Hunt Quietly - Matt Rinella's new website and podcast

[CJohnson]

Hunters who spend their time criticizing other hunters for hunting the wrong way and/or hunting for the wrong reasons are more potentially destructive to the future of hunting than anti-hunters will ever be. Hunting is one of the main tools of successful game management. Hunters need to kill the right number of animals each year in order to keep game populations in balance. And game management as a whole can't happen without the money that hunting generates. It's short-sighted and foolish to think that everything would be better if hunters just stopped spending money, boycotted landowners and guides, and all had the "right" motivations for hunting. The deer and elk who are killed every year during hunting season don't care why the guy or gal who killed them chose to go hunting. And they don't care if the guy or gal who killed them spent any money on the hunt or not. All of that only matters to some guy that gets his panties in a wad over some other hunter who isn't hunting the same way as him or with the same thoughts about hunting as him.

Matt just needs to go hunting however, wherever and whenever he wants to, and then he needs to quit worrying about how and why other hunters hunt. If he's successful in his endeavor to end paid hunting on private lands, he'll destroy game populations all across the country. If there's no value assigned to the animals, there will be no incentive for landowners to tolerate them on their land. They'll replace the wild game with livestock or some other cash crop. Matt isn't thinking about what would happen in response to and as a result of his proposed action.

I disagree with this to a certain extent. I don't see a problem with hunters being critical of each other. I can think of numerous examples in the brief history of North American conservation where hunters were probably critical of each other doing things that were legal at the time, but not necessarily best for the long term outlook of a given species. Switching from lead shot to steel shot for waterfowl, antler restrictions on whitetails, not riding around in a pickup and shooting turkeys with a .22 mag, etc., etc.

A good example of people aligning with your first sentence are all of the industry guys who support fanning turkeys, despite the recent downward trends in population pretty much everywhere. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who's turkey hunted that fanning gobblers is basically a cheat code, yet you have people like Michael Waddell almost quoting your sentence above saying that people who criticize other hunters are the problem.

I think that one of Matt's main arguments is that influencers are utilizing social media to make a profit off a shared resource and in the process they are having a negative impact on that resource. I don't think he did a very good job articulating that at the outset of everything.

 

[Shane]

I disagree with this to a certain extent. I don't see a problem with hunters being critical of each other. I can think of numerous examples in the brief history of North American conservation where hunters were probably critical of each other doing things that were legal at the time, but not necessarily best for the long term outlook of a given species. Switching from lead shot to steel shot for waterfowl, antler restrictions on whitetails, not riding around in a pickup and shooting turkeys with a .22 mag, etc., etc.

A good example of people aligning with your first sentence are all of the industry guys who support fanning turkeys, despite the recent downward trends in population pretty much everywhere. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who's turkey hunted that fanning gobblers is basically a cheat code, yet you have people like Michael Waddell almost quoting your sentence above saying that people who criticize other hunters are the problem.

I think that one of Matt's main arguments is that influencers are utilizing social media to make a profit off a shared resource and in the process they are having a negative impact on that resource. I don't think he did a very good job articulating that at the outset of everything.

If a guy kills his limit of turkeys, does it really matter what method of hunting or what legal weapon he used to do it? No, it doesn't. Killing a turkey with a .22mag isn't harming the resource, as long as a hunter legally killed his limit. If a poacher kills more turkey than legally allowed, and he does so with a shotgun and a box call, it's still poaching and is harming the resource. Style of hunting isn't the issue.

 

[ODB]

I disagree with this to a certain extent. I don't see a problem with hunters being critical of each other. I can think of numerous examples in the brief history of North American conservation where hunters were probably critical of each other doing things that were legal at the time, but not necessarily best for the long term outlook of a given species. Switching from lead shot to steel shot for waterfowl, antler restrictions on whitetails, not riding around in a pickup and shooting turkeys with a .22 mag, etc., etc.

A good example of people aligning with your first sentence are all of the industry guys who support fanning turkeys, despite the recent downward trends in population pretty much everywhere. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who's turkey hunted that fanning gobblers is basically a cheat code, yet you have people like Michael Waddell almost quoting your sentence above saying that people who criticize other hunters are the problem.

