Matt Rinella Speaks to Pope and Young

[ODB]

He hits on some very valid issues imo but attacks them from a suppression of capitalism and free speech perspective which I just can not get behind at all. Rather than attack the symptoms, he would, imo, be better served to focus on the cause. The root of the cause is the transference of editorial control with the emergence of social media platforms and outdoor tv where the content producer also has editorial control of messaging with virtually no oversight.

Eh, disagree. He has no issue with people making money. He has an issue with dead and dying animals being monetized in part by conservation orgs via their member-recruiting activities.

I don’t think it’s an argument of capitalism, then again, capitalism is not a purely benign system - it only is when it is used by moral and ethical people. When the drive for money results in negative impacts to animals, the outdoors, or the experience, it is quite valid to criticize the intents of the actors due to their effects on other systems or people.

Mossy oak on one hand trying to recruit hunters and then on the other selling private hunting land to avoid the crowds is an example of capitalism being used by an unethical actor. In my opinion.

 

[diamond10x]

The slide showing the number of big game animals certain hunting influencers killed in 2022 is insane. Some had 16-20 kills including one that had 4 elk, 2 moose, and 10 other animals. We all know those influencers aren't taking the next five or ten years off from hunting to enjoy those bounties. They need more content, not more meat.

I can’t find that part. What minute was that at?

Edit: found it

 

[erock12390]

Thanks for posting the video. I don't think I would've stumbled onto it otherwise, but I'm happy to listen to it.

 

[fatlander]

Right, I get that, and understand that's what it meant.

I agree having names tied to records has little to do with data for management. Delivery I think could have been different for the point he was trying to convey.


Trying to use records of antler size is kinda silly for management purposes anyways, especially on something like whitetail. Range is so large, to say a 125 net buck from North Carolina is in anyways close to a 125 from the mid west is useless.

I don’t think anyone is trying to manage on that broad of a geographical area anyway. But it is beneficial for game managers to know where animals were killed. Why do you think the state of Virginia asks for the county and property type of every animal you check in? DWR also wants to know the sex and description of the animal (antler points, beard length). There a different rules in our state for private and public land in the same counties. Trophy quality could be beneficial in making those types of decisions. The name of the person that killed it isn’t. The only thing the name is good for is if someone is stupid enough to self report poaching.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shō[t]gun]

I can’t find that part. What minute was that at?

 

[Nickofthewoods]

I can’t find that part. What minute was that at?

40 minute mark

 

[4090Sharps]

Outstanding talk. Thanks for sharing it here.

 

[Coveyleader]

Something to think about for sure and I'm guilty of it.

 

[Billy Goat]

I don’t think anyone is trying to manage on that broad of a geographical area anyway. But it is beneficial for game managers to know where animals were killed. Why do you think the state of Virginia asks for the county and property type of every animal you check in? DWR also wants to know the sex and description of the animal (antler points, beard length). There a different rules in our state for private and public land in the same counties. Trophy quality could be beneficial in making those types of decisions. The name of the person that killed it isn’t. The only thing the name is good for is if someone is stupid enough to self report poaching.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The claim by P&Y was their data is used. I agree that the name is irrelevant.

I don't think state agencies are really paying much attention to it. Every state is different, ours is struggling with getting population densities down in many areas. Unfortunately, a lot of hunters aren't that great at managing.

Whole different tangent tho.


That was just my takeaway from the first bit I heard 1) being an organization laying claim to their "data" being used when it likely isn't, 2) that the counter idea of how to handle it is no better, likely worse.

 

[Will_m]

Too bad you can't incorporate all the profiting of hunting through social media (and yes, hunting videos too) into the Lacy Act. It seems like market hunting to me. Just market hunting for this century.

Edited to say: Somebody with some knowledge please start a petition for this.

 

[BuckRut]

Are there any organizations that focus solely on increasing public land and access?

Public Land Water Access Association

www.plwa.org

 

[TSAMP]

Well worth the listen for anyone who would be on this site.

 

[CMP70306]

Too bad you can't incorporate all the profiting of hunting through social media (and yes, hunting videos too) into the Lacy Act. It seems like market hunting to me. Just market hunting for this century.

Edited to say: Somebody with some knowledge please start a petition for this.

The main difference is that with market hunting the animal itself is the item for sale so the only way to increase profits is to kill more animals. However in this day and age the story, the tactics and the gear is what they are selling rather than the animal itself. In a way the animal is secondary, a way to sell the story rather than the primary item for sale.

Theoretically you could make a living and not kill a single animal.

 

[ndbuck09]

More hunters = more money. It’s really that simple. The industry, the non profits, and the state wildlife agencies all have acquired the taste for (more) money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spot on. Couldn't have been said better and couldn't agree more.

