Unfollowing Hunting Social Media Will Make Hunting Better: Matt Rinella Essay

[bsnedeker]

Personally, I think @Randy Newberg is the best! He get's every newby hunter in the world to flock to burns and wilderness areas so I can kill elk right off the road! Thanks Randy!

Seriously though, you could make the argument that this guy has done more good for hunting, conservation, and access than probably everyone else on this website put together. His biography speaks for itself. The fact that he comes on here and lays out a friggin BOOK on his philosphy speaks volumes.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

@Randy Newberg Randy, you are clearly on a very short list of the most respected voices of the hunting community. You do much good. You are maybe the only one that guys would believe is not in this for the money. Thanks for all you do. Matt is addressing all the glam and ridiculousness of bro culture and self aggrandizement common in social media. That has nothing to do with you.

Matt is also addressing a failure by hunting influencers or figures to look at the broader context of their actions, whether for selfish reasons (as is assumed for most) or for lack of understanding. Matt's criticism of overpromoting hunting and causing decreasing opportunities is a serious criticism of some of your actions. Given the engagement on this thread, and other comments across the internet, I think it is clear that hunting media figures have made information regarding western hunting more available, marketed the hunt experience, and caused a tremendous increase in hunting applications. WY, which you've said is the best state to apply for ad nauseum, is going to be 8-10 years to draw a general tag for those getting points now. MT takes multiple points to get a general tag. ID OTC hunts are very limited now and hard to get. OTC perhaps going by the wayside in CO. It's easy to blame the economy and other causes, but it is clear (AZ pays influencers because they know the effect) that hunting figures have influenced these dramatic decreases in draw odds due to demand. You go so far as to tell everyone the deadline for each state, say exactly how to apply and describe the inns and outs, and recommend applying in multiple states. In the near future when it takes years to get any non resident tag in the west, how will that affect the public lands message you're promoting? Why can't you promote your message without trying to get more and more and more hunters out west? Is there ever a point when there's enough western hunters? Do you care about the effects on western hunters' availability to get tags in their state or neighboring states?

It is seen as very lazy and intellectually dishonest for hunting leaders to respond to criticisms of this type by saying we need more hunters. As far as the west is concerned, getting a tag is the issue, not having insufficient demand of any kind. We're talking about exponential application growth and regular doubling of points necessary to draw a unit in many areas. Hunting leaders seem to be prioritizing the eastern hunter who has never hunted the west to get a larger pool to market towards. Western hunters who prefer stable hunting numbers, or at least non overly crowded, should be considered as well. At some point, the point creep is bad enough that it hurts everyone involved. Hunters need other outlets for great hunting experiences besides the handful of western states you have recommended.

I think you can be a leader in the hunting community if you will address this issue. How can you promote the importance of public lands without contributing to additional point creep? How can you respect and value western hunters who want to be able to draw a tag and not lose opportunities due to exponential application increases? How can you promote public land opportunities in other parts of the country besides the states you have said are good (WY, MT, AZ, UT, ID, CO, NM, NV)? You have said CA, OR, WA aren't good enough hunting to justify applications. Let's stop mentioning the best states and spread the wealth of applications a bit more. Midwest and Eastern opportunities will be what's required to provide the additional hunters you want for hunter recruitment to have a place to hunt. To do this, I think you will have to recognize that you are a leader and have contributed to this issue. Many are frustrated about it. You can do something about it. Thanks again for what you do. The intent was for this to be a respectfully stated criticism and I'm interested in what i know will be a thoughtful response.

Great post. I hope Randy gets to this one.

 

[Greenhorn]

H”eye” Randy!!

 

[robby denning]

....

Seriously though, you could make the argument that this guy has done more good for hunting, conservation, and access than probably everyone else on this website put together.

agree^

Q: Which of these 18 Instagram images do you think has the most engagement, which would include likes, shares, DMs, etc?

A: The upper right, with Dale and his elk in a classic "grip and grin."

