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

[Idaho_Potato]

Another point would be, at what point in this free country do we tell people how they should be making their money? When is it alright to tell people they need a different job?

We already do this so not a good argument. We tell people they can't do things that contribute to destroying natural resources all the time.

I can't go into the national forest and cut all the firewood I want to sell as a business.

I can't dispose of toxic waste wherever I want just because I make money doing it as a business.

I can't harvest elk and sell the meat in my storefront as a business.

There is a line, and we as a community and country get to decide where it's at when it comes to the natural resources we share.

 

[willfrye027]

lots of jealous hunters in this thread

 

[browning2480]

We already do this so not a good argument. We tell people they can't do things that contribute to destroying natural resources all the time.

I can't go into the national forest and cut all the firewood I want to sell as a business.

I can't dispose of toxic waste wherever I want just because I make money doing it as a business.

I can't harvest elk and sell the meat in my storefront as a business.

There is a line, and we as a community and country get to decide where it's at when it comes to the natural resources we share.

So posting a pic on Social Media is the same as cutting down the forest or dumping toxic waste? Ok got it

For the record, this is the only Social Media I am a part of. Other than watching YouTube. I have no accounts anywhere else. Just trying to see both sides

 

[Idaho_Potato]

So posting a pic on Social Media is the same as cutting down the forest or dumping toxic waste? Ok got it

For the record, this is the only Social Media I am a part of. Other than watching YouTube. I have no accounts anywhere else. Just trying to see both sides

I could be convinced that some "personalities" in the hunting industry amount to digital toxic waste...

 

[Ten Bears]

Another point would be, at what point in this free country do we tell people how they should be making their money? When is it alright to tell people they need a different job?

I am all about people making money. It’s a cloudy complicated subject. Especially when publicly owned land and game are involved. I thought about this all day while I was hunting.

Example. Years ago a famous hunter would write a book about their hunts of travels and it seemed natural and no one minded that they made money off it.

Today someone creates a social brand and hunts and shares their stories and makes profit.

I guess what changed is the ease to do it and the instant reach the new technology has provided. I go back and forth on its value to hunters and society as a whole. I just don’t know if we are ready for it and if the bad outweighs the good. Also just think 10 years ago this didn’t exist, what will all this look like as technology continues to outpace ethic and moral growth ?

Still sorting it out in my head and enjoying this dialogue.

 

[Snowy]

@robby denning I think the questions you pointed to on the last page are valuable to ask ourselves even though they don’t have clear answers. How much is too much (publicity, exposure, salesmanship, etc.)?

At what point is the experience cheapened by the media ecosystem that we’ve surrounded ourselves with?

For guys truly in the business I guess it kinda is what it is, probably not going to change anyone’s mind. Things get messy when tied to a public resource and opportunity. The guys building a “brand” for a free scope and a box of granola bars though? It seems like that side of things has gotten out of hand.

And I do think there’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around; each of us should do a little inventory now and again, in all areas of life.

 

[dieselchessy]

I think the change is back in the day folks did the hunts, Alaska, Africa, Yukon, and then wrote of the adventures.
Today folks head out with the intent to make a story. They put in for draws, pay outfitters, book hunts on reservations, you name it, all with the primary intent to make “content”.

That word annoys me. “Content makers” and all their talk of it make me dislike it.

 

[CorbLand]

Utah had 220,000 deer licenses in the 1980's, I think that down around 100K now.

Yet i read words like "massive increase" in hunter numbers.

You ever been to Utah? They could give out 10 tags and it would feel like there were a million hunters. They can’t go hunting without bringing the entire town with them.

 

[OMB]

You can't compare 1980's magazines to you and GoHunt's constant material on drawing options with a straight face. You and GoHunt explain the date, price, application requirements, everything down to tieing your shoe about applying for each western state. You also recommend that everyone apply in as many states as possible. It's clearly affecting draw odds, particularly in the last few years. You have stated that you're lowering the barrier of entry so more people can hunt the West. Now we're bearing the fruit of this effort.

Conservation is great and abundance mindsets are ideal. I think it's excellent to produce content regarding how to make an actual difference in putting more animals on the hill and opening up public land. So much of what you produce now seems to be how to apply and what states to apply for.

However, just talking about an abundance mindset without acknowledging growing scarcity for western hunting opportunities is unreasonable. Look at how people are moving to western states for lifestyle, hunting, etc. Huge numbers of new residents. Exploding nonresident application numbers. Abundance and creating more animals and access is not coming close to keeping up. When you aren't able to get enough tags to fill your show, that's when it'll hit home that scarcity is something to consider. At this time, you seem to have an idyllic hope that it'll all work and let's create more western hunters.

So it's selfish for western hunters to want to continue hunting a neighboring state, or even get tags in their state with all the new residents and nonresident applications? Is it selfish for eastern hunters to want to hunt their state for whitetail and go across the country to hunt the west as well? Everyone wants a tag or the second tag. Between the two selfish motivations I think the ones that live nearby and have hunted these areas for decades should be prioritized.

