Hunt Quietly - Matt Rinella's new website and podcast

[Pacific_Fork]

Ok, let me get this straight. The guy bitching about people profiting off of hunting, is now profiting off of hunting.

Oh boy. Try again at the getting something straight thing.

 

[Yoder]

In general, podcasts make money. At least they try to.

 

[timekiller13]

This is Matt Rinella. I’m very interested in respectfully discussing my stance with people that disagree with me on the podcast. I sincerely invite people that struggle with my perspective to reach out to me at [email protected]. One clarification. The only component of hunting social media I oppose is showing dead and dying animals, and I’ve been consistent on that, so I am resistant to the notion that my platform is hypocritical.

I have zero desire to be on your podcast but would love to shoot the shit with you.

I’m not going to lie and just say I’m a big fan of Steve. But I also respect your differing perspectives and think both of you have incredible insights and both are great ambassadors to our sport, although in different ways.

Keep doing what you’re doing. I admire anyone that puts their money where their mouth is.

 

[Jbogg]

The hunting industry is just that, an industry. The manufactures of hunting clothing and equipment will spend their marketing dollars in whatever way gets them the most bang for the buck. That’s not wrong. Hunting personalities who make a living traveling around the world and shooting animals is not wrong either. Everyone hunts for their own reasons, and I’m not going to impose my reasons for hunting on someone else. As long as they are working within the law then live and let live. State agencies are tasked with managing wildlife numbers. A few social media influencers shooting 30 animals a year is not going to impact that balance. 99.9% of the people out there are in no position to take that many animals each year, so the argument that they are influencing others to do the same is unrealistic.

The Internet and social media is kind of like pockets in my blue jeans. It’s here to stay. Adapt and overcome, or just whine about it.

 

[ddd-shooter]

The hunting industry is just that, an industry. The manufactures of hunting clothing and equipment will spend their marketing dollars in whatever way gets them the most bang for the buck. That’s not wrong. Hunting personalities who make a living traveling around the world and shooting animals is not wrong either. Everyone hunts for their own reasons, and I’m not going to impose my reasons for hunting on someone else. As long as they are working within the law then live and let live. State agencies are tasked with managing wildlife numbers. A few social media influencers shooting 30 animals a year is not going to impact that balance. 99.9% of the people out there are in no position to take that many animals each year, so the argument that they are influencing others to do the same is unrealistic.

The Internet and social media is kind of like pockets in my blue jeans. It’s here to stay. Adapt and overcome, or just whine about it.

You know what game laws do? Adjust with the times.
Some social media influencer going around the country vacuuming up tags so he can pimp his sponsors products is totally against the North American model of wildlife-in MY opinion.
YMMV

 

[Idaho_Potato]

99.9% of the people out there are in no position to take that many animals each year, so the argument that they are influencing others to do the same is unrealistic.

What? How is this even a debate?

There are literally entire companies, YouTube channels, instagram accounts, and podcasts dedicated to showing everyone how to apply for hunts for every species in every state. You’re telling me social media had nothing to do with that phenomenon catching fire in the last 15 years? John Dudley posting his 3rd archery elk in a single season? Randy Newberg posting how-to’s on getting coues tags to hunt in January? It’s almost ALL due to social media…

 

[WKR]

The hunting industry is just that, an industry. The manufactures of hunting clothing and equipment will spend their marketing dollars in whatever way gets them the most bang for the buck. That’s not wrong. Hunting personalities who make a living traveling around the world and shooting animals is not wrong either. Everyone hunts for their own reasons, and I’m not going to impose my reasons for hunting on someone else. As long as they are working within the law then live and let live. State agencies are tasked with managing wildlife numbers. A few social media influencers shooting 30 animals a year is not going to impact that balance. 99.9% of the people out there are in no position to take that many animals each year, so the argument that they are influencing others to do the same is unrealistic.

The Internet and social media is kind of like pockets in my blue jeans. It’s here to stay. Adapt and overcome, or just whine about it.

So your telling me all the videos of how to draw tags, how to hunt elk every year, and burn your points now, etc... haven't affected point creep. And all the videos blatantly naming regions and units didn't cause any additional pressure?

It isn't about adapt and overcome. Its about either doing something about it or doing nothing.
Atleast Matt is doing something.

 

[WKR]

What? How is this even a debate?

