Randy Newberg on Matt Rinella's Podcast

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

All due respect to everyone, and I mean it, but I am of the mind that one of the last things our public lands needs, whether it is outfitting, guiding, filming, foraging, or something else, is additional commercial activity on the landscape.

I agree, but one of the things we haven't touched on much here is reforming the permit process so it's more useful. @Big Fin has mentioned in a number of different posts and podcast episodes how burdensome the permit process is, and how that burden likely pushes folks to skip pulling the permit to begin with. A number of different insta hunters were thumbing their nose at the entire program just a few months back. I think influencers creating content on public lands should be more well regulated. We all know that as a country we aren't going to ban it though. We haven't discussed palatable solutions much here.

I'm sort of the opinion that we should streamline the permit process so more content creators will participate (since we aren't stopping them from creating content), but also increase enforcement.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Just finished listening to the podcast. I enjoyed both of them. It left me thinking about how things have changed for me personally since I started hunting big game at 12 years old with my father, grandfather, brother and uncle.

Anyone else wish Randy was the voice of all of the audio books you listen to?

My wife hates his voice. "Why does every hunter u listen to sound like a Yankee??"

In the South, anyone from the north, west, or northeast is a "yankee". Ironically I don't care for Newcomb's voice and I'm from his home state.

 

[X13]

View attachment 230033Darn it we need to make it easier for people to make a living filming hunts, I mean they’re barely a commercial operation

This is the worst thing ever

 

[fowladdict]

My wife hates his voice. "Why does every hunter u listen to sound like a Yankee??"

In the South, anyone from the north, west, or northeast is a "yankee". Ironically I don't care for Newcomb's voice and I'm from his home state.

A simple "No" would have done. dang!!

 

[beginnerhunter]

A simple "No" would have done. dang!!

Haha, I actually like how Northerners enunciate. Wife says I have a Yankee accent sometimes. My Dad grew up near Chicago.

But IMO Jim Dale is the GOAT of audio books. Rosamund Pike is great as well.

 

[Schaaf]

I found Matt’s diatribe on the Meateater podcast another example of someone thinking they own or have more of a right to use, something we all do. And his blaming social media for crowded trailheads and more users on public land seems like misplaced anger. I found it bizarre and or course ironic that what he was attacking, his brother’s company along with similar social media outlets, gave him his voice and literally was giving him that stump to make his speech. No one would know who he was otherwise or be listening to him.

Regarding his localism; I see this across every subject I follow. Regarding public land users, it can include day hikers, thru hikers, hunters, anglers, trail runners, birders, photographers, mountain bikers, ATVers, horseback riders, climbers, and many more. All complainng about these “new” users invading “their” spots. Well guess what…there are just more people on earth. There more people doing all those things and as land values have increased over the past several couple of decades, more people rely on public land. I gre up hunting on private land and all that land is now either homes or off limits to hunting (much of it a state park, the rest posted by new owners and leased for $$$). My story is not unique, I think its typical. I am a now 100% public land hunter. COVID related changes to work from home did lead to more people moving to the west, so they can do all these things more often, but the packed trailheads have been a thing for a while. Just like when I was young a two-lane interstate was usually sufficient in most places… not so much anymore. What was the population of your hometown as a kid vs now? Get it?

I have a lot of hobbies besides hunting and fishing; I backpack, mountian bike, camp, trail run, surf, ski… I hear the same complaints in EVERY FORUM I follow. Too many people in the lineup, at the trailhead, lift lines, fishing holes, blah blah blah. There are just more people on earth and those spaces where we hunt or fish… or surf, or ski… THEY ARE NOT GROWING. If anything, they are getting smaller due to sprawl. Its simple; more people=less space. Its similar to the “don’t move here” rants you see from people in the west… people are moving everywhere, towns are growing literally everywhere on earth. This is not new, it is literally the history of civilization. So expect to see more day use permitting as you now see at not only national parks but for many hiking trails.

For grumpy “get off my lawn” people of my generation; social media is the new VHS tape/magazine by which the public gets its news and information. Done. Thats the new world we live in. All it does is get information to people faster and in greater quanities. And allows greater discussion than standing around the bow shop or writing a letter to the editor ever did. At the same time, so much gets lost in that massive information glut that it can be for naught. But I don’t think proportionally social media has done anything to bring more hunters to the fold than the outlets in the past did. From the numbers I’ve seen, hunters numbers have not grown as a percentage of population under the social media era compared to the past. So I don’t see that connection to crowding anyone’s spots vs the aforementioned issues I raised.

