Rinella article.. CUT AND PASTED

[steveshuntn1]

Also, social media is a crazy place. I have gram but I only check it like once a week and only post once a month at best. I'm just not crazy about using it. Haven't used FB in like five years.

It's a lot to think about when you look into or study some of Rene Girard's work on mimetic desire and how it informs the concept of "influencers." I think that shit is no bueno for the hunting universe just as Matt does, but there is an incredible amount of inertia propelling the phenomenon that is social media that I can't see how you remove it from a niche community like hunting.

I don’t have any “social media” and joined this site because my daughter wants to hunt elk and I knew nothing about it. Started watching Randy on YouTube and that led me here. I’d have to say guys like Randy who try to educate people like myself who have never hunted the west or western game is an undeniable resource. For people who live and hunt out there I could see how frustrating it could be. Especially the guys who hunt public land. That being said a man and his daughter that have never hunted elk before are coming to CO next year largely in part to Randy Newburg on YouTube. It’ll be a week in a fabulous part of this country that I get to spend with my baby girl who has went and grown up on me. Hopefully we’ll be successful….but that’s not really the whole point of hunting is it.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Wow, haven't finished the podcast yet but it's even more heated than described.

First off, MR makes some great arguments. But his points are undercut by his self righteous, dogmatic, belligerent tone. I used to think Steve was kind of a jerk at times, but he's a soyboy compared to his brother!

He's scapegoating hunting media. Which is fine whatever. Surely more people are showing up in the woods and boat launches because of annoying jerks on social media. Some, like myself, were always interested in hunting and inspired to get out more because of storytellers like Steve and Randy.

Steve has mentioned how great it would be if he was the only person who hunted, yet have the general public support him in those efforts. Sounds like Matt believes that can become reality if we shut down hunting media/publishing. He's a fool to think it works like that.

Non-hunter: Why should people be allowed to kill beautiful innocent animals?

Matt: Participating in the natural process is part of humanity and good for the soul, understanding nature, fulfillment of going out and gathering your food. Etc.

Non-hunter: Wow, sounds cool. Are there resources out there to help me get into hunting?

Matt: lol, no f*** you.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Also what kind of person treats their brother like that?

 

[ChaosOneZero]

Here is a copy and paste of my comment from a different forum, Rokslide, where this same topic and article popped up earlier in the week.

Think these comments and insight are why this platform and the entire OYOA/Fresh Tracks ecosystem continue to be relevant, impactful, and helpful to the DIY community. Most folks in this business would never think to be so genuine and truthful regarding their personal and professional successes and failures. Which is probably why the content resonates with so many in the hunting community. Thanks to you, Mrs Fin, and the entire crew that makes this whole thing possible, Randy.

 

[COEngineer]

Wow, haven't finished the podcast yet but it's even more heated than described.

First off, MR makes some great arguments. But his points are undercut by his self righteous, dogmatic, belligerent tone. I used to think Steve was kind of a jerk at times, but he's a soyboy compared to his brother!

He's scapegoating hunting media. Which is fine whatever. Surely more people are showing up in the woods and boat launches because of annoying jerks on social media. Some, like myself, were always interested in hunting and inspired to get out more because of storytellers like Steve and Randy.

Steve has mentioned how great it would be if he was the only person who hunted, yet have the general public support him in those efforts. Sounds like Matt believes that can become reality if we shut down hunting media/publishing. He's a fool to think it works like that.

Non-hunter: Why should people be allowed to kill beautiful innocent animals?

Matt: Participating in the natural process is part of humanity and good for the soul, understanding nature, fulfillment of going out and gathering your food. Etc.

Non-hunter: Wow, sounds cool. Are there resources out there to help me get into hunting?

Matt: lol, no f*** you.

This is the best comment in this thread.

You've earned your likes and you didn't even show a dead animal

Also, Matt's argument that the biggest threat to wildlife and habitat is too many hunters...ummm, what!? That's what the anti-hunters say. I guess we should just all sit at home and pay to have the deer culled and stop contributing to wildlife agencies. He probably didn't think that one through. But, that's not the worst of it, as pointed out above, acting like a jerk is the worst thing he could do for his side of the argument.

