Rinella article.. CUT AND PASTED

[Deleted member 28227]

then again I don't really get "offended" by what others do as long as they don't push it on me.

Man if more people had that outlook we’d solve a huge percentage of the world’s problems.

 

[Nick87]

Man if more people had that outlook we’d solve a huge percentage of the world’s problems.

Don't get me wrong there's plenty I don't agree with but if you leave me and my kids out of it I could care less what your doing. I'm too busy doing what I want to do. Problem is everyone wants to push there shit on everyone else.

 

[bullbugle307]

No offense but this is nonsense. Sure, you might not have a mule deer or elk tag, but there are still quite a few states where you can buy OTC whitetail tags.

Maybe part of the solution is to stop fetishizing mule deer and elk and promote the rest of hunting. Shoot, maybe some of us even take a year off from big game occasionally.

I can think of several state agencies that essentially make this same argument. I've been frustrated to hear agencies constantly hide behind the argument that their bound by the state constitution to provide opportunity to hunt and fish, and that that's why they have absolutely no choice but to issue a boat load of OTC big game tags that would be rather difficult to justify without the ol "we HAVE TO provide opportunity" fall back argument.

They act as if fishing, small game, bird hunting, and predator hunting dont even exist, or at least they don't somehow don't fulfill the opportunity to hunt per the states constitutions. I've questioned the motives behind this, but I've been assured by plenty of people that it's definitely not about maintaining the revenue for the agency. Maybe they do really believe that opportunity per the constitution means opportunity to hunt deer and elk OTC every year? Who knows.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Don't get me wrong there's plenty I don't agree with but if you leave me and my kids out of it I could care less what your doing. I'm too busy doing what I want to do. Problem is everyone wants to push there shit on everyone else.

I think a grip and grin popping up on their feed makes a non-hunter feel like something is being pushed on them .

Personally if you follow me on social you know I basically only post corgi pictures or hunting photos and IMHO if you don’t like that you can mute me so…

 

[Nick87]

I think a grip and grin popping up on their feed makes a non-hunter feel like something is being pushed on them .

Personally if you follow me on social you know I basically only post corgi pictures or hunting photos and IMHO if you don’t like that you can mute me so…

If you don't like it don't look...

 

[RobertD]

Seems like there's no way everywhere you go there is an influx of people. Just an observation, I'm no bean counter.

One of the things that seems to be a part of it to me is there are just a ton of people on the move, wanting to push to some new greener pasture. And I respect it, it's really the American way... but meanwhile the places that folks leave behind just sit there empty or worse

 

[Nick87]

One of the things that seems to be a part of it to me is there are just a ton of people on the move, wanting to push to some new greener pasture. And I respect it, it's really the American way... but meanwhile the places that folks leave behind just sit there empty or worse

Yah i can see that, there doing a fine job of shitting up those greener pastures.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If you don't like it don't look...

Exactly…

 

[RobertD]

Listened to the BO episode with Matt a few days ago, actually while driving over to an out of town hunting spot

I like a lot of what he says, a lot his arguments are compelling, but his Achilles heel is his tendency to be morally and philisophically hyper-exacting about anything hunting related.

His younger brother is the same way, and if you read some of Steve's books you will learn that their dad was that way too.

I respect it on an intellectual level, but I think it makes it hard to consistently agree with him because eventually he becomes hard to relate to.

That said I like him a lot (same for Steve) and I really enjoy when he's on Steve's show, and I appreciate his willingness to move this conversation into the spotlight.

 

[Desk Pop]

I was probably a bit overdramatic on the wording. My girlfriend is from a non-hunting family. I went home for Christmas one year shortly after we started dating, shot a handful of ducks, and posted a picture to Facebook (maybe with a gun in the background? I can't remember exactly). She told me that her family was a bit shocked. They were aware that I hunted, but there is a difference in knowing and seeing the result. This has slowly morphed to the point where her parents were asking for photos of us cleaning and cooking the ducks I got here in Oregon.

I think it was really just the difference between being vaguely aware of something and knowing someone who participates. They've come around, but it made me much more conscious that those photos are interpreted differently by people who don't have a hunting background.

After they were shocked by seeing your picture of a dead duck did they calmly sit down and feast on a dead turkey?

 

[Dakota79]

So I agreed more with Matt's article than I did that podcast. I came away after listening that he's just a cranky hypocritical old man.

Is showing people pics of your dead critters any worse for promoting hunting that reading Jack O'Conner stories about far off lands and game? How can you be fine with O'Conner and not Steve or Randy? Did Outdoor Life not sell ads alongside Jack's stories?

He seems to be more against the general idea of profiteering off public resources.

I think one difference between Jack and an influencer on social media is how easy and convenient the latter is to find and access.

 

[Cornell2012]

After they were shocked by seeing your picture of a dead duck did they calmly sit down and feast on a dead turkey?

They probably did. But what matters is that they had that gut reaction of seeing something and not liking it. I was there to explain the photo and use it as a talking point. Had they just seen the photo without a reasonable way to get the extra context, that potentially would have been a net negative for the image of hunting. It showed me that even reasonable, open-minded people can interpret things much differently than I do. This is especially true for visual formats like Instagram where the image intentionally takes priority over any captions providing explanation.

