Matt Rinella gives a talk at Pope and Young

[jbseamus83]

I haven't listened to this particular speech, but I've listened and read a number of the things that Matt has put out there. I also have to admit that I am one of those that follows a lot of what Meateater does as a fan. I do not like everything that Meateater does and I do believe that they are much more into selling products now than when I started following them and it can be quite annoying.

I can't say that I completely disagree with everything that Matt stands for with the publicizing and and advertising of animals. However, a huge part of what he speaks out against is the 'over-crowding' problem and the growth of hunting. Yes, social media has had a part in this, but I truly believe that there are other causes with technology (phone-based gps, gear improvement, atvs, etc.) that provide more comfort and security for going to these places rather than social media. A lot of what Matt puts out there sounds very selfish - 'get off my lawn' sounding. While it would be awesome to have the woods completely to yourself at all times, it does belong to everyone. I don't think he has been able to truly support most of his ideas with logical and realistic solutions other than 'stop going hunting - well, except for me, so that I can have the woods to myself'. I just can't get on board with this line of thought.

 

[BuckRut]

Why be coy? He asked you a direct question.

Matt has a list of "problems" as long as my arm. I would have to write you a book to cover them all.

If we are talking overcrowding the root cause is that there is not enough access for the current demand on hunting. Doesn't matter why that many people want to hunt. A good start would be to educate more people on the fact that we have these federal agencies that manage our lands and the access to them that are so vastly underfunded they can't keep up. Chris Roe did the math and although I don't remember the exact number it comes out to less than $20 a year that each of us pays to use the millions of acres of federally managed land. That number is pathetic and it is no wonder that the management of these lands and the access to them is poor but all we do is complain about the agency and if we were asked to pay more we would complain about that too.

 

[DouglasR]

this why we need them mano a mano in a cage with rogan on the mic

loser has to embrace and help fulfill the dreams of the others venture

Let’s just appreciate this for a moment:

 

[atlas]

Matt has a list of "problems" as long as my arm. I would have to write you a book to cover them all.

If we are talking overcrowding the root cause is that there is not enough access for the current demand on hunting. Doesn't matter why that many people want to hunt. A good start would be to educate more people on the fact that we have these federal agencies that manage our lands and the access to them that are so vastly underfunded they can't keep up. Chris Roe did the math and although I don't remember the exact number it comes out to less than $20 a year that each of us pays to use the millions of acres of federally managed land. That number is pathetic and it is no wonder that the management of these lands and the access to them is poor but all we do is complain about the agency and if we were asked to pay more we would complain about that too.

Right, so a large point in the talk is spending money on R3 and drumming up interest in hunting.

So if a major problem is overcrowding on public land, money that is spent on R3 should be spent on acquiring land and access instead of R3 programs.
Build it and they will come. Especially because people stop hunting because there is a lack of access near them.

 

[atlas]

Matt has a list of "problems" as long as my arm. I would have to write you a book to cover them all.

If we are talking overcrowding the root cause is that there is not enough access for the current demand on hunting. Doesn't matter why that many people want to hunt. A good start would be to educate more people on the fact that we have these federal agencies that manage our lands and the access to them that are so vastly underfunded they can't keep up. Chris Roe did the math and although I don't remember the exact number it comes out to less than $20 a year that each of us pays to use the millions of acres of federally managed land. That number is pathetic and it is no wonder that the management of these lands and the access to them is poor but all we do is complain about the agency and if we were asked to pay more we would complain about that too.

I happily give a little money to TNC. They've bought shit loads of timber land and turned it over to FS and BLM.

 

[longbow51]

Anyone who thinks social media of any kind doesn't influence overcrowding need look no further than what happened after "A River Runs Through It" and its impact on Montana rivers. And now, for your viewing pleasure, "Yellowstone".

 

[BuckRut]

Right, so a large point in the talk is spending money on R3 and drumming up interest in hunting.

So if a major problem is overcrowding on public land, money that is spent on R3 should be spent on acquiring land and access instead of R3 programs.
Build it and they will come. Especially because people stop hunting because there is a lack of access near them.

Wrong agency. Doesn't matter how much money the state agencies save by not spending on R3 they sure aren't giving it to the feds.

I happily give a little money to TNC. They've bought shit loads of timber land and turned it over to FS and BLM.

The feds gaining more land to pay to maintain with the money they already don't have doesn't help the problem.

PS I am not trying to defend any of the social media stuff just saying that our money and efforts could be better used other places than trying to make our group even more divided than we already are. This is another point that hurts the hunting community.

 

[NR_Hunter]

steve strikes me as dude who can scrap hard. or they'd just talk each other to death.

Steve can scrap hard, verbally. But that’s where it makes a hard stop.




I bet next family Christmas Matt power bombs Steve thru a Christmas tree.