There are literally entire companies, YouTube channels, instagram accounts, and podcasts dedicated to showing everyone how to apply for hunts for every species in every state. You’re telling me social media had nothing to do with that phenomenon catching fire in the last 15 years? John Dudley posting his 3rd archery elk in a single season? Randy Newberg posting how-to’s on getting coues tags to hunt in January? It’s almost ALL due to social media…

Haha just realized we posted pretty much the same thing at the same time

 

[Jbogg]

What? How is this even a debate?

There are literally entire companies, YouTube channels, instagram accounts, and podcasts dedicated to showing everyone how to apply for hunts for every species in every state. You’re telling me social media had nothing to do with that phenomenon catching fire in the last 15 years? John Dudley posting his 3rd archery elk in a single season? Randy Newberg posting how-to’s on getting coues tags to hunt in January? It’s almost ALL due to social media…

My point was that the vast majority of people have neither the time, nor the means to take that many animals per year. Rinella was implying that these influencers are resulting in others taking that many game animals each year. I just don’t see that happening on a large enough scale to affect game populations.

 

[Jbogg]

So your telling me all the videos of how to draw tags, how to hunt elk every year, and burn your points now, etc... haven't affected point creep. And all the videos blatantly naming regions and units didn't cause any additional pressure?

It isn't about adapt and overcome. Its about either doing something about it or doing nothing.
Atleast Matt is doing something.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about Point creep, or additional pressure. I said that none of the above is illegal, or wrong. It’s capitalism. Rinella starts sounding like a socialist when he talks about how unfair it is for some people to get 20+ animals a year. If somebody has the money, and the time to hunt year-round all around the world, then good for them. Sounds like sour grapes by many. Social media is here to stay. There’s no rolling the clock back.

 

[Jbogg]

You know what game laws do? Adjust with the times.
Some social media influencer going around the country vacuuming up tags so he can pimp his sponsors products is totally against the North American model of wildlife-in MY opinion.
YMMV

Then change the laws. It’s a slippery slope. Guys like Cameron Hanes, Jim Shockey… travel the world and take lots of animals. Both are good ambassadors for hunting. I try to look at the net outcome. Do they do more good than bad. In this case I would say yes. I completely understand why guys are frustrated with point creep and the impact of more hunters, but hunting is also under attack in many areas by the anti-‘s. It’s impossible to promote hunting in a positive light without also increasing hunter numbers. It is what it is, and it’s the world we live in. Can’t roll back the clock.

 

[ddd-shooter]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about Point creep, or additional pressure. I said that none of the above is illegal, or wrong. It’s capitalism. Rinella starts sounding like a socialist when he talks about how unfair it is for some people to get 20+ animals a year. If somebody has the money, and the time to hunt year-round all around the world, then good for them. Sounds like sour grapes by many. Social media is here to stay. There’s no rolling the clock back.

The problem is not that these people hunt for themselves year round.
The problem is that hunting year round has become a business for a multitude of people.
Cameron Hanes made a name killing on public land. Western hunting got so popular he now mostly hunts private. You can make the argument that he has the money to do so, and he’s free to spend it how he wants. I agree. But the point remains: there are so many hunters that unless you restrict us by making it prohibitively expensive, the hunting will suffer.
It seems to go like this:
Take the opportunity, make a business for yourself, forsake the “average” hunter by attracting the very thing we don’t need (more pressure), leave them in that mess, go to private ranch and continue to push for more hunters, sell more stuff to new recruits.

 

[WKR]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about Point creep, or additional pressure. I said that none of the above is illegal, or wrong. It’s capitalism. Rinella starts sounding like a socialist when he talks about how unfair it is for some people to get 20+ animals a year. If somebody has the money, and the time to hunt year-round all around the world, then good for them. Sounds like sour grapes by many. Social media is here to stay. There’s no rolling the clock back.

How so? You said that the social media hunters arent influencing others to copy their behavior, to which my response shows that they are.

And he never claimed that its illegal, only that is it morally wrong.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[Jbogg]

The problem is not that these people hunt for themselves year round.
The problem is that hunting year round has become a business for a multitude of people.
Cameron Hanes made a name killing on public land. Western hunting got so popular he now mostly hunts private. You can make the argument that he has the money to do so, and he’s free to spend it how he wants. I agree. But the point remains: there are so many hunters that unless you restrict us by making it prohibitively expensive, the hunting will suffer.
It seems to go like this:
Take the opportunity, make a business for yourself, forsake the “average” hunter by attracting the very thing we don’t need (more pressure), leave them in that mess, go to private ranch and continue to push for more hunters, sell more stuff to new recruits.