 

[rogerthat]

This is the best comment in this thread.

You've earned your likes and you didn't even show a dead animal

Also, Matt's argument that the biggest threat to wildlife and habitat is too many hunters...ummm, what!? That's what the anti-hunters say. I guess we should just all sit at home and pay to have the deer culled and stop contributing to wildlife agencies. He probably didn't think that one through. But, that's not the worst of it, as pointed out above, acting like a jerk is the worst thing he could do for his side of the argument.

Listen to the Blood Origins podcast that Matt was on. He does a much better job explaining his position although he still goes off the rails at the end. Unfortunately on the meateater podcast he turned into the angry older brother that wants to whoop lil bro Steve’s ass. I don’t blame him

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

I finally got around to listening to the MeatEater podcast. Like others have said, I don't think Matt did a good job representing himself. And it hurt his argument to keep interrupting Steve, even if Steve takes a long time to set up and ask a question.

It was hard for me to listen to Matt refer back to crowding over and over. The social media is a problem because it creates crowding, almost exclusively. He admits that the anti-hunter "problem" is significantly overblown and he's not generally concerned about that crowd seeing dead animals. He's not super concerned about representing hunting in a bad light it seems. He even kind of seems to blow off the concern regarding crowding and the problems it creates for the animals. It's all about Matt's enjoyment of his personal hunting experience.

He comes across like he's basically saying, "I was here first therefore I have the right to keep this place/thing to myself!" But this creates some sort of hunting purity litmus test and basically excludes all new hunters. So what is the solution? Keeping a tab on the total numbers of hunters and only allowing new people in when the old people retire? What about extremely limiting the number of tags each year? Is Matt a big fan of the various points systems? I'd guess it turns into a "rules for thee but not for me" type of situation. And to Steve's point, when did you have to start hunting, or how did you have to get your start, to be considered to be part of the half that gets to keep hunting?

It's kind of like the climate change problem wherein the best way to reduce your own current and future carbon footprint is to get fixed and never have kids. The best way to avoid increasing long term pressure to hunting is to quick hunting and don't teach your kids (or grandkids, etc.) to hunt ( have no idea if he has kids or not). Except that he still wants to hunt, so he's not wiling to sacrifice himself.

I'll try and listen to the blood origins podcast since he supposedly represents himself better. And, on the big picture scale, I don't disagree with him about hunting's overall representation in social media. But I disagree with the impact, in terms of % of hunters now hunting, from hunting influencers. Besides, given human nature and the likely age group impacted by the influencers, the vast majority of whatever impact there is will likely be short lived in the long term. Fads come and go and hunting will likely ultimately be just that, a fad, for those people.

The above is my own opinion on a topic in which I hold no expertise or sources to justify my opinions. I have not done any research to verify whether my assumptions are accurate. This isn't my day job LOL

 

[LuketheDog]

I finally got around to listening to the MeatEater podcast. Like others have said, I don't think Matt did a good job representing himself. And it hurt his argument to keep interrupting Steve, even if Steve takes a long time to set up and ask a question.

It was hard for me to listen to Matt refer back to crowding over and over. The social media is a problem because it creates crowding, almost exclusively. He admits that the anti-hunter "problem" is significantly overblown and he's not generally concerned about that crowd seeing dead animals. He's not super concerned about representing hunting in a bad light it seems. He even kind of seems to blow off the concern regarding crowding and the problems it creates for the animals. It's all about Matt's enjoyment of his personal hunting experience.

He comes across like he's basically saying, "I was here first therefore I have the right to keep this place/thing to myself!" But this creates some sort of hunting purity litmus test and basically excludes all new hunters. So what is the solution? Keeping a tab on the total numbers of hunters and only allowing new people in when the old people retire? What about extremely limiting the number of tags each year? Is Matt a big fan of the various points systems? I'd guess it turns into a "rules for thee but not for me" type of situation. And to Steve's point, when did you have to start hunting, or how did you have to get your start, to be considered to be part of the half that gets to keep hunting?