The lone issue I agree with Matt Rinella on is regarding the negative publicity social media can bring hunting. A grip and grin posted at the local general store/check station or in a magazine in 1990 was seen by a few hundred or thousand people max over the years it hung there. Anything posted online can be seen and shared by millions in a day. And when that which is depicted is offensive to some, say a skinned out husky one thought was a wolf, or a collared lion that had a name, the outrage mob (which always has existed) can marshal their forces more effectively. So yes, everyone should be more deliberative in what they post online. Just because one can, doesn’t mean they should. That also isn’t a new bit of common sense. But Matt’s attack on Meateater specifically was again a little bizarre and seemed personal as they certainly are one of the better media outlets that positvely promote hunting to the non-hunting public. I know this as I have shared episodes with non-hunters who always come away with a positive view of it.

I thank all here who have posted their views, I enjoy other’s insights and constructive commentary. Also appreciate the suggestion of listening to Matt’s podcast, didn’t know about that, as well as the “Your Mountain” one, gonna check those out.

tl;dr

 

[Yogithebear]

tl;dr

Sorry, brevity is not my strong suit.

 

[woods89]

I happen to agree with Matt on a lot of levels. I'm glad he's exploring some of these ideas, and we badly need some counterpoints in our "document everything" culture.

That said, I've been listening to some of his podcasts, and I'd say he's struggling with messaging. It seems like in a lot of cases it winds up sounding like a few guys sitting around complaining, which isn't the easiest thing to listen to. I feel for him, though, as there is hardly a sexy way to package his message.

It seems like hunting is struggling with some really complex issues, and I'm realizing more and more that simple solutions probably don't exist.

 

[Nameless Range]

I listened to it, and though there's a core to Matt's position that I agree with, his delivery and arguments miss the mark often. That's not me knocking him at all - if I spoke on a podcast for two hours I would come across far more poorly.

That said, I feel like Matt, and those who he is often antagonistic to, are often speaking past one another.

The hunters/huntable-acre is the crux of most of these discussions, and I appreciate folks being specific when they talk about promoting hunting in this way. You could incorporate huntable animals into the equation, but let's set that aside in the name of Matt's main gripe - crowding. It was eye-opening for me to hear Randy say that his stories on conservation get 20X less the views than those stories where he kills something. I'm an aberration insofar as the conservation stories are more interesting to me personally. Point being, the majority of the message that Randy sends to the world that actually connects with the world is the killing and the tries for success, and the "glory" of hunting, and not the conservation stories. Randy even admits this to be statistically true, but something I thought about that I find hope in, was even though Randy may reach 1 million people and of that 1 million a small handful may glom on to the conservation side of things, at least he provides a conservation side of things to glom on to. This is more than feel-goodery in my mind, because if there is anything I take away from the conservation success stories we see and have seen in Montana, it's that it only takes a few very dedicated people to make a hell of a big difference in a lot of instances. So, there is a case for net-positivity there.

But if I can steel-man Randy and Matt's position as best I can and be specific while doing so, when Matt accurately states that hunters/huntable-acres is a delta ever-decreasing, and why would Randy do anything to inflate the numerator in that state of affairs, I think Randy is making a bet that the best case for the fraction of hunters/huntable-acres to be as favorable as possible well into the future, is to create advocates that will increase the denominator. Matt is concerned that Randy is increasing the numerator at a rate exceeding that of the denominators' growth, and I think he may be right in the short term, but I think Randy's contention would be that if all hunting promotion stopped - his included - the ratio between numerator and denominator would shrink at a faster rate in the long term than it would without any effective conservation outreach in the media world hunters consume. I believe there's no "good" options insofar as the fraction of hunters/huntable-acres ever getting better than it is right now and has been historically is not going to happen, but if we invest in a conservation message, which to reach people will strategically be tied to hunting stories, we will have engaged in harm-reduction relative to doing nothing in the world of hunting media - which is what Matt advocates.

