Matt Rinella is categorically confused

Status
Not open for further replies.

MtEngineer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2023
Messages
979
I have done some listening to Matt's take on what we do in the industry as hunters, media consumers, and media producers. I have arrived at the following conclusions.

1. Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system. The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is? He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money.
2. Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already have isnt enough. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority.
3. I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?
4. Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes.
5. Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does.
6. Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?
7. Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates.

All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway.
 
Last edited:
I have done some listening to Matt's take on what we do in the industry as hunters, media consumers, and media producers. I have arrived at the following conclusions.

1. Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system. The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is? He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money.
2. Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority.
3. I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?
4. Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes.
5. Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does.
6. Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?
7. Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates.

All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway.
Amen! Now... cue the hoards of Matt lovers who think he's the greatest thing for hunting...

I had to laugh out loud when I saw his "store". His "at cost" merchandise is far from "at cost". Order 100 shirts from anywhere and you'll be under $10/shirt.

Meateater shirts are on sale right now for $15 a piece...
 
I have done some listening to Matt's take on what we do in the industry as hunters, media consumers, and media producers. I have arrived at the following conclusions.

1. Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system. The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is? He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money.
2. Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority.
3. I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?
4. Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes.
5. Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does.
6. Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?
7. Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates.

All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway.
mm k
 
I'm gonna post this even though it's not quite edited or near complete. I'm involved with Matt Rinella because I heard him through around an idea for a group that they had already started. Hunters for Access. The idea would be to support existing public access programs, with donations like calf shelters and ranching supplies or by actually having work days on these properties. I made the dinky website https://huntersforaccess.org/, so that we could start getting volunteers and raising some funds.

I would say that the goal of hunt quietly is to apply a little social pressure to get people to stop worshipping dip shit hunting heroes, who don't have their best interests in heart.

I'd say that the goal of Hunters for Access is to stop losing ground with public access to private ground. To give back to those who provide access and acknowledge that no matter what, it's pretty inconvenient to have a bunch of strangers on your land even if the state is reimbursing you. Hopefully HFA will make some tangible difference.

Could Matt Rinella's involvement in hunt quietly hurt HFA maybe a bit. But I doubt landowners care that the guy who's organizing work days on their properties hates your hunting hero.


Anyway here is the update to Matt's other project:
It’s been an exciting first year at Hunters for Access. HFA is an organization dedicated to promoting public access for hunters. Our focus is on supporting state wildlife agency hunting access programs that compensate farmers, ranchers, and other landowners for permitting public access to their land using funds from hunting license sales. However, these programs are at risk due to high lease fees for exclusive access from outfitters, wealthy hunters, and poor behavior by some hunters. We are committed to advocating for the continuation and improvement of these programs. We are currently a 100% volunteer run organization, meaning that every dollar raised goes back into protecting existing access to private land and

Here is a roundup of what we’ve been up to in our first year.

Montana Chapter Highlights

Funding -
During our first year as an organization, we received donations of hunting gear and tools from several Miles City businesses (Napa, Red Rocks, Eastern Ag Repair, Cowtown Ag, Red Rocks Sporting Goods, Equipment Management Solutions, Davis Repair, Murdoch’s Ranch & Home Supply, Miles City Electric, and Steadman’s Ace Hardware). We raised money by raffling off these donations at a fundraiser at Otium Brewery. Additionally, Otium donated a dollar per beer purchase, and we raised money from individual donors on our website (huntersforaccess.org).

Landowner Giveaways - With our funds, we purchased $1900 in gift cards from Murdoch’s Ranch & Home Supply and Steadman’s Ace Hardware, two calf shelters ($1500) and one hydraulic post pounder ($1400). These appreciation gifts were distributed to landowners through a drawing at Block Management Appreciation dinners in Miles City and Glendive in February and March. More recently, we partnered with Montana BHA to purchase a $1600 stock tank that was destroyed by hunters on a Block Management property in 2022. We also built two gates for a Block Management participant to prevent hunters from climbing their fences.


