory farming on many levels is efficient than other methods of farming. Which is difficult to see when you look at pictures as the one with the cattle above.

We see the land over a relatively small area completely destroyed, but with the same amount of cattle you would need a lot more land to feed them if they were organic.

Each cow can up to 2-4% of their body weight a day which is about 20-40 pounds of feed (dry feed) for a 1,000 pound cow per day while consuming 30-50 gallons of water per day (which is like a bathtub)

If you have 1,000 cows then you should have at least 1,000 acres per cow for pasture as a rule of thumb for grazing.

Which takes up a lot more land than 1 acre factory farm with supplemental feed and water.

You also get the advantage of the cows with the supplemental feed getting better feed, which allows them to grow faster.

Factory farmed cows do not have to burn as much energy to put on weight, so they grow faster.

Like I said, factory farming is efficient.

Small Area, Nutrient rich feed, access to water, less overall energy per cow, and weight gain faster (shorter life of the cow).

The issue with western free range cattle is the cattle grow slower, have to eat more less notorious food, cover more land for the same amount of feed per day, find an adequate amount of water to drink, and have to escape predators which costs energy.

Now, I think the biggest argument against it is the treatment of animals. Which you could make a case.

There are a lot of weird things in terms of what is better for the environment even though on first glance there is no way that is the case.

Like paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic bags. Which is fun to point out when you go to Jackson where they believe they need to otherwise and feel the need to charge you at the grocery store for paper bags.

Interesting post. I will read those articles as soon as I have some time.

If I'm honest, some of my reservations are probably aesthetic, and may not totally play out in real life.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

1000 acres per cow seems like a lot -- maybe depends on geographic region of the country?

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Interesting post. I will read those articles as soon as I have some time.

If I'm honest, some of my reservations are probably aesthetic, and may not totally play out in real life.

It is because it should not make sense until you learn more information about it.

Then after the new information, you can see how it makes sense.

The paper bag vs plastic bag which is better for the environment was really eye opening for me.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

1000 acres per cow seems like a lot -- maybe depends on geographic region of the country?

They say it is about 1:1 . One acre per cow

 

[Gus Chiggins]

They say it is about 1:1 . One acre per cow

I was going to say, we had a 30 head herd when I was a kid, but nothing close to 30K acres.

In calculating "land needed" to raise cattle, generally (or at least for "organic free range" cattle), maybe we include the other acres used for raising hay to feed during months you can't pasture. While growing up I picked up a lot of hay bales but couldn't tell you how many acres of grass or alfalfa hay is needed per head. For alfalfa and depending on the weather in some places people could get a third cutting on the same field. That's more efficient at least from an acreage perspective. Then factor in the fuel, etc., needed to grow and harvest.

 

[d-bone20917]

There's another whole issue not being considered.

I apply for elk tags in, most years: UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO, and MT.

Odds are garbage in any of them. I can tell you, one year I snagged a great elk tag in MT and another great tag in WY. Another year I had one in AZ and WY. I want to hunt other states for elk, I don't care if Matt Rinella thinks I shouldn't shoot more than one elk a year. I don't know when I'm going to draw with a random system, or even with points I have no idea.

So Rinella thinks I should just for-go hunting one of those tags because he doesn't think I should hunt more than one elk?

I tend to agree somewhat with his message in general regarding the whole hunt quietly thing. But I think he's falling victim to his own hypocrisy, he's producing content to stir the pot without really putting thought into what he's doing and saying. Telling someone how many tags a year HE thinks another hunter should have is really none of his business.

For Pete's sake, they're thinking about passing legislation in Wyoming to kill elk from helicopters and leaving them lay to keep the numbers in check. They already paid 2 guys to kill 129 elk here last winter. Oh, but high horse Matt thinks I'm a monster for killing 2 additional elk out of that same mountain range, with essentially OTC opportunity for anyone that wants to?

He needs a new tree to bark up...and something new to be faux outraged about.

He ought to take his own advice and keep his mouth shut sometimes.

Are you hunting those elk just for social media content? If not, he has no problem with what you are doing. At least not from what I've heard on the podcast.

 

[rogerthat]

Are you hunting those elk just for social media content? If not, he has no problem with what you are doing. At least not from what I've heard on the podcast.

Yeah I think it’s pretty clear what Matt is talking about. A great example is the BRO guys land of the free series, where they went state to state to state to etc. elk hunting. Then you got a bunch of wannabes trying to emulate them. However that probably kind of solved itself with otc going away and the tag demand that was generated. Getting tags for that many states takes some luck nowadays.

There are some turds on here that basically do the same thing and try to pull as many tags as possible and stack bodies. I don’t get it. I guarantee it’s not for the meat.