All that said, I think Matt would be right to point out that most ( dang near all) hunting personalities are a drag on the system in the short and long term. Chiefly because most do not tie a conservation message into their platforms, or if they do it's lip service next to a dead critter. Randy is the model for hunting personalities, if there is one, in my mind. I look up to him and he has changed me as a hunter and advocate for the better.

 

[Irrelevant]

Randy is the model for hunting personalities, if there is one, in my mind. I look up to him and he has changed me as a hunter and advocate for the better.

I'll take it a step further. We should all strive to be like Randy. He's clearly balanced, soft spoken when needed, riled up-yet polite, when needed, works his tail off for conservation, and doesn't burn bridges.

While I don't necessarily love how-to's, I dang sure love the how-to be/become a conservationist content.

 

[woods89]

I listened to it, and though there's a core to Matt's position that I agree with, his delivery and arguments miss the mark often. That's not me knocking him at all - if I spoke on a podcast for two hours I would come across far more poorly.

That said, I feel like Matt, and those who he is often antagonistic to, are often speaking past one another.

The hunters/huntable-acre is the crux of most of these discussions, and I appreciate folks being specific when they talk about promoting hunting in this way. You could incorporate huntable animals into the equation, but let's set that aside in the name of Matt's main gripe - crowding. It was eye-opening for me to hear Randy say that his stories on conservation get 20X less the views than those stories where he kills something. I'm an aberration insofar as the conservation stories are more interesting to me personally. Point being, the majority of the message that Randy sends to the world that actually connects with the world is the killing and the tries for success, and the "glory" of hunting, and not the conservation stories. Randy even admits this to be statistically true, but something I thought about that I find hope in, was even though Randy may reach 1 million people and of that 1 million a small handful may glom on to the conservation side of things, at least he provides a conservation side of things to glom on to. This is more than feel-goodery in my mind, because if there is anything I take away from the conservation success stories we see and have seen in Montana, it's that it only takes a few very dedicated people to make a hell of a big difference in a lot of instances. So, there is a case for net-positivity there.

But if I can steel-man Randy and Matt's position as best I can and be specific while doing so, when Matt accurately states that hunters/huntable-acres is a delta ever-decreasing, and why would Randy do anything to inflate the numerator in that state of affairs, I think Randy is making a bet that the best case for the fraction of hunters/huntable-acres to be as favorable as possible well into the future, is to create advocates that will increase the denominator. Matt is concerned that Randy is increasing the numerator at a rate exceeding that of the denominators' growth, and I think he may be right in the short term, but I think Randy's contention would be that if all hunting promotion stopped - his included - the ratio between numerator and denominator would shrink at a faster rate in the long term than it would without any effective conservation outreach in the media world hunters consume. I believe there's no "good" options insofar as the fraction of hunters/huntable-acres ever getting better than it is right now and has been historically is not going to happen, but if we invest in a conservation message, which to reach people will strategically be tied to hunting stories, we will have engaged in harm-reduction relative to doing nothing in the world of hunting media - which is what Matt advocates.

All that said, I think Matt would be right to point out that most ( dang near all) hunting personalities are a drag on the system in the short and long term. Chiefly because most do not tie a conservation message into their platforms, or if they do it's lip service next to a dead critter. Randy is the model for hunting personalities, if there is one, in my mind. I look up to him and he has changed me as a hunter and advocate for the better.

Thought provoking as usual.

A few of the areas that I think Matt is right on are,

-almost all the loud voices in hunting are somehow financially involved.
-most of us have more ego wrapped up in our pursuits than we realize.
-we are in an age where content can put a really powerful spotlight on areas, with a marked effect. Spot burning is real.
-most hunting content is just cringe worthy. I'm not sure if I dislike high fives and whooping more, or the forced feeling Matzingeresque attempted profundity. Most of it just comes off badly. I sometimes feel celebratory as well after filling a tag, and I'm sure it wouldn't come off a lot differently if a camera was running on me.
-R3. I personally am nervous about government groups putting money towards R3. NGOs can run their organizations as they see fit, and people can join or not. I'd much rather see government organizations focus on habitat and management, with a "build it, and they will come" approach.

Just my opinions of course. It's a fascinating discussion.