Work Projects on Block Management Areas - For our work projects, 26 volunteers worked on nine properties that allow public hunting. Volunteers traveled from as far away as Colorado and Washington to help. The work included fencing, building a porch and barn door, removing a dilapidated building, scouting for noxious weeds, and yard work. We sincerely thank the following volunteers for giving back for access:

Amanda DeAngelo, Amber Feddes, Becky Undlin, Caleb Bollman, Cam Davis, Casey Prell, Colton Farley, Dale Tribby, David Fontenot, Dustin Strong, Greg Conitz, Guy Brewer, John Kuntz, John Kuntz Jr, Justin Feddes, Khale Alexander, Kirk Anderson, Leanna Kolbeck, Logan Dyson, Luke Shurtliff, Maribeth Ault, Matt Rinella, Mike Hathaway, Miles Muscha, Oliver Gulig, and Richelle Davis.


Upcoming year- In addition to continuing our work days in Region 7, we have plans to expand in R6, R2 and R3. If you have interest in being part of organizing work days in Regions outside of region 7 please contact [email protected].


Kansas Chapter Highlights

History – Several hunters in Kansas came together in May of 2023 and decided to pursue a Kansas Chapter of Hunters for Access. A board was formed and organizational documents were put together over the summer. In late June the Kansas chapter was notified of its IRS 501(c)(3) status, making the Kansas Chapter a tax-exempt entity. One of the first things the board did was develop a mission statement: “Promoting hunting access through building positive relationships between hunters and landowners.” As of current, about 25 people have signed up to help with Kansas Hunters for Access.

Funding - Through generous donations, Kansas Hunters for Access is bankrolled to the tune of about $1,200. In addition to direct cash donations the Kansas Chapter has also received a few contributions through the website. Volunteers have also volunteered their professional skills in legal and business matters to draft the corporate filings to the State of Kansas and apply for tax exempt status through the IRS. Kansas Hunters for Access is 100% operated by volunteers working for free and every dollar raised in Kansas stays in Kansas directly benefiting Kansas landowners who allow access.

WIHA Cooperator Survey – Working with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) Kansas Hunters for Access sent surveys (several thousand) out to all Walk-In Hunting Access (WIHA) Cooperators in September of this year. Kansas Hunters for Access helped develop the survey and WildTrust Funds (funds donated to the KDWP by generous donors) were used to print and mail the surveys. The intent behind the surveys was to determine where Kansas Hunters for Access best fits to help perpetuate and grow the WIHA program. 575 WIHA Cooperators responded to the survey. Preliminary results of the survey provide some interesting findings. WIHA cooperators’ primary area of concern is hunter behavior. In a direct ask if help on farms and ranches is needed, only about 25% indicated they want help. There were six questions asked on the survey and in general Cooperators are happy with the program, but there’s a common thread of issues with hunter behavior (open gates, vehicle trespass, trash, poaching, etc.) that threaten continued enrollment by Cooperators. The preliminary consensus conclusion is the WIHA program is working good for Cooperators, but until trust can be built through better hunter behavior, the only help Cooperators need is help with hunters acting better on their land.

Kansas Department of Wildlife Parks Commission - In late November, Jeff Hancock, President of Kansas Hunters for Access, introduced Kansas Hunters for Access to the Commission. Information about Kansas Hunters for Access, the mission, projects we are working on, and volunteer interest was presented to the Commission and well received.

Appreciation Dinner Planning - Modeled after Montana FWP’s successful Block Management Appreciation Dinners in various Regions of the state, Kansas Hunters for Access decided to pilot a regional appreciation dinner for WIHA Cooperators. The KDWP does not have the ability to host such dinners for fiscal policy reasons. The first Kansas WIHA Cooperator Appreciation Dinner will be held on February 23rd in Washington, Kansas. Cooperators within 50 miles of Washington are being invited to the dinner. Kansas Hunters for Access will provide a catered roast beef meal; giveaways provided by local vendors will be deployed via a free raffle; and representatives from Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited and the KDWP will be on hand to present each agency’s programs for helping farmers and ranchers with projects on their land benefitting both their operations and habitat. Kansas Hunters for Access will also be on hand to take signups for projects on farms and ranches our volunteers can address over the summer.


New Chapters Forming Section

Minnesota Update:


The Minnesota HFA has 13 member volunteers who have committed to working on access in Minnesota. In addition, the Nature Fund and The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources have both agreed to work with Minnesota HFA as soon as we are formally organized. The Nature Fund will utilize HFA MN volunteer hours to prepare the parcels of land they own from a previous Potlach Timber company sale to transfer these lands to the MN DNR as permanent state owned lands.
Virginia Update:
In progress…

Raffle - We are excited to announce our nationwide raffle (excluding Hawaii and ….). Through generous donations from (list the rest) we have several amazing gear items to raffle off. These funds will be made available to all of our chapters to support work projects on publicly huntable private lands and to purchase gifts for landowners that allow public hunting access.
 
