Selfishness and Hunting, Meet Matt Rinella and Tag Allocations

[Deleted member 16014]

The fair criticism that M. Rinella comes across as selfish -- in addition to the past and surely future discussion around tag allocations -- got me thinking about the concept of selfishness as it relates to hunting. I posed the same questions on another forum; maybe they're rhetorical, maybe they aren't.

Hypothetical person A is generous with their money, generally speaking. Gives 10-15% of their income each year to educational aid organizations, a religious entity that helps homeless people get into rehab, conservation orgs, and has spent a full year's salary of their mid-life income to adopt a child with special needs.
That same person is frustrated by increasing human activity in the areas he/she lives, hunts and recreates, and would prefer that those places and activities not be publicized so that his/her family can fully enjoy them for the next few decades. This person makes low wages and absorbs a high cost of living in order to live where they do. This person also mentors a couple of new hunters each year but asks them to keep areas quiet and not share them with anyone else.

Is that a selfish person?
Is it OK to be selfish with things that are not required to sustain a reasonable quality of life?

John Doe from NY does not require the opportunity to hunt the west in order to maintain a good quality of life. Nor do I, or probably everyone on here. Anyone who has traveled the country and world a bit knows the depths people live in every day, many through zero fault of their own. If you have not seen such, your opinion is irrelevant. Whether or not John Doe should have the right to the same hunting opportunities as every other resident of the US is not the point here, that's a completely separate issue.

What I'm trying to dig into is the accusation that those who wish to preserve their relationship to quality hunting and outdoor recreation for their family are selfish. It's just kind of assumed that wanting to keep a certain standard of outdoor opportunity = selfishness = BAD. We'd probably all agree that being selfish is an undesirable human trait. However, I'm not so sure it's that cut and dried, as it relates to the "wants" of recreation and not the "needs" of life.

Thoughts?

 

[Nameless Range]

Selfishness is the quality or condition of being selfish. Being selfish means lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Without being too specific because I am riding in a car, there are thresholds to selfishness. No, I don't think it is bad to be concerned about your future experiences or your children's, even if to some degree it is to the detriment of others.

Though they are separate issues I think it is related. I often think of GiveWell's estimates on effective altruism. Roughly, they figure that for every $2,300 you spend in the right places(mosquito nets for example), you can save the life of a child in a developing country. One could quibble about the amount, but life itself is sure as hell a requirement to sustain a reasonable quality of life. Have you spent a similar amount on something you deem more important? Was it as important as the life of a child you don't know? Is this not an example of egregious selfishness? It does not take special pleading to think it so, and yet, I've spent way more on unnecessary things, and wonder if I have abandoned the lives of children across the globe.

Hypothetical Person A seems like a good guy/gal. And selfishness, being a subset of morality, like morality is so multivariate considering things like proximity, sanity, hope, happiness, net-reductions in all the bad things, and yes, even convenience, that I wonder how meaningful an accusation could be. My own desire to limit the opportunity or awareness of others seems tied to two of those chiefly:Sanity (my own) and Hope (the future).

Rereading the word salad I just wrote, I don't know. I think it depends. I believe strongly that many confusing discussions revolve not around binary states of being (Selfish/Not Selfish), but thresholds, and whether or not those things are net good or bad and to whom, and those are complicated as hell.

 

[BuckRut]

Selfishness is the quality or condition of being selfish. Being selfish means lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Without being too specific because I am riding in a car, there are thresholds to selfishness. No, I don't think it is bad to be concerned about your future experiences or your children's, even if to some degree it is to the detriment of others.

Though they are separate issues I think it is related. I often think of GiveWell's estimates on effective altruism. Roughly, they figure that for every $2,300 you spend in the right places(mosquito nets for example), you can save the life of a child in a developing country. One could quibble about the amount, but life itself is sure as hell a requirement to sustain a reasonable quality of life. Have you spent a similar amount on something you deem more important? Was it as important as the life of a child you don't know? Is this not an example of egregious selfishness? It does not take special pleading to think it so, and yet, I've spent way more on unnecessary things, and wonder if I have abandoned the lives of children across the globe.

Hypothetical Person A seems like a good guy/gal. And selfishness, being a subset of morality, like morality is so multivariate considering things like proximity, sanity, hope, happiness, net-reductions in all the bad things, and yes, even convenience, that I wonder how meaningful an accusation could be. My own desire to limit the opportunity or awareness of others seems tied to two of those chiefly:Sanity (my own) and Hope (the future).