 

[Brad W]

For any of you with questions about Randy’s dedication to conservation and advocacy I encourage you to pay attention to threads on this forum about the upcoming 2023 MT legislative session. 2021 was a full assault on wildlife(elk in particular)and DIY public land hunting. I expect 2023 to be more of the same. Many of the worst bills were killed in part by the overwhelmingly negative reaction organized in large part by Randy and folks on this forum. He took multiple days to go and testify in person. I watched testified too, wrote letters and called politicians because of Randy’s information and call to action. Ive seen his impact first hand. What has yours been?

 

[ImBillT]

They sped up the rush, but I concur it would have come regardless. A quality hunting experience E of the Mississippi can cost about x2 times as much as in the West. People shop around and look for value. A lease can run $2000-$3000 a year, or you can drop $1500 for a tag + gas for a public land playground. The cost of Western hunting has quite a ways to catch up before it deters NR’s from flooding in from their home states where east access has all but vanished over the last 20 years.

You hit it on the head. I discovered Western hunting on my own, without social media, and didn’t discover Randy until I’d already been hunting out of state for 4-5 years. It started when I was looking for a way to hunt deer that I could afford. I had access to a few small local places, but I wanted something more and after researching public land in my home state for a few years it occurred to me to research some public land hunting in neighboring states.

In my fourth year of hunting out of state I was approached by a guy at church about leasing some land after he found out that I hunted. He owns two sections(I think) and wanted $1500 to let me hunt 1/4 of that land. By all means he isn’t making much money by leasing it. I doubt that $6k/yr in total lease fees does much more than pay the taxes on the property. Maybe he has a little left over for Christmas gifts. So for comparison, I can go west and pay $300-$1000 for a tag and license and drive 3hrs-14hrs to hunt on hundreds of thousands of acres with a chance at a really nice deer or elk, or I can pay $1500 and drive 3hrs and hunt 320acres and likely shoot one mule deer and two or three whitetails in an area where there are enough hunters that things aren’t getting very old. I’ll take the public thank you very much.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

Apologies…I’m a late comer to the party on this one. Was outside the country last summer and wasn’t following the forum as closely as I’d have liked. But, recently stumbled onto the interview with @Big Fin after listening to the episode @Matt Rinella did with Aaron Snyder of Kifaru Intl (which, btw, was far more adversarial).

First off, I must say…Randy delivered a masterclass on professionalism during his interview. Conveyed his points in a calm and polite manner without becoming defensive. It was very impressive. Total class act that appeared to really disarm Matt. It was also clear Matt didn’t really do his research on Randy’s immense efforts on conservation, access, and habitat.

On the substantive issues, I think Matt’s position is admirable, and I respect the passion he has for the topic and the courage he demonstrates by being so vocal about it, particularly given his brother’s career and business interests. But I think he’s also too myopic on one singular issue, to the extent that he comes off as selfish. He’s akin to a single issue voter in politics.

Monetized hunting media isn’t going away. Social media - monetized or non-monetized - isn’t going away. And even if there is a silent majority of hunters who don’t like it, or despise it, imo, there are more effective ways to spend one’s time to improve access, protect habitat, etc. So I think Matt would be better off searching for ways to find common ground with likeminded folks to work on alternative ways to make improvements to his, and others’, hunting experience.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Apologies…I’m a late comer to the party on this one. Was outside the country last summer and wasn’t following the forum as closely as I’d have liked. But, recently stumbled onto the interview with @Big Fin after listening to the episode Rinella did with Aaron Snyder of Kifaru Intl (which, btw, was far more adversarial).

First off, I must say…Randy delivered a masterclass on professionalism during his interview. Conveyed his points in a calm and polite manner without becoming defensive. It was very impressive. Total class act that appeared to really disarm Matt. It was also clear Matt didn’t really do his research on Randy’s immense efforts on conservation, access, and habitat.

On the substantive issues, I think Matt’s position is admirable, and I respect the passion he has for the topic. But I think he’s also misguided and too myopic on one singular issue, to the extent that he comes off as selfish. He’s akin to a single issue voter in politics.

Monetized hunting media isn’t going away. Social media - monetized or non-monetized - isn’t going away. And even if there is a silent majority of hunters who don’t like it, or despise it, imo, there are more effective ways to spend one’s time to improve access, protect habitat, etc. So I think Matt would be better off searching for ways to find common ground with likeminded folks to work on alternative ways to make improvements to his, and others’, hunting experience.

Tag him dude he’s got an account too

Well said @ChaosOneZero