So, one could ask, "Is the hunting audience driving what is being shown on social media or is the content creator driving the social media dynamic?"

I say "hunting audience".

Media is usually just mirror to society.

Do I win a prize?

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Q: Which of these 18 Instagram images do you think has the most engagement, which would include likes, shares, DMs, etc?

A: The upper right, with Dale and his elk in a classic "grip and grin."

So, one could ask, "Is the hunting audience driving what is being shown on social media or is the content creator driving the social media dynamic?"

As much as I think Matt is making some great points, there is also the realities of how audiences respond to different types of social media content.

Looking in the mirror...self responsibility...

Whether this issue or complaining about the countless "issues" in the world, I think we'd all make a heck of a lot more progress if enough of us honestly look in the mirror, reflect and change our own habits first.

I can't tell you how many times I resist the media click bait that thrives on conflict and division, yet the more we feed that fire with our own clicks, the more all sides of media will make that content. Talking general life terms here but applies directly to the topic at hand.

 

[robby denning]

And one final question, I haven't read through all the 18 pages, but everyone posting who's against social media is fully aware were all on social media right now? If that's been asked and debated, I'll delete

 

[Deadfall]

Obviously being stuck in Duluth, MN gives me too much time on my hands today. But, I wanted to add this.

Just off my biweekly call with our social media firm. We went over what was posted on IG the last three weeks and the results of each.

This information gives some credence to asking the question, that is not addressed in Matt Rinella's comments, "Is the hunting audience being truthful about their social media behavior when contrasted with their criticisms of social media?"

Q: Which of these 18 Instagram images do you think has the most engagement, which would include likes, shares, DMs, etc?

A: The upper right, with Dale and his elk in a classic "grip and grin."

So, one could ask, "Is the hunting audience driving what is being shown on social media or is the content creator driving the social media dynamic?"

As much as I think Matt is making some great points, there is also the realities of how audiences respond to different types of social media content. We continue to make the traditional "grip and grin" a very small part of our posts. In the case of what we reviewed today, 1 of 18 posts were the traditional G&G post and it was the post that got the most attention. Most every time we go through this exercise, the results are the same.

In spite of these consistent results, we will continue to make G&G a very small part of our content, with some months have more and some months having almost none. We have no contracts to monetize our social media, so none of what we post is driven by any monetary result. As part of our video content creation contracts we do share content from sponsors and help them with some of their promotions. I know for some people, their primary revenue source is social media posts and maybe that is what drives their social media content decisions. For us, not the case, but still an interesting fact to add to this discussion is what the audience continually engages in with the highest level of interest.

Just something more to think about in the context of this discussion about social media and hunting.

View attachment 354848




View attachment 354850View attachment 354851

What was the least viewed content? I am only involved with 2 media deals. both are hunting forums. Which is neither here nor there. I've known for a long time that consumers are the real issue. Where we spend our time and money is what fuels the machine.. Not to sound too much like ol Teddy K. ha.

Recon I been critical of you for same reasons people are critical of outfitters. or why some are critical of DIY or landowners. lumping you in with other tv types, based on personal experiences with others. I've guided several tv types and do not hold them in a good light after seeing how they operate. Wrong to lump you in with them I will start observing with a more open mind or case by case thing.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

And one final question, I haven't read through all the 18 pages, but everyone posting who's against social media is fully aware were all on social media right now? If that's been asked and debated, I'll delete

Yes this is social media. I don't think Matt Rinella is taking shots at a forum that allows long form and nuanced discussion with the ability to post anonymously. It's about the guys posting 3 elk and 6 deer grip and grins in one season with 25 sponsor hash tags. That's gross.

 

[Deadfall]

And one final question, I haven't read through all the 18 pages, but everyone posting who's against social media is fully aware were all on social media right now? If that's been asked and debated, I'll delete

Starting to get touched on.

 

[AnnualRye]

So, one could ask, "Is the hunting audience driving what is being shown on social media or is the content creator driving the social media dynamic?"