Rereading the word salad I just wrote, I don't know. I think it depends. I believe strongly that many confusing discussions revolve not around binary states of being (Selfish/Not Selfish), but thresholds, and whether or not those things are net good or bad and to whom, and those are complicated as hell.

Nameless is right on that this a matter of thresholds and not clear cut states of selfish and not selfish. Take discrimination for instance. Denying services to someone based on their race or gender is not viewed the same as "No Shoes, No Shir, No Service". Both at the most basic level are discrimination.

 

[gouch]

Selfishness isn't inherently bad. It can be a bad trait under certain circumstances but not sharing something you have with someone you don't even know just because they might want it doesn't make you a bad person. We as hunters and fisherman traditionally don't share our honey holes. The logic being that we put in the time and energy to find the spot and everyone else has the opportunity to do the same. Is that selfish? Sure, but it doesn't make us bad people. If your honey hole just happens to be the western United States, then so be it.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Selfishness is the quality or condition of being selfish. Being selfish means lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

Without being too specific because I am riding in a car, there are thresholds to selfishness. No, I don't think it is bad to be concerned about your future experiences or your children's, even if to some degree it is to the detriment of others.

Though they are separate issues I think it is related. I often think of GiveWell's estimates on effective altruism. Roughly, they figure that for every $2,300 you spend in the right places(mosquito nets for example), you can save the life of a child in a developing country. One could quibble about the amount, but life itself is sure as hell a requirement to sustain a reasonable quality of life. Have you spent a similar amount on something you deem more important? Was it as important as the life of a child you don't know? Is this not an example of egregious selfishness? It does not take special pleading to think it so, and yet, I've spent way more on unnecessary things, and wonder if I have abandoned the lives of children across the globe.

Hypothetical Person A seems like a good guy/gal. And selfishness, being a subset of morality, like morality is so multivariate considering things like proximity, sanity, hope, happiness, net-reductions in all the bad things, and yes, even convenience, that I wonder how meaningful an accusation could be. My own desire to limit the opportunity or awareness of others seems tied to two of those chiefly:Sanity (my own) and Hope (the future).

Rereading the word salad I just wrote, I don't know. I think it depends. I believe strongly that many confusing discussions revolve not around binary states of being (Selfish/Not Selfish), but thresholds, and whether or not those things are net good or bad and to whom, and those are complicated as hell.

I knew I could count on you for something I'd have to read three times to understand.
Good insights.

 

[Laned]

I wouldn't necessarily call that person selfish. That would mean that all aspects of that person's attitude and behavior are selfish, which is clearly not the case from the example information. But rather, that one attitude on that one subject might be. Personally, I would ask more questions on why that person thinks that way. There may be other/additional motivations. Where I live (Colorado), there is a massively increasing population, and with that an increasingly large population of outdoor recreators. Due to that, there are growing conversations on what the lands and animals can withstand. A small example, many areas strongly encourage hikers and bikers to stay on the trail because the amount of traffic wears down new trails, damaging habitat, otherwise. Like most stuff in life, it's a sliding scale of grey.

 

[Schaaf]

@Nameless Range @SnowyMountaineer

Yes.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Is it selfish to read a Hunt Talk thread from a stranger who's asking about hunting in a place I know extremely well, and to not say a damn thing?



Well then, that answers that.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Confounding variables... added nuance?

The guy from NY in aggregate pays for wildlife management. You look at any western state, it's 10 to 1 who pays for wildlife. The Hypothetical Person A, and his family + mentees can't absorb the cost of removing NY guy from the equitation. John Doe might be paying equivalent to Person A's salary to go on a hunt.

So we are left with a situation where Person A needs John Doe, but also despises him. John Doe doesn't get a vote, Person A does... and therefore could actually eliminate the issue if they wanted, so in effect they are directly responsible for John Doe hunting in their state.

Further, Person A is in a state that receives far more in federal benefits than it takes in, therefore to some extent John Doe is 'paying' for person A's life style both with their vacation activity and his tax dollars.

I think both people are making sacrifices, and trying to arrive at similar ends the best way they can... one person is living 'in it' the other is trying to make a good living and get out there as much as possible. I'm not sure either is selfish in and so far as they try to be respectful of the others circumstances.

