Matt Rinella for president

Pacific_Fork

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
791
Location
North Idaho
What are they creating? Demand on a resource that for the most part is declining. Point creep, doing away with OTC tags like Arizona archery deer and Co archery elk, etc. Spot burning like giving exact areas/regions/towns they hunt.

Instead they should be advocating for habitat and raising money for projects such as highway crossings. I know some do this but it’s 1% of their content because it doesn’t make them the most $$$.
 

Newtosavage

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
7,084
Location
In someone's favorite spot
What are they creating? Demand on a resource that for the most part is declining. Point creep, doing away with OTC tags like Arizona archery deer and Co archery elk, etc. Spot burning like giving exact areas/regions/towns they hunt.

Instead they should be advocating for habitat and raising money for projects such as highway crossings. I know some do this but it’s 1% of their content because it doesn’t make them the most $$$.
So, anyone want to comment on what they are creating that is beneficial? Surely we as a group are not supporting them if they don't contribute something of value, are we?
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2022
Messages
99
I can tell you from a new hunters perspective, influencers serve a purpose.

Not all of us have a built in network of hunters to lean on for our education and influencers fill that role for more people than you believe they do. The problem is, I’m sure they get paid commensurate with that influence.

For the non-initiated; we buy what they tell us to buy. No different than the weight any traditional hunter puts on their mentors recommendation. The only difference is the discernment necessary to filter through the bullshit influencers who pander for a dollar. If I had a real world hunting mentor their word would be gospel regardless of influencers but most of us don’t have that.

To discredit their influence on hunting over the next 20 years is pure folly imo. John Dudley taught me how to shoot a bow for crying out loud and 3 months later I was blessed to fill my freezer with my first buck and if price weren’t an obstacle, a PSE Levitate would have been my first bow.

Do bow shops offer free lessons after purchase? Margins are thin all around my friend and they are on to the next potential purchaser as soon as the card clears. That isn’t to say there aren’t shops who do that but if there are, they aren’t in my neck of the woods.

The industry is changing whether you like it or not.

Only time will tell whether their influence on hunting is a positive one. I can say however, without reservation that it has been a positive one for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ledfordjl

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
15
I think we need those people who can reach a large amount of hunters. The caveat there is these “influencers” should be selfless and less self-serving. Hunting is a privilege and it is becoming more crowded along with fewer resources. We need voices to advocate for hunting. If we lose these people, do we then lose a loud voice?
Also, I’d love to have the woods to myself every time I go out. I think Randy Newberg says it best. We don’t need a bigger piece of the pie, we need a bigger pie. The more United, the better we are.
Maybe that main voice comes from influencers, maybe not..
 

Newtosavage

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
7,084
Location
In someone's favorite spot
I can tell you from a new hunters perspective, influencers serve a purpose.

Not all of us have a built in network of hunters to lean on for our education and influencers fill that role for more people than you believe they do. The problem is, I’m sure they get paid commensurate with that influence.

For the non-initiated; we buy what they tell us to buy. No different than the weight any traditional hunter puts on their mentors recommendation. The only difference is the discernment necessary to filter through the bullshit influencers who pander for a dollar. If I had a real world hunting mentor their word would be gospel regardless of influencers but most of us don’t have that.

To discredit their influence on hunting over the next 20 years is pure folly imo. John Dudley taught me how to shoot a bow for crying out loud and 3 months later I was blessed to fill my freezer with my first buck and if price weren’t an obstacle, a PSE Levitate would have been my first bow.

Do bow shops offer free lessons after purchase? Margins are thin all around my friend and they are on to the next potential purchaser as soon as the card clears. That isn’t to say there aren’t shops who do that but if there are, they aren’t in my neck of the woods.

The industry is changing whether you like it or not.

Only time will tell whether their influence on hunting is a positive one. I can say however, without reservation that it has been a positive one for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair story. Thanks for that.

As for me liking it or not, I don't spend any time thinking about it, so to me it's a non-issue. If they work for folks, great! My influencers were on paper and ink and 8mm video and a few on Saturday morning TV if I got up early enough. :D
 

S.Clancy

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,567
Location
Montana
How do you know that? Honest question.

Seems like it would be a lot of work to contact all those influencers and ask them about the things they do, or don't do, for conservation.
He could, for example, watch the comments from the last legislative session in MT (elk focused) and compare those "Influencers" that provided comment with the number known to reside in MT, specifically Bozeman. If that data is used, his comment is at minimum accurate, if not conservative.
 

bsnedeker

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
2,866
Location
MT
He could, for example, watch the comments from the last legislative session in MT (elk focused) and compare those "Influencers" that provided comment with the number known to reside in MT, specifically Bozeman. If that data is used, his comment is at minimum accurate, if not conservative.
The Rinella brother called out in the title of this thread was at the meetings and made a public comment as an example. The other, much more famous brother, didn't say a word about it as I recall.
 

Gobbler36

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
2,030
Location
None your business
What are they creating? Demand on a resource that for the most part is declining. Point creep, doing away with OTC tags like Arizona archery deer and Co archery elk, etc. Spot burning like giving exact areas/regions/towns they hunt.

Instead they should be advocating for habitat and raising money for projects such as highway crossings. I know some do this but it’s 1% of their content because it doesn’t make them the most $$$.
This 100%
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMB

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,136
People who still think we need more hunter numbers for the sake of advocacy are delusional. That argument may have held water 20+ years ago, but no more. That horse has left the barn. Most of today’s new hunters don’t advocate. Far too many are in it for the ‘gram and clicks and self interest. Plain and simple. Show me a study with empirical data demonstrating an increase in new conservation activity or other form of advocacy that is commensurate with the 20-40% increase in demand for Western tags. Show it to me and I’ll eat my words. It just doesn’t work that way anymore. There are far more takers than givers. We don’t need more hunters in the West. All the seats are full, beyond full.

