Matt Rinella for president

[Nickofthewoods]

I had no idea Matt was podcasting until this comment. I’ll give him a listen

I'm not too big on hunting podcasts because they are ALL boring to me, but I did listen to a few including the Randy Newberg episode which I thought was a good discussion. It does sound like it is taking place in his garage with hand me down sound equipment from the local radio station, but it fits the theme of his movement. I wouldn't take it seriously if he opened up with a bunch of sponsor pitches and quality audio.

 

[CJohnson]

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

As a former BHA member in another state, I agree 100%.

 

[displacedtexan]

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

I don't think you're wrong.

But I also don't think you're right.




Both sides think the other is the enemy. Almost no one wants to be in the same group as someone who doesn't agree with them on everything anymore.

 

[Gobbler36]

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

best post I’ve seen on this site bar none

 

[Blackcow]

The latest H.Q.podcast with Ron Spomer is a good one. As far as what’s been said above about advocates for hunting, I agree. We don’t need more hunters simply for the sake of more hunters. The numbers just don’t work for creating a bigger “voting block”. No matter how you work them. Even using “new math”. What does work is creating more “non- hunters that will vote in my favor when presented the option or opportunity”. To me that means my wife, my wife’s friends and their non hunting husbands. The retired lady across the street, my mom and her neighbors. The couple that own the shop next to mine. They all see A)I’m not a bloodthirsty lunatic B) I’m not a braggart trying to show them every last animal I killed or helped kill, the bigger the better, and C) They like deer and elk meat, most of them, and those that don’t respect that I do.
This group of people have votes that carry as much weight as my own, whatever that’s worth these days, and I don’t have to share spots, or compete for tags, or even listen to or tell hunting stories. Would I take one hunting to see if it’s something they’d like if they asked? Yep. But am I bugging them to try it? Nope.

 

[Banded_spooney]

I hope hunter recruitment takes off in a big way. We need 10x more hunters otherwise our way of life is going to slowly disappear. But like fair weather hunters... My wife is a hunter now because of me, but calling her a 'hunter' is a huge stretch. We need more of those kinds of hunters. Give us your money and votes but stay home type hunters. If Stevo and crew can start targeting these types of hunters, I'll buy a Meateater edition WBY 6.5-300 and top it with a new vortex razor.

I just hope none of those hunters live in or are willing to drive to: Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, or California.

And NO, that is absolutely not a list of the states I hunt, I pinky promise.

 

[displacedtexan]

I hope hunter recruitment takes off in a big way. We need 10x more hunters otherwise our way of life is going to slowly disappear. But like fair weather hunters... My wife is a hunter now because of me, but calling her a 'hunter' is a huge stretch. We need more of those kinds of hunters. Give us your money and votes but stay home type hunters. If Stevo and crew can start targeting these types of hunters, I'll buy a Meateater edition WBY 6.5-300 and top it with a new vortex razor.

I just hope none of those hunters live in or are willing to drive to: Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, or California.

And NO, that is absolutely not a list of the states I hunt, I pinky promise.

I've long wondered why it would be so terrible if it fades away long after I'm gone.

I still don't know...

 

[Wapitiwonder]

I recently discovered Matt's podcast and website, really like a lot of what he is trying to promote. That being said one of the big questions me and others in my circle have been discussing is long range hunting. I don't know where to stand on this, I hunt with everything compounds, traditional equipment, black powder, and rifles capable of long range shots. There is no doubt peoples effective ranges are increasing and what does that mean in regards to our seasons and game populations. At what point does range become unethical and how do you enforce that? Whats everyone's thoughts on this?

 

[Billinsd]

Both sides think the other is the enemy. Almost no one wants to be in the same group as someone who doesn't

It goes WAY beyond "agree with everything"!! The legacy, pro 2nd Amendment, side doesn't want to be in the same group with people that want to ban or heavily restrict the Constitution, Predator hunting, and their traditional culture. It's impossible to have a ration conversation with irrational people.

 

[Billinsd]

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

That's WAY too intelligent!!! They won't do that if they live in Denver, LA, or Phoenix. They argue AGAINST more and bigger freeways.

 

[Billinsd]

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.

I generally avoid strawmen arguments, but I'll give it a go.
It makes sense if people in gridlock want more people on the freeway to force more people advocate for more freeways in big cities where they are opposed. Hunters who care more about hunting as a cultural pastime to be passed on to the next generation for the good of all versus their own selfish short term gratification want to recruit new hunters. It's INCREDIBLY SELFISH and self centered to make it harder for new hunters, just to have better opportunity for yourself. We have a HUGE cultural, entitlement problem in America.

 

[jayhawk]

I recently discovered Matt's podcast and website, really like a lot of what he is trying to promote. That being said one of the big questions me and others in my circle have been discussing is long range hunting. I don't know where to stand on this, I hunt with everything compounds, traditional equipment, black powder, and rifles capable of long range shots. There is no doubt peoples effective ranges are increasing and what does that mean in regards to our seasons and game populations. At what point does range become unethical and how do you enforce that? Whats everyone's thoughts on this?

I think Matt talked about this in one of his early episodes. He sets the limit at 400yds, which is the maximum distance an ungulate can detect your presence (or be affected by it) according to WY biologists. Since most hunting regulations are self-enforced anyway, this would just be an additional regulation to add.