 

[TOGIE]

such a tough topic, especially when you consider that philosophical angles of morality and selfishness.

my initial gut reaction is that not publicizing places in the attempt to keep them a little less trampled on is not selfish. it's self serving, but does that inherently make you selfish? i dunno, are we equating self serving with selfish? i think there is a nuance there, but that's a different post, or we can dig into that.

anyway, my angle is that you're not depriving people of those places. they are still there and available for them to find and enjoy. should you engage in activities that deprives people of those places so only you, or select few, can enjoy them, well then there's a big problem.

what's a comparable analogy here....

costco is running a fire sale on some hot item and you only found out because you happened to go to costco that day. you can't buy the item today but can tomorrow, and you really need that item. is it selfish to not tell people about the sale? people that didnt' happen to go to costco that day to find the sale, in an attempt to make sure there are still enough for you tomorrow? i dunno. all i know is that you didn't deprive them of the item; you didn't deprive them off the opportunity to go find the item themselves or prevent them from doing so.

initial rambling thoughts is all...

 

[Irrelevant]

Thoughts?

We're all selfish in one way or another. It's part of the human condition. If we can recognize that it helps to walk that line Nameless was driving at between positive/neutral selfishness and negative selfishness.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Confounding variables... added nuance?

The guy from NY in aggregate pays for wildlife management. You look at any western state, it's 10 to 1 who pays for wildlife. The Hypothetical Person A, and his family + mentees can't absorb the cost of removing NY guy from the equitation. John Doe might be paying equivalent to Person A's salary to go on a hunt.

So we are left with a situation where Person A needs John Doe, but also despises him. John Doe doesn't get a vote, Person A does... and therefore could actually eliminate the issue if they wanted, so in effect they are directly responsible for John Doe hunting in their state.

Further, Person A is in a state that receives far more in federal benefits than it takes in, therefore to some extent John Doe is 'paying' for person A's life style both with their vacation activity and his tax dollars.

I think both people are making sacrifices, and trying to arrive at similar ends the best way they can... one person is living 'in it' the other is trying to make a good living and get out there as much as possible. I'm not sure either is selfish in and so far as they try to be respectful of the others circumstances.

Some good points, really interesting. I like your last line a lot, though I think it gets complicated...because both A and John Doe have the opportunity to advocate for or otherwise influence outcomes that favor one side or the other.

 

[Irrelevant]

So we are left with a situation where Person A needs John Doe, but also despises him.

You just described every customer service job in the world.

 

[MarvB]

Great question and I don’t think there is any one answer, especially selfishness versus say awareness or even volunteerism. Each has there own part, play, and meaning to ever individual.

I remember being out in Texas like 20 years ago and we were at a fundraiser for some cause (don’t recall what) and the guest “speaker” was A-Rod. They were raising money through a variety of methods; open auctions, silent auctions, memorabilia sales, etc. with a goal of like a half-million bucks.

We were sitting there having beers and my oldest kid looks at me and said “I’m calling BS”. I asked her on what, she replied that the guy in the centerpiece just signed a $250mil contract with the Rangers and is gonna make like $150,000 a game but he’s here trying to raise $500,000?” To her the math didn’t make sense and I told her sometimes it’s not about the (initial) money more so as to bring attention to the cause. She still thought him as “selfish” because he could have donated the entire goal amount himself with less than a weeks work Perspective??

 

[Nameless Range]

such a tough topic, especially when you consider that philosophical angles of morality and selfishness.

my initial gut reaction is that not publicizing places in the attempt to keep them a little less trampled on is not selfish. it's self serving, but does that inherently make you selfish? i dunno, are we equating self serving with selfish? i think there is a nuance there, but that's a different post, or we can dig into that.

anyway, my angle is that you're not depriving people of those places. they are still there and available for them to find and enjoy. should you engage in activities that deprives people of those places so only you, or select few, can enjoy them, well then there's a big problem.

what's a comparable analogy here....

costco is running a fire sale on some hot item and you only found out because you happened to go to costco that day. you can't buy the item today but can tomorrow, and you really need that item. is it selfish to not tell people about the sale? people that didnt' happen to go to costco that day to find the sale, in an attempt to make sure there are still enough for you tomorrow? i dunno. all i know is that you didn't deprive them of the item; you didn't deprive them off the opportunity to go find the item themselves or prevent them from doing so.

initial rambling thoughts is all...

I think your point about depriving is an interesting one, and a good bar. I would never deprive someone from visiting those places I love and hope to keep seldom-visited. But I certainly would and have argued for the deprivation of their opportunities to hunt them via discussions about tag allocation.

It's all very confusing. A lot of interesting comments.

Part of my own calculus, whether it be justification or just explaining away, is time. I only have so much. So much period, so much left with my kids, and I think a case could be made that the passions we value themselves are so endangered that their time is running out. Maybe that is a "get while the gettin is good" mentality, but I also think it may be an unavoidable one to live at times.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think your point about depriving is an interesting one, and a good bar. I would never deprive someone from visiting those places I love and hope to keep seldom-visited. But I certainly would and have argued for the deprivation of their opportunities to hunt them via discussions about tag allocation.

