Does the Public lands pushback undermine Hunt Quietly?

[ddd-shooter]

So your saying hey everyone write your senators to save public lands but we don’t really want you to come hunt public lands.

I just want to know how many more hunters we need. If you’re selling crap to hunters, the answer is always “more.” Especially when you can pay a private land guide to take you somewhere paid for by your customers.

Currently, less than 10% of the country hunts. So if you double that, good luck winning a vote (you’ll still only be 20%) and good luck getting any hunting done.

The SINGLE BIGGEST obstacle the majority of hunters has today is places to hunt or available tags.
I don’t mind new hunters, I don’t mind children replacing their fathers. I just don’t understand trying to get everyone to hunt. But then again, I’m not selling anything. Not even content!!!

 

[KurtR]

I just want to know how many more hunters we need. If you’re selling crap to hunters, the answer is always “more.” Especially when you can pay a private land guide to take you somewhere paid for by your customers.

Currently, less than 10% of the country hunts. So if you double that, good luck winning a vote (you’ll still only be 20%) and good luck getting any hunting done.

The SINGLE BIGGEST obstacle the majority of hunters has today is places to hunt or available tags.
I don’t mind new hunters, I don’t mind children replacing their fathers. I just don’t understand trying to get everyone to hunt. But then again, I’m not selling anything. Not even content!!!

Seems this last week the social media people were every ones best buddies. Interesting conundrum.

When the fight comes they start trying to restrict hunting on public land you’re going to need people. Keep running hunters off the western people are going to be on your own island. So out of that 10% maybe 2 % hunt out there .

I don’t sell anything and only content I have is my dog and the ribbons he gets and birds he picks up.

 

[RockAndSage]

Currently, less than 10% of the country hunts

Out of all my cousins and nephews, only 2 actually hunt regularly, but almost all of them would either identify as "hunters" because they did it growing up and/or intend to "eventually", or they identify as part of a family who hunts and support it. The actual hunters account for less than 10% of my family, so that 10% is just not reflective of who supports hunting.

 

[Rich M]

I’ll start by saying I’m generally sympathetic to the “Hunt Quietly” argument. I’ve watched my state pay Newberg’s group to make tags harder to get. I’m not necessarily endorsing the messenger, the message does hit home.

But… this public land sale mess and the reaction to it got a lot of traction, in part, thanks to social media like Newberg’s group, BHA, and even HQ’s public enemy #1, Cameron Hanes. The granola crowd was supporting this too, as expected, but I would imagine the hook and bullet crowd has an outsized pull with the politicians involved as losing support from conservative leaning group hits closer to home

I’m not sure how much of a difference each of those really made, but it challenges the knee jerk “influencers bad” reaction. At least sometimes.

I saw a handful of donate buttons when trying to see if anyone had a clue as to what was happening cause i sure didnt.

Never let an opportunity go to waste.

 

[doc holiday13]

I've not followed the "hunt quietly" trend/mindset. Do they hate CH because he encourages people to try hunting?

I've listened to the argument from Rinella over several podcast. The ultimate reasons he hates people like Cam is as follows:
*Social media hunters post multple hunts per year which means they're shelling out lots of money for hunts and drawing in new hunters that have money and are willing to throw booku bucks at a lease or hunt club which pushes out people of lesser means. In Matt's mind, people shouldn't be allowed to pay for access because it glorifies big huge trophy hunting
*Its not ethical to shoot so many animals per year and they should be giving those chances to people who don't have them
*He's a bit of a jealous whiny bitch. He seems to feel people shouldn't be able to kill that many animals per year.

The last 2 reasons are very similar but its the best way to describe how he seems to communicate the issue

 

[Will_m]

Nope.

There is absolutely no denying the damage hunting media/YouTube/influencers have done. When people can't get tags or can't afford to hunt, you start to lose those people on your side as well. When you start charging non-residents $1200 for antelope tags and $2k for elk tags, it is easy to see the direction we are headed. There is going to be a point where other hunters don't give a damn if you lose some public land in your state because your state has already priced/restricted them out of ever being able to hunt there.

From the beginning, I knew influencers would use this public lands deal as a way to pat themselves on the back and justify their means ignoring the significant damage they've caused. I visited a few influencer pages and that is exactly what I saw. Making smart comments above those who oppose them, stuff like "Where are the influencer/YouTube haters now?!?! We just saved this from happening!" Ah, the perpetual influencer circle jerk. Go ahead and ride the gravy train til the end. I honestly couldn't live with myself knowing I sold out for a few bucks and helped destroy hunting opportunities for future generations.

Back to HuntQuietly. HuntQuietly isn't against new hunters. HuntQuietly is more about letting hunting grow organically, not shoving "KILLING FOR CONTENT" down the throats of folks who will just go on to buy the merch and gear of those who influenced them. HuntQuietly covers a ton of great topics and exposes the industry and influencers for what shams they really are.

But to everyone who wants to continue to like and subscribe your hunting opportunities to hell, go ahead. We can all watch it burn together!

This. Exactly this.