The advocacy argument is like one who lives in Denver or LA or Phoenix sitting on a crowded freeway in gridlock traffic saying “you know, what we really need is MORE people on this freeway, so they can advocate for less traffic!” It’s just nonsense.

Something needs to be done. I hate to say it but Non Resident tags are too cheap, the information on how to hunt is too easy to find, there’s no more moat, it’s all too easy. We don’t need more hunters, Randy Newberg! We need less people doing what you have done.
 

Nickofthewoods

Expert Meme Maker
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
1,533
Location
Colorado
The advocacy argument is like one who lives in Denver or LA or Phoenix sitting on a crowded freeway in gridlock traffic saying “you know, what we really need is MORE people on this freeway, so they can advocate for less traffic!” It’s just nonsense.
😂😂😂

No they would be advocating for more freeways to accommodate the additional drivers.
 

HitchHiker

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2022
Messages
34
Matt Rinella? Yes, I like Matt and agree with a great many of his points.

Where I disagree is his complaints about too many hunters due to overcrowding. We need more hunters -- but we also need them to advocate for more public lands with easier access to avoid overcrowding.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,136
We need more hunters -- but we also need them to advocate for more public lands with easier access to avoid overcrowding.
Doesn’t work that way man! More public land? You want God to make more? It’s a finite resource. Easier access? So it can get easily crowded? We are talking about mathematics. There’s a limit to the amount of land that can fit hunters on it. There’s a limit to the amount of tags hunters can obtain. Yet there is no limit to the amount of humans that can become hunters. The two don’t jive. We’re past the tipping point.

We can’t make more land. We can’t create more tags (without damaging wildlife populations). So the only solution is to limit the amount of hunters we enlist. We can’t handle more. Simple math, demand has outstripped supply? So why are we clamoring for more demand?
 

ODB

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
3,078
Location
N.F.D.
I agree we need more advocates, but there is a funny thing going on with orgs trying to generate advocates.

A guy from BHA was on MRs podcast and Matt brought up the fact that a VERY small % of Montana hunters were BHA members. Matt asked why BHA doesn't simply try to penetrate that large numbers of non-BHA hunters instead of trying to cultivate NEW hunters via outreach. He didn';t get a great answer.

Here's my take... and feel free to try to label me as you see fit...

Those legacy Montana hunters are the wrong kind of hunter. They are more than likely deep red, 2A, Eff joe Biden, trump-supporting hunters. BHA has NO interest in that type of hunter. They want a kinder, gentler hunter, one that talks about 'resilience' and 'connection.' They want hunters who scowl at ARs and wonder "Why do you need so many guns". They want apologists. They want BLM supporters and woke policies. They want the Ryan Busses of thr world. They want to don hair shirts, cry over the environment, ban fossil fuels, while at thge same time bullshitting everyone that they are 'just a 4th generation montanan who came up with this idea sitting around a campfire." No - you are a legacy lawyer who worked to elect Obama, overstate your effectiveness and grifting till the cows come home to the tune of 130K a year.

Sorry - but if I had 90% of a population who had a vested interest in a common cause, I'd sure as hell try to advocate for them - not alienate them as BHA has done.

Just my ,02c
 

bayoublaster7527

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
448
Doesn’t work that way man! More public land? You want God to make more? It’s a finite resource. Easier access? So it can get easily crowded? We are talking about mathematics. There’s a limit to the amount of land that can fit hunters on it. There’s a limit to the amount of tags hunters can obtain. Yet there is no limit to the amount of humans that can become hunters. The two don’t jive. We’re past the tipping point.

We can’t make more land. We can’t create more tags (without damaging wildlife populations). So the only solution is to limit the amount of hunters we enlist. We can’t handle more. Simple math, demand has outstripped supply? So why are we clamoring for more demand?
It’s a simple answer really, the hunting industry cabal (influencers/social media celebrities/gear makers) wants more hunters so they can sell more gear, subscriptions, and branded merchandise. And YouTube likes also. Indirect commercialization of wildlife, the public land aspect, while important, is more of a distraction.
 

woods89

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
1,340
Location
Southern MO Ozarks
Matt Rinella? Yes, I like Matt and agree with a great many of his points.

Where I disagree is his complaints about too many hunters due to overcrowding. We need more hunters -- but we also need them to advocate for more public lands with easier access to avoid overcrowding.
He struggles with messaging, which is kind of understandable since there really isn't a slick way to package what he's talking about. I think he's right about a lot of things, maybe off base on some, but I'm glad he's raising the points he is.

I agree, though, the crowding argument easily comes off as complaining, and gets a little hard to listen to after a while.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,136
It’s a simple answer really, the hunting industry cabal (influencers/social media celebrities/gear makers) wants more hunters so they can sell more gear, subscriptions, and branded merchandise. And YouTube likes also. Indirect commercialization of wildlife, the public land aspect, while important, is more of a distraction.
Absolutely. Sad.
 

coloyooper

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
813
Location
CO
I think to best understand Matt’s points you really need to listen to his podcasts. He does a better job getting his message across there.
I had no idea Matt was podcasting until this comment. I’ll give him a listen
 

Elmer J. Fudd

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
130
It is “the hunt quietly podcast”. You can tell he is inexperienced as a podcaster and interviewer. If you give it a fair shake there is lots of good information even if you don’t agree with Matt. His Newberg episode is a good listen because you get two opposing views without arguing.
 
Top