Last edited:
For all the folks we can have unlimited hunters and pretend like tags and resources aren’t limited, take a look at Wyo is doing for NR hunters which is most likely the lion share of this forum. Not against what they are doing at all but for those that think we can have everyone, everywhere dive in and the resource or the activity won’t suffer are delusional. Selling your personality based on killing way more animals than you or your kin can eat should be demonetized. Randy, Steve, Cam are all selling a product at all of our expense. I’d love if they became a lot more interested in getting us more access.
 
Keep Hammering @rjthehunter and @MtEngineer !! Unlike some of us, you guys are not amongst the dumbest of phuckers and are clearly using the many resources at your disposal, such as onxHunting gohunting fool apps, etc. You both have exceeded the yellow belt status.
You put a lot of thought into crafting that response.

You have a moderately concerning obsession with Cam... Did he block you for stalker type activity? Lol
 
For all the folks we can have unlimited hunters and pretend like tags and resources aren’t limited, take a look at Wyo is doing for NR hunters which is most likely the lion share of this forum. Not against what they are doing at all but for those that think we can have everyone, everywhere dive in and the resource or the activity won’t suffer are delusional. Selling your personality based on killing way more animals than you or your kin can eat should be demonetized. Randy, Steve, Cam are all selling a product at all of our expense. I’d love if they became a lot more interested in getting us more access.

There aren't any more NR hunters in WY, substantially less after the Pronghorn cuts. As far as shutting the door on new applicants, who are you to say when the door closes?
 
I'm gonna post this even though it's not quite edited or near complete. I'm involved with Matt Rinella because I heard him through around an idea for a group that they had already started. Hunters for Access. The idea would be to support existing public access programs, with donations like calf shelters and ranching supplies or by actually having work days on these properties. I made the dinky website https://huntersforaccess.org/, so that we could start getting volunteers and raising some funds.

I would say that the goal of hunt quietly is to apply a little social pressure to get people to stop worshipping dip shit hunting heroes, who don't have their best interests in heart.

I'd say that the goal of Hunters for Access is to stop losing ground with public access to private ground. To give back to those who provide access and acknowledge that no matter what, it's pretty inconvenient to have a bunch of strangers on your land even if the state is reimbursing you. Hopefully HFA will make some tangible difference.

Could Matt Rinella's involvement in hunt quietly hurt HFA maybe a bit. But I doubt landowners care that the guy who's organizing work days on their properties hates your hunting hero.


Anyway here is the update to Matt's other project:
I'm not saying Matt doesn't have some good intentions, but I don't think he's going about it in a great way. To group all "influencers" in with Cam and other less than desirable faces for hunting isn't a great move.

Matt has spoken out about meateater more than once. I don't think there's a more positively influential group out there.


They've done a lot for education and conservation. Watch their videos, it's not trophy hunting (not that there's anything wrong with targeting mature animals), and they're ethical hunters. Good voice for most hunters in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
There aren't any more NR hunters in WY, substantially less after the Pronghorn cuts. As far as shutting the door on new applicants, who are you to say when the door closes?
I’m not but clearly the people of wyo have had enough… so they are telling us via cuts, which is their right, now where will all those guys go? Will Randy give all the newbies strategies for that. Guess what lots of places are shutting their doors. All I’m saying is maybe we don’t need to sell more t-shirts or advertise more for a resource that is already not available at the scale that it was a handful of years ago because of elevated interest.
 
Amen! Now... cue the hoards of Matt lovers who think he's the greatest thing for hunting...

I had to laugh out loud when I saw his "store". His "at cost" merchandise is far from "at cost". Order 100 shirts from anywhere and you'll be under $10/shirt.

Meateater shirts are on sale right now for $15 a piece...
I imagine the cost is higher as he gets them made locally in Miles City. Growing up we had shirts made locally in a small town for travel team basketball and they definitely weren't under 10$, and that was some time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,055
Messages
1,945,127
Members
34,992
Latest member
bgeary
Back
Top