I like what M. Rinella is doing. Only thing is that it feels like he's fighting against something, rather than promoting something. To quote someone else, "The guy fighting against someTHING will always lose to the guy fighting for someONE." I think that's what Matt struggles with in his message.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

I generally avoid strawmen arguments, but I'll give it a go.
It makes sense if people in gridlock want more people on the freeway to force more people advocate for more freeways in big cities where they are opposed. Hunters who care more about hunting as a cultural pastime to be passed on to the next generation for the good of all versus their own selfish short term gratification want to recruit new hunters. It's INCREDIBLY SELFISH and self centered to make it harder for new hunters, just to have better opportunity for yourself. We have a HUGE cultural, entitlement problem in America.

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?
I think you don’t fully understand the problems our current culture is experiencing. It’s becoming a rich man’s sport due to leasing where the local kids used to be able to hunt for mowing the lawn, fixing fence, etc. Public land is getting over crowded and over hunted, lots to do with SM, hunting influencers, etc.

Give his podcast a listen, no one is saying not to bring in the next generation in your own circles, neighbors, friends, kids, and the like. That’s the part we should all do. Monetizing dead animals on SM/TV on the other hand is destroying our lifestyle.

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.

 

[ddd-shooter]

I generally avoid strawmen arguments, but I'll give it a go.
It makes sense if people in gridlock want more people on the freeway to force more people advocate for more freeways in big cities where they are opposed. Hunters who care more about hunting as a cultural pastime to be passed on to the next generation for the good of all versus their own selfish short term gratification want to recruit new hunters. It's INCREDIBLY SELFISH and self centered to make it harder for new hunters, just to have better opportunity for yourself. We have a HUGE cultural, entitlement problem in America.

Again, why do we need MORE hunters?
With 14 million, even if we doubled, we wouldn’t be a significant voting block.

We simply do not need more, as proven by the Idaho tag debacle

 

[Unckebob]

I recently discovered Matt's podcast and website, really like a lot of what he is trying to promote. That being said one of the big questions me and others in my circle have been discussing is long range hunting. I don't know where to stand on this, I hunt with everything compounds, traditional equipment, black powder, and rifles capable of long range shots. There is no doubt peoples effective ranges are increasing and what does that mean in regards to our seasons and game populations. At what point does range become unethical and how do you enforce that? Whats everyone's thoughts on this?

I enjoy his podcasts (and it's spin-offs) a lot because I can skip what I don't enjoy listening to (fishing mostly) and listening to his random guests on topics I find parts I do find interesting (he did an interview with a meat guy to understand tenderness). Best of all, my daughter finds him interesting and has expressed an interest in hunting.

Imlike his TV show because it shows different ways to hunt and he goes to places I cannot. Again, my daughter likes watching it.

As for product placement, I know he owns First Lite and does some product placement. But I cannot temper and episode that was equipment specific. I can't recall him shooting the xyz cartridge or gun solely to promote it. He shoots a gun and rarely talks about it.

 

[RyanT26]

Again, why do we need MORE hunters?
With 14 million, even if we doubled, we wouldn’t be a significant voting block.

We simply do not need more, as proven by the Idaho tag debacle

But think of all the camo, gear, useless crap the influencers shill, those extra 14 million adult onset hunters would buy. Think of the industry, think of the influencers.

 

[ddd-shooter]

But think of all the camo, gear, useless crap the influencers shill, those extra 14 million adult onset hunters would buy. Think of the industry, think of the influencers.

R3 baby!
Or we could pay influencers to come to our states with DNR revenue to advertise state opportunities, then close a bunch of season when we have too much hunting pressure….(I’m looking at you, GA)

 

[ODB]

I enjoy his podcasts (and it's spin-offs) a lot because I can skip what I don't enjoy listening to (fishing mostly) and listening to his random guests on topics I find parts I do find interesting (he did an interview with a meat guy to understand tenderness). Best of all, my daughter finds him interesting and has expressed an interest in hunting.

Imlike his TV show because it shows different ways to hunt and he goes to places I cannot. Again, my daughter likes watching it.

As for product placement, I know he owns First Lite and does some product placement. But I cannot temper and episode that was equipment specific. I can't recall him shooting the xyz cartridge or gun solely to promote it. He shoots a gun and rarely talks about it.

When your target market is gear-obsessed, there’s no real need to overtly sell what gear you are using - hunters (because so many tie gear to success) go out of their way to find out what people use. He does plenty of ads on the podcast etc.

As far as shooting something solely to promote it, well, yes - that is exactly why he uses what he uses - to sell them so his sponsors keep handing him money. You don’t have to mention the gun explicitly on the TV show because you’ve had the manufacturer on the podcast for an hour and a half and also had him on an episode of the show. I will say the episode with the black rifle coffee guy was probably the most explicit brand-placement episode I’ve seen. Pretty obvious.

There’s plenty of by-name advertising, just mostly not on the show.

Need some ammo?

 

[displacedtexan]

I enjoy his podcasts (and it's spin-offs) a lot because I can skip what I don't enjoy listening to (fishing mostly) and listening to his random guests on topics I find parts I do find interesting (he did an interview with a meat guy to understand tenderness). Best of all, my daughter finds him interesting and has expressed an interest in hunting.

Imlike his TV show because it shows different ways to hunt and he goes to places I cannot. Again, my daughter likes watching it.

As for product placement, I know he owns First Lite and does some product placement. But I cannot temper and episode that was equipment specific. I can't recall him shooting the xyz cartridge or gun solely to promote it. He shoots a gun and rarely talks about it.

Matt is Steve's brother.

And they are very different.

 

[Billinsd]

Again, why do we need MORE hunters?
With 14 million, even if we doubled, we wouldn’t be a significant voting block.

We simply do not need more, as proven by the Idaho tag debacle

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.