You make some fair points, but I believe the horse is out of the barn. I think many are placing blame at the feet of those who have done nothing more than succeed in promoting themselves and the products they represent. Hunter numbers seem to have increased. We could make several strong arguments as to why that is a good thing for hunting in general. At the same time there are the resulting negative consequences of more hunters leading to increased pressure, more competition for tags, and less opportunities for some. There are both positive and negatives resulting from more hunters. I don’t know that there is a solution, as populations continue to rise. I do think it’s unfair to demonize a few hunting personalities who are doing nothing more than making a living in a way that many on this very forum would do in a second.

 

[Thunt22]

Has some faults like everyones but Matt’s message is definitely a positive one that should be talked about and listened too. Happy at least someone is out there on a platform having these conversations

 

[ProStaffSteve]

I'm on board with the general idea of hunting without the publicity, but the the double speak of not hiring guides/paying for access on private while lamenting public overcrowding is laughable. Should I stop taking new hunters out too, since everything is overcrowded?

Every year the average age of hunters goes up by one; the bullet points listed here just create another form of gatekeeping that won't reverse or stall that trend.

Listened to his speech and thought the same. Took my first mule deer & burnt tag soup last year thanks to Steve Rinella. Humbly, stop gatekeeping a fun activity. I hope to god we get more public land, the sport is more successful, and we all get more tags, but less people should never be the answer.

 

[Jbogg]

How so? You said that the social media hunters arent influencing others to copy their behavior, to which my response shows that they are.

And he never claimed that its illegal, only that is it morally wrong.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

I said that social media hunters that are shooting 30 animals a year are not influencing a significant number of average Joe hunters to shoot 30+animals per year. The reality is that most people do not have the means, nor the time to do that.

I completely agree that social media hunters are one of the causes for the increased number of hunters overall, but I was never arguing that point. I feel that a greater number of hunters is a good thing for hunting overall, and for the future of hunting. I realize there is a downside to that as well, but I think it’s a net gain. Overcrowding is definitely an issue, but so is the anti-hunting community. Which is the greater threat to hunting, time will tell.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

I said that social media hunters that are shooting 30 animals a year are not influencing a significant number of average Joe hunters to shoot 30+animals per year. The reality is that most people do not have the means, nor the time to do that.

I completely agree that social media hunters are one of the causes for the increased number of hunters overall, but I was never arguing that point. I feel that a greater number of hunters is a good thing for hunting overall, and for the future of hunting. I realize there is a downside to that as well, but I think it’s a net gain. Overcrowding is definitely an issue, but so is the anti-hunting community. Which is the greater threat to hunting, time will tell.

The reality is most people can't shoot 30+ animals a year because there arent enough resources/tags. Demand does not meet the supply and that trend is only getting worse year after year since the advent of social media, influencers and technology.

In general, podcasts make money. At least they try to.

Trying to be polite here. Yes podcast try to make money, you need sponsers to make money. Matt's podcast does not have sponsers thus he makes no money. So again your orginal critizism was flat wrong, the end.

 

[Yoder]

The reality is most people can't shoot 30+ animals a year because there arent enough resources/tags. Demand does not meet the supply and that trend is only getting worse year after year since the advent of social media, influencers and technology.



Trying to be polite here. Yes podcast try to make money, you need sponsers to make money. Matt's podcast does not have sponsers thus he makes no money. So again your orginal critizism was flat wrong, the end.

I looked at his website and I see he sells everything at cost and isn't making money off of it. It's rare to see people with good values. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but I respect him for being true to his cause.

 

[ddd-shooter]

You make some fair points, but I believe the horse is out of the barn. I think many are placing blame at the feet of those who have done nothing more than succeed in promoting themselves and the products they represent. Hunter numbers seem to have increased. We could make several strong arguments as to why that is a good thing for hunting in general. At the same time there are the resulting negative consequences of more hunters leading to increased pressure, more competition for tags, and less opportunities for some. There are both positive and negatives resulting from more hunters. I don’t know that there is a solution, as populations continue to rise. I do think it’s unfair to demonize a few hunting personalities who are doing nothing more than making a living in a way that many on this very forum would do in a second.

It’ll be hard to recruit hunters to a sport where they can neither draw tags, get to an area without pressure, visit an area devoid of a multitude of hunters, or even fill a tag (should they ever draw one)