To your question- both. And your point is well-taken. Simple supply and demand. We (generally speaking) demand that type of content. In turn, influencers supply it, for better or worse.

There is no easy answer to this. Matt's solution is to go nuclear on social media altogether, namely the very type of posts you alluded to as being the most popular on your own platforms. I agree with this, personally not having social media (aside from forum memberships ) of any kind. I am, however, in the vast minority regarding social media consumption, and realize that what Matt has suggested will realistically never happen. We (hunters, and society in general) have been conditioned to desire the easy, instantly-gratifying content. Other social media posts/content, that require deeper thinking, introspection, active reading, etc., sadly fall by the wayside with most. I don't think that's hyperbolic to say.

That being said, I don't think it's a hopeless endeavor to change some folks' minds or at least encourage them to think more critically and employ introspection into the "why" of hunting, or how using social media can detrimentally impact it, and what kind of impact their own contributions have on it. You are well-respected, have a large following and influence within the hunting community, and have always led by example and walked your talk. I think if someone like yourself is willing to bring this type of issue to forefront of conversations on your own platforms, perhaps some positive effects can come out of it. Maybe that in-turn will encourage other hunting personalities to follow-suit. Just reading through some of the other contributors' posts in this thread has caused me to question and reflect on my own "why" for hunting and how I can be a better advocate or its cause and longevity. These conversations absolutely have an impact.

 

[browning2480]

And one final question, I haven't read through all the 18 pages, but everyone posting who's against social media is fully aware were all on social media right now? If that's been asked and debated, I'll delete

I prointed this out on page 1 or 2. Got hammered for it of course lol. Social Media is Social Media, but of course some guys like to pick and choose

 

[robby denning]

Yes this is social media. I don't think Matt Rinella is taking shots at a forum that allows long form and nuanced discussion with the ability to post anonymously. It's about the guys posting 3 elk and 6 deer grip and grins in one season with 25 sponsor hash tags. That's gross.

got it,

but there are some of us on here doing the exact thing, minus the hash tags.

 

[robby denning]

I printed this out on page 1 or 2. Got hammered for it of course lol. Social Media is Social Media, but of course some guys like to pick and choose

hahaha, I bet you did. and i only brought it up as the irony of people hating on social media on a public forum is always funny.

 

[robby denning]

...

That being said, I don't think it's a hopeless endeavor to ... employ introspection into the "why" of hunting, or how using social media can detrimentally impact it, and what kind of impact their own contributions have on it.

completely agree!

 

[cnelk]

@Randy Newberg Randy, you are clearly on a very short list of the most respected voices of the hunting community. You do much good. You are maybe the only one that guys would believe is not in this for the money. Thanks for all you do. Matt is addressing all the glam and ridiculousness of bro culture and self aggrandizement common in social media. That has nothing to do with you.

Matt is also addressing a failure by hunting influencers or figures to look at the broader context of their actions, whether for selfish reasons (as is assumed for most) or for lack of understanding. Matt's criticism of overpromoting hunting and causing decreasing opportunities is a serious criticism of some of your actions. Given the engagement on this thread, and other comments across the internet, I think it is clear that hunting media figures have made information regarding western hunting more available, marketed the hunt experience, and caused a tremendous increase in hunting applications. WY, which you've said is the best state to apply for ad nauseum, is going to be 8-10 years to draw a general tag for those getting points now. MT takes multiple points to get a general tag. ID OTC hunts are very limited now and hard to get. OTC perhaps going by the wayside in CO. It's easy to blame the economy and other causes, but it is clear (AZ pays influencers because they know the effect) that hunting figures have influenced these dramatic decreases in draw odds due to demand. You go so far as to tell everyone the deadline for each state, say exactly how to apply and describe the inns and outs, and recommend applying in multiple states. In the near future when it takes years to get any non resident tag in the west, how will that affect the public lands message you're promoting? Why can't you promote your message without trying to get more and more and more hunters out west? Is there ever a point when there's enough western hunters? Do you care about the effects on western hunters' availability to get tags in their state or neighboring states?

