Matt Rinella for president

[Billinsd]

Matt is Steve's brother.

And they are very different.

They are both the same in that they are both very self serving.

 

[Billinsd]

Can you point to one example in Matt’s argument or anyone in this thread where they are advocating to “make it harder for new hunters” like you said?

And I’ll admit while I use a lot of tech to aid my hunts I think hunting is way too easy in 2022, thus the resource will suffer and fewer opportunities will follow.

SDhunter said he wants nonresident fees raised drastically is an example. There are examples all throughout stating we don't need new hunters. Saying that discourages new hunters because many have a disdain for them. I'm not way off from your point of view that some hunting influencers and podcasts have gotten out of hand. However, I don't watch much of them and when I do, I fast forward through all the fluff. So, Fork you get to say when enough is enough and it's too easy? I am not experiencing the same difficulties as others in regards to land getting leased and hunting getting more expensive. I've sat on the sidelines watching some residents disparage and discourage non resident hunters for decades and read that if you want to hunt out of state you should be a resident of that state or spend years, thousands of miles from home to learn to hunt a place. I've spent my youth working hard and accumulating wealth and can afford to hunt pretty much anywhere for anything I want to. I do watch some podcasters and influencers and am grateful to them and their help showing me where and how to hunt in different places and it's fantastic they make money doing it. I remember back in the 70s as a kid trying to hunt out of state with virtually no help at all and did ok. The internet and social media have increased my hunting more than tenfold. I've also witnessed my favorite spots go to hell, but I move on, like I do for everything. Cheers

 

[displacedtexan]

They are both the same in that they are both very self serving.

Isn't everyone?

Their approaches to hunting and their podcasts are very different.

 

[Billinsd]

Isn't everyone?

Their approaches to hunting and their podcasts are very different.

LOL, NO not everyone is extremely serving!! It's a bad trait, especially in extremes. Yes, the two have extremely different approaches and are both extremely selfish and self serving. Lol

 

[Billinsd]

To be clear, I cut my hunting teeth with Dwight Schuh, Larry D Jones, Cameron Hanes, bowsite, bowhunting.net, Monstermuleys, Backpack Hunter, Mike Eastman, David Long, Garth Carter in their how to and where to books and videos. More recently Randy Newberg, Remi Warren, Nate Simmons, Gohunt, Cliff Grey, The Flush, uplandforums, Robby Denny, Rokslide, Onx, Tyler Webster, some Hush and others on where and how to.

 

[ddd-shooter]

More strawmen arguments.
We need more hunters to help slow the decline and inevitable end of hunting as we know it. We need more hunters to slow the decline of our significance as a voting block to eventual insignificance. We need more young hunters, because the majority are older hunters, to help slow the decline of hunting. We need more hunters to buy hunting licenses to support conservation. These are facts. Yes, we will never increase hunters percentage of the population. Yes, we will never catch up and will lose more and more ground. The question is do you want to slow or want to hasten the inevitable? I'm not a big proponent of podcasts and or influence hunters. I'm old school and had influencers like Dwight Schuh, Larry D Jones, Eastman's Journal, Garth Carter and others to watch videos, read magazines to learn to hunt. I like most of you agree that influencers have gone too far. I don't believe in more crappy hunters just to boost the ranks. I am firmly AGAINST MAKING HUNTER RECRUITMENT harder and making it harder for especially youth hunters!

In relative numbers, the percentage of the U.S. population that hunts has been on a steady decline since at least 1960, when there were 14 million hunters, representing 7.7 percent of the total U.S. population of 180.7 million people. In 2020, hunters represented only 4.6 percent of the U.S. population. Even at the 1982 peak, hunters only represented 7.2 percent of the U.S. population.

And we still have 14 million hunters, per USFWS.

Where is this decline?
How much habitat available to hunt have we LOST since 1960?

We have steady hunter numbers across DECADES, with a precipitous decline of habitat.
That’s why we don’t need any more. We’re all fighting for access. And we are already losing to the wealthy.
Anyone you introduce to the sport is gonna battle access.

 

[Billinsd]

Where is this decline?
How much habitat available to hunt have we LOST since 1960?