It's kind of like the climate change problem wherein the best way to reduce your own current and future carbon footprint is to get fixed and never have kids. The best way to avoid increasing long term pressure to hunting is to quick hunting and don't teach your kids (or grandkids, etc.) to hunt ( have no idea if he has kids or not). Except that he still wants to hunt, so he's not wiling to sacrifice himself.

I'll try and listen to the blood origins podcast since he supposedly represents himself better. And, on the big picture scale, I don't disagree with him about hunting's overall representation in social media. But I disagree with the impact, in terms of % of hunters now hunting, from hunting influencers. Besides, given human nature and the likely age group impacted by the influencers, the vast majority of whatever impact there is will likely be short lived in the long term. Fads come and go and hunting will likely ultimately be just that, a fad, for those people.

The above is my own opinion on a topic in which I hold no expertise or sources to justify my opinions. I have not done any research to verify whether my assumptions are accurate. This isn't my day job LOL

Matt has a couple salient points, but it's really hard to come down on his side when he is in a room full of pretty well-spoken and polite people and he decides to debate by interrupting and insulting everybody. The "grumpy old dude" routine wears thin pretty quick...

 

[BuzzH]

I find great humor in people bashing matt rinella on the one hand because he doesn't agree with the floodgates being opened to hunting. While on the other hand, the same folk bitching about point creep, not drawing even though they apply in 12 states, and finding the woods crowded.

Finally, this will end up self regulating itself, all those pushing for everyone to hunt. Wildlife is a finite resource and those pushing to make everything about hunting inclusive, easier, etc will ultimately feel that pinch they created.

States will take otc off the table, will take wayyyy longer to draw limited quota tags, etc.

Pretty tough to sell products, pimp hunting, and get new hunters involved when they can't obtain a tag.

My contention is that making hunting easy, and doing all the legwork and thinking for new hunters...is attracting the wrong kind of hunters.

Hunting should be difficult, and I believe we've made it way too easy.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

Simple truth. I agree, Buzz

"Finally, this will end up self regulating itself, all those pushing for everyone to hunt. Wildlife is a finite resource and those pushing to make everything about hunting inclusive, easier, etc will ultimately feel that pinch they created."

At my age every hunting season counts. Do I stay home or spend the money I've saved on buying access or going guided just to be able to have a decent hunt even though that's counter productive to the public land message we've all been led to believe in?

 

[Irrelevant]

Hunting should be difficult, and I believe we've made it way too easy.

That could be it's own thread. How would you make it harder? Fixed power scopes? No scopes? No electronic devices on your person? No calling? Only straight walked cartridges? What are we talking here?

 

[Treeshark]

My contention is that making hunting easy, and doing all the legwork and thinking for new hunters...is attracting the wrong kind of hunters.

You nailed it, dude.

If I was king for a day…Entire country is now longbow/recurve only. Everything is now OTC (certain exceptions obviously). Have at it. A guy can dream…

 

[COEngineer]

Matt blaming social media for all things evil doesn't hold water for me either. He blamed everything from hemorrhoids (seriously) to the Jan 6 debacle on social media. He neglects to consider that social media is also how every conservation group and political group communicates, not to mention schools, businesses...literally everyone. His written arguments (shared at the beginning of this thread) are way more cogent.

As far as crowding - I think that's the responsibility of the state game departments, with inputs from us. Matt makes it seem like he has a god-given right to hunt year-round on an empty landscape. That's just not the case. The population increase of the US this past year was the smallest in a century! But the increase was still over 400,000! That's a decent sized city of people added in one year and that's the smallest increase in a century!!! We are becoming more like Europe everyday - too many people and not enough space. I don't like it, but I'm not going to pretend it isn't happening, which is what Matt seems to be trying to do.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I find great humor in people bashing matt rinella on the one hand because he doesn't agree with the floodgates being opened to hunting. While on the other hand, the same folk bitching about point creep, not drawing even though they apply in 12 states, and finding the woods crowded.

Finally, this will end up self regulating itself, all those pushing for everyone to hunt. Wildlife is a finite resource and those pushing to make everything about hunting inclusive, easier, etc will ultimately feel that pinch they created.

States will take otc off the table, will take wayyyy longer to draw limited quota tags, etc.

Pretty tough to sell products, pimp hunting, and get new hunters involved when they can't obtain a tag.

My contention is that making hunting easy, and doing all the legwork and thinking for new hunters...is attracting the wrong kind of hunters.

Hunting should be difficult, and I believe we've made it way too easy.

Dead on right there. The relentless over monetization by gear manufacturers and insta YouTube hunting celebs/influencers, aka the industry, requires more and more hunts/hunters with no regard for the resource. But unfortunately it’s a finite resource and something has to give at some point. Might be the greatest threat to hunting that we love so much.

 

[BuzzH]

That could be it's own thread. How would you make it harder? Fixed power scopes? No scopes? No electronic devices on your person? No calling? Only straight walked cartridges? What are we talking here?

Talking about letting people look up their own draw odds. Do their own research instead of leaning on paying a $100 a year to epic, gohunt, huntin' fool, etc. to do their thinking for them. Maybe putting reasonable caps on the number of outfitters a state allows to operate. Limits on technology, maybe only optics of all kinds no more than 10 power, yes spotting scopes too. Maybe no more "how to apply" video's...everything from calling, to applying for tags, etc. etc.

Season timing can make hunting more difficult too...hunting mule deer in early/mid October isn't the same as hunting them a month later.

Maybe even put a little focus on ethics, instead of need to kill something at all costs, no matter how far I have to shoot, how long the critter has to suffer, etc. Just read a story on another board, a guy asking for help in finding a buck he wounded...not once, but twice during archery season. Then proceeds to kill another buck and still wants to the find the other buck for the trophy room I guess. Know another guy that did the same on elk this year in WY on 2 great bulls. You're that desperate for social media fame you put ethics and doing the right thing behind? Don't get it. The, "oh well, shot one and it got away, no big deal I'll just shoot another" attitude I see and read about is crazy.

What we do is push people to the field, without pulling them back to look at the 30K foot view. What they're doing is impacting the resource, other users, etc...and they just don't think about that.

When was the last time you saw a REALLY GOOD video out there explaining hunting ethics? Not often, but hundreds of video's on "you too can shoot 1200 yards and short cut learning to hunt" video's. Plenty of "how to set up your 1000 yard rifle". Video after video pumping all sorts of products to make it easier...

That's why I say we're not drawing the right type of hunter into the mix. You ask the average hunter simple things, like what do deer feed on? What do elk feed on? How many deer or elk do you think are even in the unit you're hunting? What was last winter like on the big-game? What was the fawn survival like? Know what kind of bull to cow ratio's we have in this unit? How does conifer encroachment impact habitat? Early, late succession of plant communities on forage quality.

Blank stares...but they'll tell you about how much they spent on a tag, how far they can shoot with their crudmore, the locking differential on their new ATV, and how they watched a video on the importance of a butt-out tool, scent locker, etc. etc. etc.

IMO, we're doing new hunters not a bit of justice...putting the cart squarely in front of the horse. We need to build a decent foundation FIRST, and we're just not doing that.

Think what would happen if other sports behaved this way...give a group of average people the best equipment money can buy in helmets, shoes, shoulder pads but never even giving them the rule book, play book, or any proper coaching. Just throw them out on the field, it should all go fine.

Yeah, that would be a jacked up hot mess...exactly what we're doing with hunting.

There's your answer...

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

It's kind of like the climate change problem wherein the best way to reduce your own current and future carbon footprint is to get fixed and never have kids. The best way to avoid increasing long term pressure to hunting is to quick hunting and don't teach your kids (or grandkids, etc.) to hunt ( have no idea if he has kids or not). Except that he still wants to hunt, so he's not wiling to sacrifice himself.