It's all very confusing. A lot of interesting comments.

Part of my own calculus, whether it be justification or just explaining away, is time. I only have so much. So much period, so much left with my kids, and I think a case could be made that the passions we value themselves are so endangered that their time is running out. Maybe that is a "get while the gettin is good" mentality, but I also think it may be an unavoidable one to live at times.

Rereading this now, of course I would deprive someone from visiting a place I love. There's years of evidence on this forum of me doing so regarding the transportation methods they would use to do so.

I'm not the first to say this, but an aspect of whether or not something may be considered a net-good/net-bad, selfish/ not-selfish may be whether or not that state of affairs is sustainable. I guess that is something else I'd like to think I think about.

It's a black hole of conditionals.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

...I would never deprive someone from visiting those places I love and hope to keep seldom-visited. But I certainly would and have argued for the deprivation of their opportunities to hunt them via discussions about tag allocation....

I don't want to go too far down the tag allocation x depravation hole, but I think some see them as the same. I've wandered all over the mountains without a tag in my pocket just to wander, but for some the tag is the only reason they will go somewhere. Therefore they may equate a lack of hunting opportunity to depravation. I don't understand that argument very well, strictly because of my biases and personal experience.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Rereading this now, of course I would deprive someone from visiting a place I love. There's years of evidence on this forum of me doing so regarding the transportation methods they would use to do so.

I'm not the first to say this, but an aspect of whether or not something may be considered a net-good/net-bad, selfish/ not-selfish may be whether or not that state of affairs is sustainable. I guess that is something else I'd like to think I think about.

It's a black hole of conditionals.

I considered addressing scarcity and the resource itself in the original post.

As it relates to the idea of recreational opportunity, user experience, and the health of the resource, I'm not sure we can really generalize which will result in a net gain for that resource. Surely it is case dependent. Some argue that more advocates and users will result in greater support for habitat enhancements, greater access, and better funding for managers. Others argue that more advocates and users result in an experience so unwholesome that it eventually defeats the purpose.

 

[TOGIE]

tag allocation as a form of deprivation. is it selfish?

if we all can put our hand on the bible, swear to the tell truth, and say "we truly only care about the resource" when it comes to tag allocation, then yeah, maybe not selfish.

i'd be lying though, to some degree or another.

if you go with the Jesus example of selflessness, you would give up hunting for the rest of your life so someone else can hunt the rest of their life that otherwise wouldn't be able to unless you give it up. that's sort of a thought i'm working from. the nuance being that we know that we don't have to give up hunting so that someone else who can't otherwise can - where the chips fall from there is really hard.

 

[BuzzH]

As to a hunting specific perspective, I think selfishness is a two way street.

There are new hunters that expect good hunters to do everything for them (find the spot, show them animals, pack it, etc), maybe just short of providing the salad for their deer steak dinner.

I've had new hunters get pissed off because I wouldn't tell them where I apply for tags, what units I hunt, where I hunt in a particular unit. Even had folks, some on this board, hack my draw results to find out.

Are those things not a selfish act?

IMO/E the one thing I like about hunting is the personal choices you get to make. Where to hunt, what tags to apply for, who you want to hunt with, who you choose to share your hunts with, how much you want to hunt, how far you want to go to find success (whatever that may be)...all that.

That includes if we choose to share our spots, or not, or how much time we want to invest helping others become hunters, or even if choose not to help anyone else.

I think a lot of new hunters are perhaps expecting a bit too much. I can tell you that learning about hunting is infinitely easier now than when I started. Youtube video's on everything, how and when to apply, how to quarter an elk, hunt planners, online applications, the list is endless. I largely learned through the school of thousands of hour of trial and error, hard knocks, and from a few people gracious enough to get me started (get me started, not hold my hand and provide essentially a guided hunt).

It seems a bit selfish to me, for new hunters to expect me to do much more than that.

The reasons a lot of people hunt is to get away from people. I deal with people nearly every hour I'm awake...its nice to just unplug, grab up my rifle, and not have to worry about anything, or anyone else for a while. Selfish? I don't think so.

Many of us, in our lives and jobs, spend an awful lot of time dealing with and helping others, so keeping hunting personal and to yourself for YOU, IMO, is not selfish. People need something that's theirs, and theirs alone. I won't be guilt tripped into having to help people just because someone else thinks it would be good for the sport.