Ok. I'm biased. I've been in the media biz for 35 years and have taken checks from MeatEater and others. I've unintentionally burned my own spots! But overall, I think the reason we are seeing more crowding and more difficulty drawing tags is because of habitat loss. There's just less space to fit us all. I know where I live, I can easily name a dozen places where I can no longer hunt, and a dozen places that are more crowded than they were when I moved here. Just bumped into new "no trespassing" signs on Saturday as yet another place that had been open to hunting for the last 12,000 years is now posted. The problem ain't Rinella or Randy. The problem is habitat loss in all its forms.
Serious question, as I agree with habitat loss being A problem, which leads to access issues, but not THE only problem.
How does influencing more consumptive (keyword - because in my observation there’s more of these than the ones doing the work) users onto a smaller landscape of habitat and accessible lands benefit hunters and wildlife?
We’re supposed to be conservation minded, but at what point does that actually become more than selling banquet tickets, raffles, “kits”, “systems”, tag and draw services and gear giveaways that are “supposedly” going back into conservation? Point being, when is it actually about the wildlife and not the supposed dollars “earmarked” for the wildlife?
Again, not casting stones but a serious question. I’ve got my own observations and experiences from 40+ years of doing this all over the US, and while I don’t always agree with his delivery, Matt’s got a lot I align with - one being, I’m not experiencing things getting better for hunters and wildlife as a whole. Whitetail hunting, Western big game, Waterfowl, Turkey, I could go on.
We’ve either got to hire a better PR firm or own up to reality, because saying the current mode of influencing and recruitment is conservation minded seems more like a feel good slogan than a reality.