What's interesting is that yes, obviously not having kids would be the greatest reduction, but that get's super china 1 child/morally ridiculous quick.

The better solution is just generation spacing. Makes a huge difference in population.

 

[Irrelevant]

@BuzzH I can't say I disagree with any of that. But some of it isn't going to fit any regulatory structure and therefore is pretty unlikely to ever actually happen. Some of it also jives with the Matt Renella stuff.

However, I think we absolutely could make some good strides with stricter regs, shorter seasons, fewer tags, tighter tech restrictions. 50% max let off for archery equipment. No crossbows. 6x fixed rifle scopes. No cell phones (damn the safety!). Archery elk and rifle deer in Oct. Archery deer in Sept. Rifle elk in early Nov. 10 days each.

 

[Irrelevant]

What's interesting is that yes, obviously not having kids would be the greatest reduction, but that get's super china 1 child/morally ridiculous quick.

The better solution is just generation spacing. Makes a huge difference in population.

View attachment 208721

I hate to break it to you homey but at 40 the last thing you have the energy for is chasing around a toddler.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm going to provide some information from the back end of our YouTube channel. Here are a handful of 2021 videos about advocacy, conservation, and videos that get to the core of some of the topics people are mentioning here. None of them mention a product or service. I could do the same with podcast episodes, but YouTube has a better analytics dashboard and illustrates this better.

Look at how few views these videos get, how few comments. When we do even a marginal elk hunt, we quickly get near 100K views and hundreds and hundreds of comments. Hell, me sitting down in my shop answering questions or telling stories of me shitting myself to death get 10X the number of views as these videos.

Why such low views? Because these topics are not what people are selecting to watch and the algorithm, in this case the YouTube algorithm, notices that behavior and selects other content to push to people. The algorithm, as much as I hate them, doesn't lie. The algorithm knows exactly what people watch, what they share, what the comment on, and just as precisely, what content people ignore and refuse to watch.

We still produce videos on conservation, proper behavior in the field, natural history, science, etc. Why do we do them, even though we know they won't get many views, or in the case of podcasts, many downloads? Because that is part of our "WHY." We lose thousands of dollars on this forum, by producing these types of videos, on podcasts that talk about these issues, and other content that falls in our content categories of education/information/advocacy. But if we are going to hold true to our effort to create more advocates, we have to produce this type of content along with the stuff that does attract them.

The fact that people don't consume those content topics is likely not changing. Whether in video, social media images, or podcasts, people select for what they are interested in. I wish I could force them to listen, watch, or have interest in this type of content, but that ain't going to happen. Best I can hope for is that when we produce content they like the algorithm with serve them some of this unpopular content because it comes from us.

So, is the problem that we aren't producing enough of that content or is it that people don't GAF about that type of content?

This trend holds true no matter what media platform we distribute content across. I suspect back in the "old days," the folks at Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, Petersen's, and other magazines quickly came to the same realization even without the analytics of today, and that is why we seldom, if ever, saw/see small critters on magazine covers.

Point being, the content is being produced by us, and a few others, that is not about big antlers rather focuses on other core topics essential to hunting and conservation. But, in today's world doing so is like publishing that content in a broom closet, given how little attention it gets.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

What's interesting is that yes, obviously not having kids would be the greatest reduction, but that get's super china 1 child/morally ridiculous quick.

The better solution is just generation spacing. Makes a huge difference in population.

View attachment 208721

Sure, if it's regulated by someone else. But I'm talking about self regulation. If Matt Rinella cares about ALL HUNTERS and the crowing affecting ALL HUNTERS, then the best/quickest way to have an impact is to stop hunting personally, stop taking people (including any kids) hunting, and discourage hunting amongst his peer group.

Instead, it also sounds like he wants the rest of us to do that (assuming our motives and introduction aren't as pure as his) but he doesn't want to do that.

Again, it's a massive oversimplification of his stance. But I'm probably not the only one that got a bit of that message while listening to him.