Matt Rinella Speaks to Pope and Young

[Btaylor]

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.

His argument against leasing land or landowners selling LO tags is without question an attack on capitalism. I can completely get with making LO tags ranch only though. I have listened to him now a few different times and the argument always comes across the same, he wants everyone else to hunt the way he thinks you should and blames a bunch of ancillary actors. I agree with him that R3 is stupid and a waste of time, energy and resources. I also agree with him that hunter experience is a big issue. Where I diverge is I see social media as a distant 3rd in order of importance. Access to all public land and habitat management of all state and federal lands I think are ultimately more critical to the hunting/hunter experience conversation. Social media content will never be fully under control but it could certainly be moderated if the industry players set a standard of expectations and applied it for everyone they have a relationship with. There is seemingly no standard of accountability and that leads to crap like the Bowmar bear spearing BS being put out for consumption.

 

[Billy Goat]

happy to keep classifying anything with an antler as an "adult buck".

To be fair, from a herd management (reproductive) standpoint, there's really no difference. Aside from competition from dominant (larger) bucks, the breeding potential is roughly the same for a 1.5yo versus a 6.5 yo. After 7.5 or 8.5 you might start seeing a reduction in breeding potential.

 

[fatlander]

To be fair, from a herd management (reproductive) standpoint, there's really no difference. Aside from competition from dominant (larger) bucks, the breeding potential is roughly the same for a 1.5yo versus a 6.5 yo. After 7.5 or 8.5 you might start seeing a reduction in breeding potential.

And with whitetails, through most of their range, competition to breed is really moot. There’s unhealthy buck to do ratios across most of the country. One buck can only cover one doe at a time. When all the does are coming in around the same time, there isn’t much in the way of competition if there’s 5+ does to 1 buck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4090Sharps]

Since the idea of a nationwide bag limit came up to some extent (maybe just to illustrate a point) during the talk, I wonder how many hunters are regularly, actively hunting in multiple states--especially for big game species like elk--as opposed to those only applying for hard-to-draw tags and building bonus/preference points.

I've read in a number of places, maybe even here through a GoHunt analysis? that there are more hunters applying for out of state hunts than ever. But I don't recall that being broken down into numbers of unique hunters actually hunting out of state.

Edit: to put a finer point on it... I wonder how many unique interstate hunters there are per year, per species, and how that contributes to decreased draw odds and decreased hunter opportunity.

 

[4090Sharps]

His argument against leasing land or landowners selling LO tags is without question an attack on capitalism.

I'm cool with that.

 

[ODB]

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.

They don’t want to recruit hunters? The brand relies on selling goods. You sell goods to customers. The more new customers you can help enter the outdoors the more the brand grows. When, after you grow the brand/customer base, you also start selling properties to other customers who are tired of the crowd you help build…well, you might start thinking about the plan a little deeper.

 

[Billy Goat]

They don’t want to recruit hunters? The brand relies on selling goods. You sell goods to customers. The more new customers you can help enter the outdoors the more the brand grows. When, after you grow the brand/customer base, you also start selling properties to other customers who are tired of the crowd you help build…well, you might start thinking about the plan a little deeper.
View attachment 550012

They recruit hunters, but they are a conservation minded business.


I don't think there's too many fingers to point at them.


One of their main competitors, I don't classify the same.

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

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.

My favorite was one I saw in Wyoming I believe? There was a small chunk of private blocking access to a lot of public. The private was a walk in area…. For pheasant only. It had signs everywhere saying can not trespass to hunt anything else, cannot use to access other public, just pheasant. The thing was, it wasn’t even pheasant looking habitat. I’d be willing to bet unless they put them there, a pheasant has never been shot there. Curious what benefit they get from being enrolled.

 

[Btaylor]

I'm cool with that.

I am not entirely against his position. I take issue with telling anyone they can not seek ways to capitalize on the value of an asset they own. If there was a viable solution brought to the table that was beneficial to the landowner and the public, I would get behind it. But the rice farmer that can lease a pit in his field for 5k shouldnt be forced to give up that revenue stream. The farmer leasing the pit is not the problem.

 

[4090Sharps]

I am not entirely against his position. I take issue with telling anyone they can not seek ways to capitalize on the value of an asset they own. If there was a viable solution brought to the table that was beneficial to the landowner and the public, I would get behind it. But the rice farmer that can lease a pit in his field for 5k shouldnt be forced to give up that revenue stream. The farmer leasing the pit is not the problem.

I don't want to detract from the broader conversation by brining up a bunch of examples, but in the US we limit ways to capitalize on the value of assets all the time. Some I agree with, some I don't. However, in general I'm for checks on capitalism, and limiting how landowner tags can be used or how private land can be leased for hunting a public resource is a great move.

 

[J Batt]

I really like this guy. The first time I saw MeatEater I thought- "this is fun to watch, but I sure hope it doesn't become popular..."

 

[intunegp]

At some point it has to be considered that the growth in popularity and overcrowding was/is inevitable. What isn't more crowded than 20 years ago? What doesn't have more participants than 20 years ago? Do people really think that everyone out in the woods is there because they think Steve Rinella is cool and want to be more like him? I've never met a fellow hunter that says they got into it because they saw so many dead animals on social media.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

Do people really think that everyone out in the woods is there because they think Steve Rinella is cool and want to be more like him?