 

[Buschy]

Much of what Matt said resonates deeply with me and makes a lot of sense! Eliminating social media from the face of the earth would solve MANY more problems than just the ones he mentioned relating to hunting.

 

[atlas]

Wrong agency. Doesn't matter how much money the state agencies save by not spending on R3 they sure aren't giving it to the feds.

The feds gaining more land to pay to maintain with the money they already don't have doesn't help the problem.

PS I am not trying to defend any of the social media stuff just saying that our money and efforts could be better used other places than trying to make our group even more divided than we already are. This is another point that hurts the hunting community.

MT FWP has plenty of WMAs and is actually in the business of owning land and easements but I was referring to the nonprofits spending money on R3 to get more hunters. Matt generally talks about how crowded places are and maybe if we better managed the public land people would spread out because there would be more critters in more places. But you're almost bringing up two different things.

I've heard Marcus Hockett say something along the lines of 'I can't be too upset about how crowded this hunt is when we promote public land hunting' I think that hunting tv and ig influencers have put us into a slow death spiral that can't really be stopped.

It's not even just the big names it's the 10000s of people who emulate them on social media and want to be just like them.

 

[TheTone]

Let’s just appreciate this for a moment:
View attachment 274644

Matt and shifty couldn’t have been cooler when I ran into them in the Ketchikan airport a couple years ago

This turkey season has really frustrated me from a pressure standpoint; especially at places that used to take some research and effort to figure out access. I was joking with a friend that it should be R5 with the second two r’s being ruin and replace

 

[jbseamus83]

Much of what Matt said resonates deeply with me and makes a lot of sense! Eliminating social media from the face of the earth would solve MANY more problems than just the ones he mentioned relating to hunting.

I get that and in a perfect utopia it makes sense. In fact, I don't have any social media accounts in terms of facebook, twitter, etc. I do use youtube and websites such as this one, but none of the others.

However, saying 'let's just get rid of social media' is my problem with Matt and others. Social media is here and it's staying as much as crumudgeons want it to go away. So, what are the REAL solutions?

 

[jbseamus83]

Let’s just appreciate this for a moment:
View attachment 274644

Ummm...I think I have that same jacket....

 

[BuckRut]

Everyone also needs to admit that if you are on the get rid of social media bandwagon you are also on the government censorship bandwagon.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I am generally a pretty solution-forward type of person, but I don't think the toothpaste is going back in the tube on most of his concerns (some of which I share). I like hearing different perspectives on the topic, Matt's included. If I had to summarize one of the biggest problems, I would call it experience vs. expectations. For both long term and newer hunters.

Solutions? One of the only long term wins I could actually see happening, though not easily or cheaply, is regaining some lost ground in access.

 

[FI460]

One of the things I've been grappling with lately is the value of more hunters. I used to beat the drum of R3 thinking that we needed to sustain hunter numbers partly to sustain our funding model (license sales and PR). Our hunting culture has certainly expanded into something different than what I was raised with though which I don't particularly like, and we see diminishing tag allocations across the west.

I think a lot of us find great value in the advocacy we're exposed to on Hunt Talk though right? My conflict is in finding the crossroads of recruiting advocates vs just recruiting hunters. As an example our local conservation organization partnered with USFS to fence cattle out of a sensitive riparian area last weekend. We have close to 700 members in our chapter. 5 showed up for the project. The weather was good and it was a 45 minute drive from the population center.

I need more folks that will show up to help, and show up to advocate. Do we cast a wide net bringing in 100 people and hope 5 of them are engaged, or do we target folks in a more selective way and maybe get 1 or 2?

 

[Irrelevant]

Solutions?

Only hunt one state per year, R or NR.

But really how is overcrowding in the hunting space any different than the overcrowding in the backpacking space, the rafting space, the climbing space, the skiing space? It's not. We have too much money and too much free time. And stop having more kids.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Only hunt one state per year, R or NR.

But really how is overcrowding in the hunting space any different than the overcrowding in the backpacking space, the rafting space, the climbing space, the skiing space? It's not. We have too much money and too much free time. And stop having more kids.

It is indeed luxury to worry about things like this, which I think plays into the "expectations" part of the equation.

 

[atlas]

Everyone also needs to admit that if you are on the get rid of social media bandwagon you are also on the government censorship bandwagon.

I am certainly not looking to ban social media. I’d like to see the main character syndrome that is constantly on display in the hunting social media world go away.

maybe people could stop putting every single thing they do hunting on social media. That doesn’t mean a ban.

 

[BuckRut]

maybe people could stop putting every single thing they do hunting on social media.

I completely agree with this statement. However, that is never going to happen. We can come to terms with that and move on to look for tangible solutions that can be implemented or complain about it.