And we are already losing to the wealthy.
Anyone you introduce to the sport is gonna battle access.

Let's agree to disagree about hunter numbers in decline over the decades. I agree there is a huge loss of habitat. New hunters have a huge learning curve with hunting regulations, equipment, etc. Unless their family teaches them. Access is better for me personally!!! It's HUUGE! Social media has unlocked seemingly endless access to me living in San Diego. I've got millions of acres of places to hunt in the West and actual good spots from Social media and kind, generous hunters I've met on Social media, and the field, it's Staggering!! I could spend a hundred years hunting it! I recently, discovered and experienced a great upland spot in South Dakota with 100,000 acres of public land! 25 years ago, I had little access to hunting, because I had no contacts, no Eastman's, no Randy Newberg were to go. ACCESS?? My access is only limited by my time, imagination, and money to travel!! I'm OVERWHELMED with access and hunting opportunities!!

 

[Unckebob]

Matt is Steve's brother.

And they are very different.

Holy crap. I saw the last name and never thought about it. I didn't know "Matt" had a podcast,

 

[ddd-shooter]

Let's agree to disagree about hunter numbers in decline over the decades. I agree there is a huge loss of habitat. New hunters have a huge learning curve with hunting regulations, equipment, etc. Unless their family teaches them. Access is better for me personally!!! It's HUUGE! Social media has unlocked seemingly endless access to me living in San Diego. I've got millions of acres of places to hunt in the West and actual good spots from Social media and kind, generous hunters I've met on Social media, and the field, it's Staggering!! I could spend a hundred years hunting it! I recently, discovered and experienced a great upland spot in South Dakota with 100,000 acres of public land! 25 years ago, I had little access to hunting, because I had no contacts, no Eastman's, no Randy Newberg were to go. ACCESS?? My access is only limited by my time, imagination, and money to travel!! I'm OVERWHELMED with access and hunting opportunities!!

Agree to disagree?! On hunter numbers? Check the following:
“The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service compiles numbers on hunting license, tag, and stamp sales annually. You can find their 2021 report on the USFWS website. According to this report, in 2021, there were 15,202,669 paid hunting license holders in the U.S.”
The most ever reported from FWS was 17 million in the 80s.
Considering that our numbers haven’t really changed a whole lot since the mid 90s, why exactly do you still think there’s a need for more?

Did you not, a few posts up, say that you had some spots “go to hell?”
How many more spots can we afford to lose, while gaining more competition?
How many more hunters do you want to put on that 100,000 acres in South Dakota? Are you good if we have so many we need a quota system there, after all, if you just found it, shouldn’t everyone else? What about the guy who lives there and has hunted it for decades?
Here’s the ultimate question: HOW MANY MORE hunters do we need? To be effective, we’d need a precise figure, yet I’ve never heard a clear answer. Everyone who profits from the industry simply says “ more.”
No one, however, wants tougher to draw tags, more difficult quota applications, or more trucks at the trailhead.

 

[CamoPirate]

I don't believe being able to feed myself is a privilege.

 

[allstajacket]

FWIW,

Growing up real young i’d “hunt” with my father. Parents split and I moved to the city, and didn’t get the opportunity to anymore.

He passed while I was in high school, and I “tried” hunting shortly after unsuccessfully.

A few years later watching Meat Eater rekindled that for me, and I sought out more information and made friends with some other hunters, and got invited to an annual deer camp in northern MI.

I don’t see why people are so quick to throw blame for their issues on things. More positive exposure to hunting is a good thing. We need more hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

Agree to disagree?! On hunter numbers? Check the following:
“The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service compiles numbers on hunting license, tag, and stamp sales annually. You can find their 2021 report on the USFWS website. According to this report, in 2021, there were 15,202,669 paid hunting license holders in the U.S.”
The most ever reported from FWS was 17 million in the 80s.
Considering that our numbers haven’t really changed a whole lot since the mid 90s, why exactly do you still think there’s a need for more?