I think that one of Matt's main arguments is that influencers are utilizing social media to make a profit off a shared resource and in the process they are having a negative impact on that resource. I don't think he did a very good job articulating that at the outset of everything.

To add to your last pgf, he is critical of orgs (including some conservation orgs) and influencers creating hunters in order to sell them products, and in the process have a negative effect on hunting by selling hunting as some sort of curative for all one’s ills, be they mental, social, environmental, nutritional, etc.

That’s the “de-monitization” he is referring to. That it has become an industry to make hunters to sell them things. Might be a fine line, but it hold a decent bit of water.

He gives an example…if you just wanted to encourage people to me more healthy, mindful, etc, you could encourage them to do yoga. Increasing the number of people doing yoga has zero effect on any landscape or other yoga practitioner. It also doesn’t rely on dead animals - in some cases more than the person can use.

I think sometimes he has in his mind a good idea but it comes out a bit convoluted - and he admits as much. Having a conversation with him clears up a lot of the things people misunderstand about him. He’s a good guy with good intentions. But then again, I also think Steve is a good guy with good intentions, but to be honest, I think the tail is wagging the dog with him. I heard him recently say again that he would be most honored if his tombstone said “writer” on it. That’s a sentiment he had before he was making money, before me moved out of New York, and before the e-commerce gig. I would bet if he could do it all again he wouldn’t do what he’s done. I’d love to have a long convo with him but unlike matt, he’s unreachable.

 

[bsnedeker]

If a guy kills his limit of turkeys, does it really matter what method of hunting or what legal weapon he used to do it? No, it doesn't. Killing a turkey with a .22mag isn't harming the resource, as long as a hunter legally killed his limit. If a poacher kills more turkey than legally allowed, and he does so with a shotgun and a box call, it's still poaching and is harming the resource. Style of hunting isn't the issue.

Yes, it very much matters. When you are using a method that dramatically improves your odds and you start spreading that method around on social media now you have a craze of dudes out there fanning turkeys. Now, instead of a handful of really good turkey hunters taking their limit of turkeys, you have a ton of mediocre guys taking their limit of turkeys.

This means more turkeys are being killed each year. This means that there is more pressure on the resource. In the case of turkeys whose populations are declining, F&G is going to have to do something. They are going to do this by putting limits on hunting. This means less opportunity for everyone to get out in the field.

So yes, it matters.

 

[CJohnson]

If a guy kills his limit of turkeys, does it really matter what method of hunting or what legal weapon he used to do it? No, it doesn't. Killing a turkey with a .22mag isn't harming the resource, as long as a hunter legally killed his limit. If a poacher kills more turkey than legally allowed, and he does so with a shotgun and a box call, it's still poaching and is harming the resource. Style of hunting isn't the issue.

I think it does matter because it leads to a greater harvest rate, which leads to a decrease in bag limits, and ultimately less opportunity. I’m not a biologist though so that may be an incorrect line of thinking.

 

[Shane]

If a guy can't kill all the turkeys he wants with whatever method he prefers, he should start fishing or something. They're the easiest critters to kill in the woods. There's not gonna be much difference in kill rate if everybody started shooting them with rifles. It's legal to shoot them with any weapon in Texas. Always has been. And you can still kill 4 per year. All the turkey hunters I know prefer to call them in close anyway. I think you guys are over-thinking this stuff.

 

[365sportsman]

Was listening to the blood origins podcast and Matt had a prorated number for the type of hunters/style. If you hire a guide you are a 1 and if you hunt inky landlocked public through special permission from a kandow er you may be like and 8 or 9. Basically in order to be a 10 you must only hunt accessible public land.... The same place he feels is over crowded is the only place you can get a 10 on his scale. Dude is constantly talking out of both sides of his mouth

 

[ShortMountain91]

I finally listened to the first 5 or 6 episodes. I'll say that while Matt may not be the most eloquent voice to portray the concern, I think most hunters would agree with a majority of what he's saying.

- we need to fight for habitat and access
- we need to have our group show better behavior on other people's land whether it be collectively public land or a private landowners place
- Instagram influencers who are hunting to produce content in an attempt to be "sponsored" can't be good for hunting
- Crowding in hunting is for sure a problem but most big names and companies don't like talking about it since they know they directly increase the issue and they profit off of more hunters

Does anyone actually disagree with any of those points? I can get having an argument over recruitment or posting pictures or how long of a shot to take but the above seems rock solid to me.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[dtrkyman]

I agree with what he is saying, however if there are less of us then who is going to fight for our access/right or any other issue that comes along?

We are a minority as it is, then factor in the fact that a small percentage are advocating for any hunting related program or access etc. So then what?

 

[ShortMountain91]

I agree with what he is saying, however if there are less of us then who is going to fight for our access/right or any other issue that comes along?

We are a minority as it is, then factor in the fact that a small percentage are advocating for any hunting related program or access etc. So then what?

There's several groups that advocate to protect hunting all while hunters only being 4% of our population. I think it's very evident that minority groups can accomplish things in America. And even if we triple our numbers we will still be in a vast minority. I'm not necessarily against recruiting new hunters because I, like you, am concerned about keeping it relevant and valued to our population but I also totally agree with Matt that crowding is a serious problem and a problem that most with a large following totally avoid because they contribute to the problem and profit from the extra people.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[MTSasquatch]

i think you‘re very close there.

I find I agree with some of what Matt says and some not.

This is what America is about, have the civil debate and see what stands or falls. It may work for him, it may not, but the debate is good to have.

….and I commend Matt from not backing down from his opinion.

100%. We can all find things to agree and disagree on at the same time and still all be friendly, respectful, and cordial to one another.

I am personal friends with some meateater people, and they’re not bad guys. Just like how I assume Matt isn’t a bad guy. I lean towards what Matt is trying to get at, while at the same time still enjoy catching up with the meateater dudes.

Life is never black and white.

 

[douglasfir]

I work outdoors and the woods have never been more crowded. I can say unequivocally that more people equals more resource damage.

Matt Rinella is right. When he's getting flak it's because he's over the target.

 

[RufusB.Marion]

It all seems so simple. Stop posting on social media, just delete it. Then create an anonymous account on a niche internet forum. Couldn't be easier.

 

[roosiebull]

Hunt Quietly

huntquietly.org

He gives a little intro to his new podcast on The Hunting Dog Podcast episode found in the link below (skip to 25 mins in, where The Hunt Quietly justification starts:

Hunt Quietly with Matt Rinella – The Hunting Dog Podcast

Personally, I'm glad to see Matt not giving up on his awareness campaign. Slowly, I'm sure more people will be climbing on board, especially with the current state of western big game hunting.

Dr Matt? reminds me of Ashby, like putting Dr in front of your name makes your opinion more valuable

i do respect Matt standing up for his beliefs, and actually agree with a good amount of what he is striving for, but his double standards are ironic to me, and his radical approach is off-putting... maybe he has chilled out a little, but i think his strategy has been a little too aggressive for most to take seriously..... i think i would get along with Matt in real life, i get along with about every truly passionate outdoorsman i have ever met, even though my views may be starkly different on other topics, true passion for outdoors pursuits is a pretty big common ground to me, even if he's a liberal, we could get along it would be a matter of his sense of humor, and shrugging off the jabs i would constantly make about his political views.... i don't know his, but i would assume we have different views there.... if i'm right, he is off to a bad start, because he owes a lot of us a lot of gas money

 

[ThisIsMyHandle]

Here’s my impression of Matt Rinella. “Help me fight the commercialization of hunting by buying my t shirts and hats”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[def90]

By having a website and a podcast isn’t Matt kind of doing exactly what he is supposedly opposed to?

 

[scattergun]

That was my first thought. Seems anti-MeatEater on many levels. LOL

Good.

By having a website and a podcast isn’t Matt kind of doing exactly what he is supposedly opposed to?

No.

 

[QuackAttack]

I work outdoors and the woods have never been more crowded. I can say unequivocally that more people equals more resource damage.

Matt Rinella is right. When he's getting flak it's because he's over the target.

It’s not just that the woods are crowded…hunter numbers are not at all time highs (depending on species)…it’s that there are fewer places to hunt and the outdoor recreation areas are now filled with mountain bikers, campers, dirt bikes, hikers, and so on.

less available land…concentrates hunters.

 

[roosiebull]

Seems like he is riding Steve's coattails

Worked for gritty… the OG “coattail cowboy”

 

[roosiebull]

Good.

No.

How “no”? Explain how it’s not a double standard…