There's good evidence for it. Based on Matt Rinella's graph at the 10:10 mark of the video the number of hunting applications skyrocketed in 2018 which just happens to coincide with when Meateater first started airing on Netflix and internet searches for the show increased significantly (according to that graph).

To answer your question I would say it depends on who you ask. Most of us that were hunting long before the existence of that show are very aware of how many more people took to western hunting around that timeframe. I certainly noticed big changes in hunter numbers in Colorado right around 2018, and I remember being on an OTC Archery elk hunt in 2019 thinking that the pressure had hit an unprecedented level. It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

I've never met a fellow hunter that says they got into it because they saw so many dead animals on social media.

Ok.

Do you really think 18 year old dudes aren’t looking at Cam Hanes on instagram and thinking “yeah, I want to do that”. The dude is shredded, runs ultramarathons, takes pictures with hot chicks, grip and grins with monster elk, archery hunts all over the damn place, is on the cover of magazines, and has millions of followers kissing his crusty feet. He’s influencing people.

The problem Matt Rinella has pointed out is that he does this with dead and dying animals and that’s a problem. He’s right.

 

[Bull_n_heat]

I found that Montana Hunters for Access group really interesting. I think if we could all give "a little back" to landowners that allow access, that would go a long way

 

[ODB]

At some point it has to be considered that the growth in popularity and overcrowding was/is inevitable. What isn't more crowded than 20 years ago? What doesn't have more participants than 20 years ago? Do people really think that everyone out in the woods is there because they think Steve Rinella is cool and want to be more like him? I've never met a fellow hunter that says they got into it because they saw so many dead animals on social media.

To an extent, yes. Look, people want to both belong and be outstanding. When they see something that promises ABC by doing XYZ and that strikes a nerve, you end up with flocks of guys who all start to look the same, think the same, act the same taking to the woods. Hell, look at Janis Putelis, even HE began talking like Steve and using the same hand gestures. That is surely unconscious, but the influence is undeniable.

Instagram calls the folks “influencers,” if they didn’t effectively influence behaviour, they wouldn’t exist.

You get more of what you incentivize and less of what you disincentivize. The influencer offers the inventive and voila, there you have it.

 

[intunegp]

There's good evidence for it. Based on Matt Rinella's graph at the 10:10 mark of the video the number of hunting applications skyrocketed in 2018 which just happens to coincide with when Meateater first started airing on Netflix and internet searches for the show increased significantly (according to that graph).

To answer your question I would say it depends on who you ask. Most of us that were hunting long before the existence of that show are very aware of how many more people took to western hunting around that timeframe. I certainly noticed big changes in hunter numbers in Colorado right around 2018, and I remember being on an OTC Archery elk hunt in 2019 thinking that the pressure had hit an unprecedented level. It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.

I started hunting OTC rifle in Colorado in 2013 and honestly haven't noticed a significant difference in the amount of hunters from then to now. Some years it seems more crowded and others less so, but it's been a crowded unit for at least the past 10 years so maybe my experience is different than people who have seen less pressured areas get more pressured.

Do you really think 18 year old dudes aren’t looking at Cam Hanes on instagram and thinking “yeah, I want to do that”. The dude is shredded, runs ultramarathons, takes pictures with hot chicks, grip and grins with monster elk, archery hunts all over the damn place, is on the cover of magazines, and has millions of followers kissing his crusty feet. He’s influencing people.

To an extent, yes. Look, people want to both belong and be outstanding. When they see something that promises ABC by doing XYZ and that strikes a nerve, you end up with flocks of guys who all start to look the same, think the same, act the same taking to the woods. Hell, look at Janis Putelis, even HE began talking like Steve and using the same hand gestures. That is surely unconscious, but the influence is undeniable.

Instagram calls the folks “influencers,” if they didn’t effectively influence behaviour, they wouldn’t exist.

You get more of what you incentivize and less of what you disincentivize.

I'm not saying the influencers don't make it glamorous and inspire people to think it's cool, I'm just saying for every thousand that think he's cool, how many actually nut up and hit the mountains? For the percentage that do, how many would have done it anyway? Trust me, I don't think highly of the general public, but every Tom, Dick, and Harry that take their rifle for a walk in the mountains surely can't think they're going to end up famous for it.

 

[thedutchtouch]

Good talk. Interesting that they had him talk for sure, part of me is thinking they got him and his brother confused when booking the talk and then it was too late to cancel/rearrange

 

[venado mula]

This is nothing new IMO. I remember when Eastman started publishing articles/books in the 80's-90's about high country mule deer and we thought then "oh shit, somebody shut him up". Most guys don't know how to hunt the country properly anyway, I don't worry about hunting pressure because the animals have already figured every other hunter out and I know how to play their modern game. Politics about ethics and hunting and a myriad of other topics have always been around, who cares about these guys, they will be gone soon like a fart in the wind. Hunting never changes, just the people that partake in it.

 

[WKR]

Has matt ever been a guest on the meat eater show?