This made me rethink how I want to show my hunting activity. Lots of nonhunters don't have the same background and context that we do. From that point on I decided that if I was going to post hunting content, I was going to do it in a way that provides more context than just a grip and grin.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Where did I say mule deer or elk? I said a tag. But, where I live that’s pretty much all there is to hunt. I don’t hunt other states. So take your whitetail tags. Or take your season off or whatever. But the fetishizing of elk and mule deer……that’s the exact problem that matt is talking about in his article. And we have his bro and other unnamed similar folks to thank for that. So yes, that is part of the solution, shut those fellas down and quit worshipping them

You also didn't say "in my home state." you said "a tag" and pointed it at other people with the phrasing, "what if you..."

My point was and is, there is plenty of opportunity to hunt if one gets outside ones own unyielding preferences. In your case that appears to be your desire to only hunt your home state.

We have to be specific in our complaints or they don't matter. And if we're complaining about the lack of opportunity to chase game we have to talk about all of the opportunities. If you're talking about the lack of opportunity chasing the game you want where you want it, that's another thing altogether.

 

[Irrelevant]

They probably did. But what matters is that they had that gut reaction of seeing something and not liking it. I was there to explain the photo and use it as a talking point. Had they just seen the photo without a reasonable way to get the extra context, that potentially would have been a net negative for the image of hunting. It showed me that even reasonable, open-minded people can interpret things much differently than I do. This is especially true for visual formats like Instagram where the image intentionally takes priority over any captions providing explanation.

This made me rethink how I want to show my hunting activity. Lots of nonhunters don't have the same background and context that we do. From that point on I decided that if I was going to post hunting content, I was going to do it in a way that provides more context than just a grip and grin.

I get everything you're saying and can't disagree with any of it. I think my in-laws were a bit shocked too the first time I rolled into the house while they were staying with a road killed deer I picked up on the way home and proceeded to watch my kids get excited about the guttin' and gillin'. They don't bat an eye anymore.

BUT... what you just described as their reaction drives me crazy as a parent. It is exactly what I don't want to be, and more importantly not what I want my children to be; so contained within their little cushy box that they can't objectively look at something they've never seen before without passing judgement. I don't care what it is, City/Country, US or Foreign, castrating calves or watchin' two transvestites kisses at Pike Place in dt Seattle. I want them to be exposed to as much of "life" as possible so that simply seeing something they've never seen before doesn't immediately have a negative association. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I get everything you saying and can't disagree with any of it. I think my in-laws were a bit shocked too the first them I rolled into the house while they were staying with a road kill I picked up and proceeded to watch my kids get excited about the guttin' and gillin'. They don't bat an eye anymore.

BUT... what you just described as their reaction drives me crazy as a parent. It is exactly what I don't want to be, and more importantly not what I want my children to be; so contained within their little cushy box that they can't objectively look at something they've never seen before without passing judgement. I don't care what it is, City/Country, US or Foreign, castrating calves or watchin' two transvestites kisses at Pike Place in dt Seattle. I want them to be exposed to as much of "life" as possible so that simply seeing something they've never seen before doesn't immediately have a negative association. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

not to mention books, art, and/or you know...history...

 

[The Hedgehog]

They probably did. But what matters is that they had that gut reaction of seeing something and not liking it.

So I'm guessing you didn't send them the text offering free Super Bowl tickets with a "surprise" link to the seating location.

 

[BlazerBeam]

You also didn't say "in my home state." you said "a tag" and pointed it at other people with the phrasing, "what if you..."

My point was and is, there is plenty of opportunity to hunt if one gets outside ones own unyielding preferences. In your case that appears to be your desire to only hunt your home state.

We have to be specific in our complaints or they don't matter. And if we're complaining about the lack of opportunity to chase game we have to talk about all of the opportunities. If you're talking about the lack of opportunity chasing the game you want where you want it, that's another thing altogether.

Oh geez.

Hunttalk: The same 30 midwestern or eastern guys (or former) posting all their wisdom and answers to the problems that are arising with western states hunting.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Oh geez.

Hunttalk: The same 30 midwestern or eastern guys (or former) posting all their wisdom and answers to the problems that are arising with western states hunting.

Attack the idea not the person

 

[DouglasR]

Oh geez.

Hunttalk: The same 30 midwestern or eastern guys (or former) posting all their wisdom and answers to the problems that are arising with western states hunting.

Oh jeez, another guy thinking he’s hot chit because he got wap dropped west of the continental divide.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You also didn't say "in my home state." you said "a tag" and pointed it at other people with the phrasing, "what if you..."

My point was and is, there is plenty of opportunity to hunt if one gets outside ones own unyielding preferences. In your case that appears to be your desire to only hunt your home state.

We have to be specific in our complaints or they don't matter. And if we're complaining about the lack of opportunity to chase game we have to talk about all of the opportunities. If you're talking about the lack of opportunity chasing the game you want where you want it, that's another thing altogether.

§ 67. [HUNTING; FOWLING AND FISHING]​

The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.

I think Vermont was the first state to have hunting in it's constitution, it was in the original document.

Per my reading, if there is a huntable population of deer you get to hunt them on your property in whatever framework the state decides to create. Deer hunting cannot be made illegal, but I see no reason why if the population of deer dramatically crashed they couldn't restrict hunting to a tight permit system... or even not issue permits.


It's crazy how short our memories are, I inherited a gun from my great grand father, when he bought it ~1918ish you couldn't hunt elk or deer in CO.