Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Hey, my log in worked today 
Wasn't sure if I was banned for good, or just a TO.
@Lostinthewoods wrote: "What are your thoughts? Try to keep it on track. Nothing wrong with asking why sponsors put up with it and what should they do." & "The first one was deleted and the pitch forks came out as if somehow HT was protecting the individual or sponsors. False"
To that latter statement, agreed 100%.
Also to that end, Ryan Lampers exists within in tightly-spun web of sponsors, partners, associates, audiences, collaborators, platforms, business models, and vendors that connects with other influencers hunting big game in Idaho through many strands.
This is significant to me insofar as these influencers all have significant parallel pressures to capture trophy big game kill shots on camera. We don't know why RL allegedly committed a slew of major big game violations within 30 days. We do know that if he did not kill the mountain lion or the deer in the wrong GMU he would not have the content for those kills. It is 100% his decision to do what he did. That is also not the whole story.
Did RL kill these two animals to try and keep his business model afloat? How are influencers most-similar to RL navigating those same pressures? The RL situation does not exist in a vacuum.
For example see
Nothing illegal here. However, hopefully video illustrates my point: Cory misses x2 at 377 yards. Rodeo ensues and his brother shoots 2 bulls with 2 shots, one of which was "grazed". 10:42 if you want to see what a grazing shot looks like. Cory, later, "The rifle I'm shooting from Sig is an incredible rifle...It's gonna be a wolf killing machine but we are on such short timelines...we literally got it the day before, two days before we left and...we took it out to the range and shot it at 200...shot four shots at steel and...hit twice at 620...and thought I'm good out to 500 no problem."
We get locked into this mind frame that outdoor companies are fine as long as they drop their sponsorships on convicted poachers, and if they keep sponsoring the poacher they we shouldn't buy from them. The duplicity is problematic in and of itself. The whole MODEL is flawed - payday contingent on pushing the limits on what is legal and ethical.
This, among other reasons, is why M. Rinella takes a hard stance against any gear manufacturer who sponsors hunting influencers who feature photos and videos of dead and dying animals. Granted, it makes our purchasing decisions are lot harder, but consider what WE are perpetuating.
It is easy to heap criticism on RL. The challenge I have for all of us is to take a look in the mirror and consider how much of what happened in Idaho has to do with us, the consumers.
Wasn't sure if I was banned for good, or just a TO.@Lostinthewoods wrote: "What are your thoughts? Try to keep it on track. Nothing wrong with asking why sponsors put up with it and what should they do." & "The first one was deleted and the pitch forks came out as if somehow HT was protecting the individual or sponsors. False"
To that latter statement, agreed 100%.
Also to that end, Ryan Lampers exists within in tightly-spun web of sponsors, partners, associates, audiences, collaborators, platforms, business models, and vendors that connects with other influencers hunting big game in Idaho through many strands.
This is significant to me insofar as these influencers all have significant parallel pressures to capture trophy big game kill shots on camera. We don't know why RL allegedly committed a slew of major big game violations within 30 days. We do know that if he did not kill the mountain lion or the deer in the wrong GMU he would not have the content for those kills. It is 100% his decision to do what he did. That is also not the whole story.
Did RL kill these two animals to try and keep his business model afloat? How are influencers most-similar to RL navigating those same pressures? The RL situation does not exist in a vacuum.
For example see
Nothing illegal here. However, hopefully video illustrates my point: Cory misses x2 at 377 yards. Rodeo ensues and his brother shoots 2 bulls with 2 shots, one of which was "grazed". 10:42 if you want to see what a grazing shot looks like. Cory, later, "The rifle I'm shooting from Sig is an incredible rifle...It's gonna be a wolf killing machine but we are on such short timelines...we literally got it the day before, two days before we left and...we took it out to the range and shot it at 200...shot four shots at steel and...hit twice at 620...and thought I'm good out to 500 no problem."
We get locked into this mind frame that outdoor companies are fine as long as they drop their sponsorships on convicted poachers, and if they keep sponsoring the poacher they we shouldn't buy from them. The duplicity is problematic in and of itself. The whole MODEL is flawed - payday contingent on pushing the limits on what is legal and ethical.
This, among other reasons, is why M. Rinella takes a hard stance against any gear manufacturer who sponsors hunting influencers who feature photos and videos of dead and dying animals. Granted, it makes our purchasing decisions are lot harder, but consider what WE are perpetuating.
It is easy to heap criticism on RL. The challenge I have for all of us is to take a look in the mirror and consider how much of what happened in Idaho has to do with us, the consumers.