The door is closing quickly for nonresidents to have an opportunity to hunt the west without a bunch of points for deer and elk. You can pursue your message and show more respect for those who live in the west and don't want to see it more and more crowded due to influencer actions. Even if another state isn't the "best" value in your eyes, mentioning opportunities throughout the country would be helpful. Shifting to focusing more on predator hunting would be really helpful in addressing hunter congestion and point creep due to increased western hunt interest. It takes some researching but there are great public land hunts in the central and eastern US. If you want people to have a hunt experience to connect with hunting, hunting somewhere other than the west and for something other than deer or elk is what most people who aren't a resident of the western US are going to be looking at most every year coming up, unless they're sitting on high points in many states. That's the future.

You can pursue your goals without having such negative impacts on western hunters due to making it way too easy to apply and focusing prospective hunter interest on the "best" value options in a few Western states.

I'm honestly getting to the point of "please don't promote the east, Huntin Fool, Epic, and Hunting Public are killing us" for Iowa and Kansas.

There are two states I hunted this year for whitetail, and I killed a buck in both, one on a tag I could buy at the gas station and the other took a little more work. Both bucks grossed over 160, and both were killed on properties that neighbored public land. Newberg is entrenched on the western tag thing clearly at this point so it doesnt matter, but there are others in the influencer community that could do their part by showcasing eastern opportunities. Hell, there's guys that come from Ohio to Iowa for deer that don't realize they have big giant bucks on hundreds of thousands of acres of national forest land in their own state, they just have to work for it.

I have friends that work in the industry, and I can't wait until they've priced themselves out of New Mexico landowner elk tags with self promotion. Congrats, you've played yourselves, now everything just became more affordable for the Sartini family and everyone that rides with them and their money.

 

[dieselchessy]

I remember when it was Washington/Oregon hunting news. They would post an article about the high hunt and some trail head or wilderness area and then it would be all blown to crap for a few years. On a bigger scale it was Eastmans rag and then others like Hunting fool started popping up. Now it’s Go hunt, Top rut, YouTube instructional videos, Corey Jacobs, ect….

Part of me hopes it’s helping something, conservation, ???? But the pessimist in me sure hates the point creep and crowded woods.
Like the Columbia gorge, Subaruined, it’s being loved to death.

 

[Woodrow F Call]

People telling others how to enjoy their lives... we need more of that?

M. Rinella has been on that side of the fence for a little while, even talked about it on Meateater I think. I don't think what he's preaching is going to change the number of people you see in the field. I get the humility aspect of it though. I don't see issue with posting your success or not. Let people live their lives.

Maybe you can share your adventures and still have humility. Some of us are working our lives away an need to live vicariously through others.

I also kind of think about people like Edward Abbey. In many ways he contradicted himself.... kinda like Matt on social media, but still has a "follow Matt Rinella" link. The world is a complicated place, maybe it's not black and white either..... maybe it's just something we need to think about and not a hard rule.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

I also kind of think about people like Edward Abbey. In many ways he contradicted himself.... kinda like Matt on social media, but still has a "follow Matt Rinella" link.

The "Follow Matt Rinella" link was blank, thats why it was pointed out. You can't follow him on social media, he doesn't have any. It looked like an auto-generated section by the website the article was posted on, not something Matt himself posted. There's a screenshot on page 2 of this thread.

 

[robby denning]

You ever been to Utah? They could give out 10 tags and it would feel like there were a million hunters. They can’t go hunting without bringing the entire town with them.

Yes I have hunted Ut and that is true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mhabiger]

A couple folks have asked about the data sources on hunter numbers and why the industry says numbers are declining. Generally they are citing https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/fhwar.html . The survey is done every 5 years and administered by the Census Bureau. In 2016 the numbers declined 2 million from the 2011 survey, roughly a 16% drop overall. So on the face of it...yes there was a decline.

Off my dome, I recall the big game hunter decline being roughly on par with the total hunter decline. One big change was budget cuts didn't allow the Census to survey enough people to have valid state level breakouts. Some analysis I did on the mountain region showed numbers were likely flat but hard to now from the survey. CB had this breakout from 1991-2011 but didn't include it in 2016 report. License sales data can be found here https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/licenseinfo/hunting.htm. Matt references this data and also links to an Outdoor Life piece on it. License sales data shows a different trend but license sale data is also pretty vague. From my reading of FWS documentation, it isn't clear what licenses a state should count as a valid hunting license. Also states have an incentive to increase license counts because PR dollars are allocated partly based on this count. I've been meaning to reach out to FWS and find out if states that require applicants to purchase a license to say...build points... are counted in these numbers. Many of these folks may never step foot in the state to hunt but could impact draw odds.

There is a pretty good report on public land changes in the US that was done by the Congressional Research Service. On net its a 5% decline but if you dig in it varies greatly by state and agency (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42346.pdf).