It is seen as very lazy and intellectually dishonest for hunting leaders to respond to criticisms of this type by saying we need more hunters. As far as the west is concerned, getting a tag is the issue, not having insufficient demand of any kind. We're talking about exponential application growth and regular doubling of points necessary to draw a unit in many areas. Hunting leaders seem to be prioritizing the eastern hunter who has never hunted the west to get a larger pool to market towards. Western hunters who prefer stable hunting numbers, or at least non overly crowded, should be considered as well. At some point, the point creep is bad enough that it hurts everyone involved. Hunters need other outlets for great hunting experiences besides the handful of western states you have recommended.

I think you can be a leader in the hunting community if you will address this issue. How can you promote the importance of public lands without contributing to additional point creep? How can you respect and value western hunters who want to be able to draw a tag and not lose opportunities due to exponential application increases? How can you promote public land opportunities in other parts of the country besides the states you have said are good (WY, MT, AZ, UT, ID, CO, NM, NV)? You have said CA, OR, WA aren't good enough hunting to justify applications. Let's stop mentioning the best states and spread the wealth of applications a bit more. Midwest and Eastern opportunities will be what's required to provide the additional hunters you want for hunter recruitment to have a place to hunt. To do this, I think you will have to recognize that you are a leader and have contributed to this issue. Many are frustrated about it. You can do something about it. Thanks again for what you do. The intent was for this to be a respectfully stated criticism and I'm interested in what i know will be a thoughtful response.

How about a 'tell all' on how to apply in Kansas - how a person can select one deer management unit and also one adjacent unit when they apply.

Plenty of public land in Kansas to promote

 

[Idaho_Potato]

got it,

but there are some of us on here doing the exact thing, minus the hash tags.

I'm with ya, certainly some irony in this whole thing. The bigger issue with a site like this is probably the unit discussions that get archived in the Google index forever. I was certainly guilty of discussing units openly when I first got here and other forums. It ultimately doesn't help anyone.

 

[robby denning]

I'm with ya, certainly some irony in this whole thing. The bigger issue with a site like this is probably the unit discussions that get archived in the Google index forever. I was certainly guilty of discussing units openly when I first got here and other forums. It ultimately doesn't help anyone.

There’s a list of words that Ryan can ban from ever being said on the site, sounds like we should put the word “unit“ in there. @Ryan Avery ? Yes? No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

And one final question, I haven't read through all the 18 pages, but everyone posting who's against social media is fully aware were all on social media right now? If that's been asked and debated, I'll delete

There are of course nuances to this statement.

Last time I checked, when Randy posted here, 135k people’s phones didn’t tell them he did. On Instagram, they do.

There is a vast difference between a forum and true, viral, cross-cultural social media.

 

[browning2480]

hahaha, I bet you did. and i only brought it up as the irony of people hating on social media on a public forum is always funny.

Yeah haha that is what I said lol. Not to mention the calling out of areas and everything else. Not bashing this forum but the same thing people complain about is happening here, to some extent. Not saying it is as bad, but still the same thing. Guys don’t want to bash what they are using though lol

 

[Buglebrush]

Valid points on all sides. I've been backpack style hunting since long before social media, EXO packs ( I love mine now ), etc... It used to be only a very few of us that were out archery hunting elk with camp on our backs, and we could access pockets where no-one else would set foot the entire season. Fact is, archery itself used to be very few people. I do hate how going steep and deep is almost more crowded now than simply day hunting, but I also see so much value and unity in Hunter's voices on issues. Without this ability to unite and network, hunting and hunters would be even more vulnerable to the ANTI lobby. Don't kid yourselves, the antis are using social media to gather the troops to shut us down. The good old days are never coming back, and social media influencers are only one small part of the dynamic.