 

[BuckRut]

I would like to see Matt's defense to how broken some of these public access programs like the MT BMA program. There are some good landowners enrolled but with how poorly it is run there are also a lot of landowners getting paid to let their friends hunt there land or getting paid for allowing access to land that really has no value to the sportsman.

 

[deltadukman]

Mossy oak on one hand trying to recruit hunters and then on the other selling private hunting land to avoid the crowds is an example of capitalism being used by an unethical actor. In my opinion.

You are 110% wrong in that evaluation. 1st of all Mossy Oak is a brand, not a mission. And their mission has always been more about being good stewards of the land over any other mission. They have used their platform and success as a camouflage company to enrich a lot of habitat. Sure, they may inadvertently recruit some hunters, and while that is a great thing, isn't their MO. The Mossy Oak Properties real estate brand is another outlet of their success, like their plant/tree nursery. They have never been all in on public land or specifically hunter recruitment, but they are passionate about being stewards of the land and enriching the plants and animals on it....you really cant do that on public lands. But to call the Haas family unethical actors shows your ignorance of that entire family.

Now if the Hunting Public started a real estate brokerage you may have an argument.

 

[ProStaffSteve]

Shitty idea time. Our world is so locked into, who gets to hunt what land. NR allocations, population of x impacts y. I believe all US residents should be forcibly placed into pools, country wide for “general hunting opportunities”.

Stay with me, New Jersey cat ladies can leave their tags unfilled. Hunting personalities can track out every year & spend time chasing their allotment of primarily white tail does in whichever states they pull, and people unfamiliar to hunting can pull great tags in New Mexico as their first hunt or only hunt of their life. To hell with outfitters, they aren’t keeping the lights on.

I don’t think I’m crazy, hear me out, getting less experienced hunters into great units will result in better hunter experiences for those with the know how, game agencies can MANAGE GAME if people aren’t killing enough white tail does then allocate more tags & longer seasons. (Who wouldn’t hunt does year round if it was in their back yard or a half state over).

Way I see it, numbers of animals would level-set in time. Tags allocated justly. Money would be ripped from states tag systems & outfitters which is already a seedy industry, tv personalities and hunting shows would get MORE tags but in less premium areas & be encountered to convincing people to hunt, not to throw money at $25,000 bull elk.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Shitty idea time. Our world is so locked into, who gets to hunt what land. NR allocations, population of x impacts y. I believe all US residents should be forcibly aced into pools, country wide for “general hunting opportunities”. Stay with me, New Jersey cat ladies can leave their tags unfilled. Hunting personalities can track out every year & spend time chasing their allotment of primarily white tail does in whichever states they pull, and people unfamiliar to hunting can pull great tags in New Mexico as their first hunt or only hunt of their life. To hell with outfitters, they aren’t keeping the lights on.

I don’t think I’m crazy, hear me out, getting less experienced hunters into great units will result in better hunter experiences for those with the know how, game agencies can MANAGE GAME if people aren’t killing enough white tail does then allocate more tags & longer seasons. (Who wouldn’t hunt does year round if it was in their back yard or a half state over).

Way I see it, numbers of animals would level-set in time. Tags allocated justly. Money would be ripped from states tag systems & outfitters which is already a seedy industry, tv personalities and hunting shows would get MORE tags but in less premium areas & be encountered to convincing people to hunt, not to throw money at $25,000 bull elk.

Huh? it’s only 1:38 on the east coast or 11:38 am in the mountain time zone, maybe lay off the sauce a little. That is the most rambling incoherent thought I have ever read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

The claim by P&Y was their data is used. I agree that the name is irrelevant.

I don't think state agencies are really paying much attention to it. Every state is different, ours is struggling with getting population densities down in many areas. Unfortunately, a lot of hunters aren't that great at managing.

Whole different tangent tho.


That was just my takeaway from the first bit I heard 1) being an organization laying claim to their "data" being used when it likely isn't, 2) that the counter idea of how to handle it is no better, likely worse.

Agree 100%

When NDA releases their annual deer report, i'm jealous that there are states that actually monitor buck:doe ratios, age class, etc. My home state of MN doesn't monitor any of that stuff and they dont make a single management decision based on anything other than A) are the total #s of deer in an area where they want them to be and B) do we need to kill more for CWD. They don't have a clue on buck:doe ratio or age class balance (hint: it sucks in most of the state) and are happy to keep classifying anything with an antler as an "adult buck".

 

[ProStaffSteve]

Huh? it’s only 1:38 on the east coast or 11:38 am in the mountain time zone, maybe lay off the sauce a little. That is the most rambling incoherent thought I have ever read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you can confirm it was a shitty idea? 200 mg Alani NU and WFH. I still like the idea but clearly didn’t express it well. Also no chance states collaborate in such a way