Did you not, a few posts up, say that you had some spots “go to hell?”
How many more spots can we afford to lose, while gaining more competition?
How many more hunters do you want to put on that 100,000 acres in South Dakota? Are you good if we have so many we need a quota system there, after all, if you just found it, shouldn’t everyone else? What about the guy who lives there and has hunted it for decades?
Here’s the ultimate question: HOW MANY MORE hunters do we need? To be effective, we’d need a precise figure, yet I’ve never heard a clear answer. Everyone who profits from the industry simply says “ more.”
No one, however, wants tougher to draw tags, more difficult quota applications, or more trucks at the trailhead.

If your just finding pheasant hunting in south dakota you have been living under a rock. Dont worry there wont be a quota ever the state makes bank of the chinese chickens and only 10 day license. I dont start hunting them till now till end of January and wont see another person. plus in the last decade we have went from over 100000 nr resident pheasant license to 75000 this last year. So I dont think that 100000 acres is in trouble any time soon.

 

[Dos Perros]

Please consider that someone showing up to 100,000 acres they previously didn't know existed may have a different perspective on access than the dude that has been hunting it for most of their lives.

 

[S.Clancy]

 

[ODB]

Man, have just seen that a bro-group called “the element “ has joined the Mëatëatêr Crüe. I just don’t get it.

 

[ddd-shooter]

FWIW,

Growing up real young i’d “hunt” with my father. Parents split and I moved to the city, and didn’t get the opportunity to anymore.

He passed while I was in high school, and I “tried” hunting shortly after unsuccessfully.

A few years later watching Meat Eater rekindled that for me, and I sought out more information and made friends with some other hunters, and got invited to an annual deer camp in northern MI.

I don’t see why people are so quick to throw blame for their issues on things. More positive exposure to hunting is a good thing. We need more hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your last sentence.

WHY??

 

[allstajacket]

Your last sentence.

WHY??

It simple. Look at everything in history. The more people interested in whatever thing “it” is, the better it gets.

Sure you’ll also get more idiots, and you’ll also have more competition. BUT, if more and more people are interested, that means more knowledgeable people on the subject, which means improved conservation and management, which in turn leads to improved experiences for all..

The ONLY reason I can see being against it is pure selfish reasoning. People don’t want more competition, or to have to work any harder.

Another positive of MORE people being into the industry, that means more advancement technologically. The next generation of innovators are essential.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Will_m]

It simple. Look at everything in history. The more people interested in whatever thing “it” is, the better it gets.

Sure you’ll also get more idiots, and you’ll also have more competition. BUT, if more and more people are interested, that means more knowledgeable people on the subject, which means improved conservation and management, which in turn leads to improved experiences for all..

The ONLY reason I can see being against it is pure selfish reasoning. People don’t want more competition, or to have to work any harder.

Another positive of MORE people being into the industry, that means more advancement technologically. The next generation of innovators are essential.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem with this is the limited resource. Like 90% of hunting tips are how to get away from other hunters.

All this stuff about accusing people of being selfish is virtue signaling, isn’t helpful, and does nothing to further the discussion.

 

[ODB]

It simple. Look at everything in history. The more people interested in whatever thing “it” is, the better it gets.

Sure you’ll also get more idiots, and you’ll also have more competition. BUT, if more and more people are interested, that means more knowledgeable people on the subject, which means improved conservation and management, which in turn leads to improved experiences for all..

The ONLY reason I can see being against it is pure selfish reasoning. People don’t want more competition, or to have to work any harder.

Another positive of MORE people being into the industry, that means more advancement technologically. The next generation of innovators are essential.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree with your first comment profoundly.

Have you ever been to Yellowstone in July ?

We have hot springs here in Idaho that have been closed due to out of towners “finding” them, ruining the trails, over crowding them, leaving trash etc.

I left two hunting spots this year because of All the ATVs.

Does that incentivize me to keep hunting? Nope.

“It” isn’t getting better.

 

[allstajacket]

Disagree with your first comment profoundly.

Have you ever been to Yellowstone in July ?

We have hot springs here in Idaho that have been closed due to out of towners “finding” them, ruining the trails, over crowding them, leaving trash etc.

I left two hunting spots this year because of All the ATVs.

Does that incentivize me to keep hunting? Nope.

“It” isn’t getting better.

If all of those people were into hunting, they would probably understand and not ruin your hunt with their ATV’s no?

I think your problem is with general population growth and not hunting publicity..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk