OnX hypocrisy

[Yoder]

Sure grandpa, let's get you back to bed.

They really need more diversity and inclusion in hunting. They should stop giving out tags to all the middle aged white guys. I think if you're a white man, you should pay a 50% diversity tax. We also really need to confirm the animals gender before we shoot. How do you know it's a buck and not a birthing animal? Did you ask?

 

[stoopiddumbman]

Never seen anyone in my spot before. I got OnX and marked a waypoint where I saw a huge buck (Waypoint 134: "HUGE BUCK!"
Next day I see a helicopter fly overhead and at get a picture of this guy on my trailcam.

Not really but I don't save waypoints on my hunting apps anymore. I wonder if the granola gps apps would abuse waypoints the same way?

 

[Billy Goat]

What, pray tell, organizations are you referring to?

Hint: your answer will indicate if you have a true grasp of the problem - aka the outdoor manufacturer/non-profit RRR “advocacy” circle jerk. Or need to go back and listen to Matt who explains it rather nicely.

I haven't kept pace on what are the best groups anymore, it seems like one is, until they start to get more funding and in turn start to pay higher salaries for people who should know how to spend the funds, ending up just spending a bunch on salaries and fund raising to pay salaries, kinda a hamster wheel at that point.

Ducks Unlimited was a great organization, they put lots of money into habitat, but slowly saw salaries rise and money's dry up for programs. Project areas become private hunting areas.

I use to volunteer with RMEF, they put a very large percentage of funds into habitat projects and access, then as they grew and gained new partners, they changed to more of a lobbying group, putting more funding towards that rather than habitat/access programs.

BHA started with a great mission statement, then floundered with positions they took.

The question then becomes, what really is the best practice? Is money spent on access without hands in legislation really getting anywhere? It's nice to see projects happening, to be getting something for your money, but not if it's at a cost down the road. We as hunters need hands in a lot of areas.

So, is there really a bad group to be supporting? It's going to be best to align with groups that fit your ideals the most, but in my world I work with and for all kinds. Many I agree with, many I don't always align with, but our goals are similar enough in the end that I focus on the bigger picture. (I have a conservation/habitat restoration business, it's not the $'s that's the driving factor, but actually getting stuff done to put value in the land other than just houses or conventional ag)

Unfortunately nobody hates a hunter like another hunter. We are our own worst enemies, and crowding is making it worse. Is that a factor of social media? Advertising? Lack of access? Or just too many damn people?

Or too many taking from the pie and not giving?

Hint: People paying for access/buying property to hunt is putting value on the hunt, which is what preserves it. You think if these ranches weren't getting money from hunting they would give a damn about the hunting? And in turn what would the quality of it be in the surrounding areas?

 

[HuntQuietly]

The question then becomes, what really is the best practice?

Well, I USED to think that the best practice was to show up, have your voice heard, ensure the government bodies charged with the protection of our wildlife and habitat understand what’s important to sportsman

However, assuming other states are similar to IDFG, then the commissioners have become nothing more than tax and spend alphabet agencies that have no intention of protecting wildlife or habitat It’s all about license revenue. And as a result, they could care less what the feelings are of the lowly sportsman that buys their licenses every year. They know you’re a captured Market. Money funnelling in from the RMEF, BHA, NWTF and literally all of them is where it’s at. More hunters, more licenses, more money is where it’s at!

How is this relevant to this thread? Well, unlike the data privacy issues that I admit dont have much bearing here - the reality is these administrations have become beholden to these “non-profits” that also have no intention improve game quality or habitats. Where do the non-profits get their money? He same place this site does- people like OnX. So how those companies conduct themselves SHOULD matter and they should be calle doubt for shady sh$@.

It’s a circle jerk of money - critters be damned. Just as idahohowizer eloquently pointed out.

I don’t donate my time to ANY group. I do my own habitat improvement. Ive put up countless wood duck boxes. Cleaned up miles of river bank after dirty duck hunters and fishermen - dug up invasive weeds with a shovel. The list goes on. And let me tell you it feels GREAT to do it.


I also call out and report douchey behavior and poaching. Some of the hunting units out west could fit entire eastern states into them and most of the don’t even have a control officer for them. Which shows where our
Commissioners priorities lie.

Thats not the officers fault- it’s their BOSSES fault and we should demand better.

But the number of people poaching and not following the game laws outnumber the ones that do and I’m tired of it. How can OnX help with THAT.

Out

 

[Billy Goat]

Well, I USED to think that the best practice was to show up, have your voice heard, ensure the government bodies charged with the protection of our wildlife and habitat understand what’s important to sportsman

However, assuming other states are similar to IDFG, then the commissioners have become nothing more than tax and spend alphabet agencies that have no intention of protecting wildlife or habitat It’s all about license revenue. And as a result, they could care less what the feelings are of the lowly sportsman that buys their licenses every year. They know you’re a captured Market. Money funnelling in from the RMEF, BHA, NWTF and literally all of them is where it’s at. More hunters, more licenses, more money is where it’s at!

How is this relevant to this thread? Well, unlike the data privacy issues that I admit dont have much bearing here - the reality is these administrations have become beholden to these “non-profits” that also have no intention improve game quality or habitats. Where do the non-profits get their money? He same place this site does- people like OnX. So how those companies conduct themselves SHOULD matter and they should be calle doubt for shady sh$@.

It’s a circle jerk of money - critters be damned. Just as idahohowizer eloquently pointed out.

I don’t donate my time to ANY group. I do my own habitat improvement. Ive put up countless wood duck boxes. Cleaned up miles of river bank after dirty duck hunters and fishermen - dug up invasive weeds with a shovel. The list goes on. And let me tell you it feels GREAT to do it.


I also call out and report douchey behavior and poaching. Some of the hunting units out west could fit entire eastern states into them and most of the don’t even have a control officer for them. Which shows where our
Commissioners priorities lie.

Thats not the officers fault- it’s their BOSSES fault and we should demand better.

But the number of people poaching and not following the game laws outnumber the ones that do and I’m tired of it. How can OnX help with THAT.

Out

I don't disagree with hardly anything you said.


I just don't know that OnX is at fault and should sit out. I don't like that residents get a way higher priority for game that resides on our land, but it's what it us. I don't just opt out of the system and not hunt because I don't like it, I participate, but doesn't mean I'm not also working to try to change it.

 

[roadrunner]

I think you have a few holes in your case Matlock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay....

 

[roadrunner]

So he should pay for everyone’s access?

He didn’t change the access. 99% of land owners don’t want the general public on their land because of liability and lack of respect.

What’s the beef again, Jealousy?

Cam Hanes made his money off backcountry public land hunting.

I doubt he’s set foot on public during an otc season for any length of time in a decade. Is he a fraud now too?

You doubt? 99% huh? You speak with authority how? Did you interview each LO?

 

[roadrunner]

As someone who analyzes data for a living, a rather simple query could filter down to any point labeled as bull or cow and still get a shit ton of data…. Hell the dataset would be so simple it’s almost silly. Overlay that over a map (like onx does) and focus concentrations.

I use onx and this thread makes me uncomfortable for doing so. It’s insider trading….. for hunting.

WRO said I holes in my case. Waiting for WRO to say the same thing about your comment on insider trading (which is illegal).

WRO? Yes?

 

[ColeyG]

So before this guy leased the private for access to the public, there was no public access. Right?

Now, a small percentage of the paying public, through his guide service, will have access to the public.

So, in fact, didn't he increase access to public land?

I do think that the whole situation has a bad feel to it, but as has been pointed out, I don't see where he is using any knowledge, information, user data, or insider advantage to accomplish something that anyone else could have done.

Sure it would be awesome if he had the ways and means to share the access he is paying for with anyone and everyone, but again has been pointed out, that is unlikely to happen based on landowners and how these leases work.

 

[Spoonbill]

WRO said I holes in my case. Waiting for WRO to say the same thing about your comment on insider trading (which is illegal).

WRO? Yes?

I am not WRO but Onx does not have a monopoly. The plethora of alternative products listed in this thread is proof of that there is no monopoly.
Also insider trading and combing metadata that is freely given are two seperate things. How is using the data that is on your product in anyway remotely the same as using non public information to buy and sell securities?

 

[5MilesBack]

Not really the same. This isn’t a matter of not hunting but more of hunting in a way that you have openly paraded against.

It’s just bad optics and screams do as I say, but not as I do.

I don't think he has paraded against "accessing landlocked public lands". He is actually accessing landlocked public lands by leasing access to the private lands around the landlocked (you do what you've got to do).......I would think that any gained access to landlocked would be considered a good thing. Anyone else could go out and try to do the same thing. But I don't think anyone is going to change the landowner's minds to just open up their private land to the masses. So you take what you CAN get.

 

[WRO]

You doubt? 99% huh? You speak with authority how? Did you interview each LO?

How many big landowners do you know?

How much ground have you leased lately?

The general public including some WKRs tend to be a bunch of disrespectful dicks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WRO]

WRO said I holes in my case. Waiting for WRO to say the same thing about your comment on insider trading (which is illegal).

WRO? Yes?

You both should stick to playing a lawyer on the internet and occasionally staying at a holiday inn.


There’s nothing insider trading related except tin foil hat theories and severe stretching of logic.

Same with your monopoly theory.

This is nothing more than a red herring shitpost by a person who hates the industry. And that’s fine, but the maps that were the damming back up look like the vast majority of western ranches.

 

[HuntQuietly]

The general public including some WKRs tend to be a bunch of disrespectful dicks.

This

 

[Fowl Play]

I personally do not find issue with this, and think it's being overblown. It's the owner of a company making a strategic move for the benefit of his other company. I don't see how hunter access changed at all.

He never said he was going to use his own money to benefit the masses. He's not a hunting philanthropist, he's a businessman. Everything I've ever seen about OnX and land access was to make more people aware of the issue so that we can work on our own government to open up the land. We should not be expecting a private individual to use his own money to do so. It should be federal or state money.

Now to the other sidebar conversation going on, if anyone hacks the website and get's all those pins, hit me up -- I'm a buyer! Damn.... could you imagine... I don't know what would be worse to me. An OnX data breach or breach of my hidden photo album in icloud.

 

[cuerro viejo]

You doubt? 99% huh? You speak with authority how? Did you interview each LO?

You dont have too, Every state has a walk- in-hunting lease program… they come with huge liability reductions and yearly enrollment money.

Pretty easy to figure out the percentage…. its not large.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

70$ a year to have somebody compile all that data that I can access to all 50 states in about 10 seconds. Seems smart, not lazy.

Nope, it’s lazy. Who says you need maps anyways???? You think we had it in 1985, how about 1995, 2005? You get the picture, that’s $70 well wasted.

 

[PMcGee]

The op is grasping at straws here. Unless the land in question was open to the public before he hasn’t limited anything. I’m all for trying to get landowners to allow access but it’s up to them. Nobody has a right to tell someone what they should do with their private property regardless of what it’s blocking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[insanelupus]

Oh. My-Lanta!

And I thought middle school drama was overly dramatic!

Selective moral outrage is, apparently, the new battlecry of modern civilization.

Use OnX, or don't. Personally, I've found value in the product and even more so in the last year.

I have a big enough job trying to attend to my own stuff and guarding against my own personal hypocrisy. I have no idea how one has the time to monitor the hypocrisy of others and report it to the world.

 

[Z71&Gun]

The op is grasping at straws here. Unless the land in question was open to the public before he hasn’t limited anything. I’m all for trying to get landowners to allow access but it’s up to them. Nobody has a right to tell someone what they should do with their private property regardless of what it’s blocking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's not really the whole point OP is making.