Depending on where you are in the US, if you hunt public land almost any scenario could be true. It all depends on the relative changes. All that said, the FHWAR question asks specifically about the act of hunting, so you could want to hunt and be a true blue hunter but actually be counted as not a hunter if you didn't draw and therefore didn't hunt. At the end of the day, to figure out if there is more pressure and hunters someone would need to get both application and issued general/limited/otc license/permit counts for both resident and nonresident hunters in their respective state over time and compare that with available public land changes to figure. The other thing that could drive up public land pressure are folks who lost permission on private. The number of those folks now hunting public is anybody's guess.

Take Colorado deer hunting for instance, CPW shows roughly ~88k hunters in the field in 2003 and 2020. So it'd appear there isn't more pressure or folks at the trailhead (at least for deer, for elk probably a different story....). However, if you look at total applicant pressure, resident apps increased from 89k to 212k and nonresident apps increased from 44k to 91k. Safe to say there are just a few more wannabe hunters or hunt-curious folks. The population of CO grew around 35% over that period but applications more than doubled. Get these stats across multiple states by year, line them up with advent of what ever media you dislike and see if they correlate. Although part of the problem could also be a guy who used to only apply to elk now applies to deer and antelope so he can hunt something. It can be hard to get the full truth.

My personal experience having lived in Minnesota, Kansas and Missouri and hunted in eight different states is the majority hunters everywhere complain about pressure, access and folks that don't live in the immediate area hunting there. I personally haven't seen any change in complaints in my 25 years of hunting. So its good to know some things are static in this world!

This is a great discussion overall with much to brew on for anyone who cares about the perpetuity of wildlife and hunting.

 

[Dust Rider]

I have met and spoke with Randy a few times at RMEF events and he spoke just like on here. No bull and right to the point. He earned my respect with his honesty and lack of greed.
It took a while for me to accept that social media is the new norm for most to promote and capitalize. Instead of getting more upset and worked up, I unplugged. Deleted accounts on FB that I had, (wife did too) erased family videos on YouTube. Rokslide, Adv Rider and a few others forms are it theses days.
Social media is a double edged sword. Some good, lots of bad. We restrict the kids while using it. Now I’m restricting myself. This year like the topic of this thread was the first time we didn’t post grip and grins of the kids hunts or mine. If I didn’t like the content here so much I would leave but Rokslide is addictive in its own way, but so far it does not get me upset like most other media out there.…

 

[robby denning]

A couple folks have asked about the data sources on hunter numbers and why the industry says numbers are declining. Generally they are citing https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/fhwar.html . The survey is done every 5 years and administered by the Census Bureau. In 2016 the numbers declined 2 million from the 2011 survey, roughly a 16% drop overall. So on the face of it...yes there was a decline.

Off my dome, I recall the big game hunter decline being roughly on par with the total hunter decline. One big change was budget cuts didn't allow the Census to survey enough people to have valid state level breakouts. Some analysis I did on the mountain region showed numbers were likely flat but hard to now from the survey. CB had this breakout from 1991-2011 but didn't include it in 2016 report. License sales data can be found here https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/licenseinfo/hunting.htm. Matt references this data and also links to an Outdoor Life piece on it. License sales data shows a different trend but license sale data is also pretty vague. From my reading of FWS documentation, it isn't clear what licenses a state should count as a valid hunting license. Also states have an incentive to increase license counts because PR dollars are allocated partly based on this count. I've been meaning to reach out to FWS and find out if states that require applicants to purchase a license to say...build points... are counted in these numbers. Many of these folks may never step foot in the state to hunt but could impact draw odds.

There is a pretty good report on public land changes in the US that was done by the Congressional Research Service. On net its a 5% decline but if you dig in it varies greatly by state and agency (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42346.pdf).

Depending on where you are in the US, if you hunt public land almost any scenario could be true. It all depends on the relative changes. All that said, the FHWAR question asks specifically about the act of hunting, so you could want to hunt and be a true blue hunter but actually be counted as not a hunter if you didn't draw and therefore didn't hunt. At the end of the day, to figure out if there is more pressure and hunters someone would need to get both application and issued general/limited/otc license/permit counts for both resident and nonresident hunters in their respective state over time and compare that with available public land changes to figure. The other thing that could drive up public land pressure are folks who lost permission on private. The number of those folks now hunting public is anybody's guess.

Take Colorado deer hunting for instance, CPW shows roughly ~88k hunters in the field in 2003 and 2020. So it'd appear there isn't more pressure or folks at the trailhead (at least for deer, for elk probably a different story....). However, if you look at total applicant pressure, resident apps increased from 89k to 212k and nonresident apps increased from 44k to 91k. Safe to say there are just a few more wannabe hunters or hunt-curious folks. The population of CO grew around 35% over that period but applications more than doubled. Get these stats across multiple states by year, line them up with advent of what ever media you dislike and see if they correlate. Although part of the problem could also be a guy who used to only apply to elk now applies to deer and antelope so he can hunt something. It can be hard to get the full truth.

My personal experience having lived in Minnesota, Kansas and Missouri and hunted in eight different states is the majority hunters everywhere complain about pressure, access and folks that don't live in the immediate area hunting there. I personally haven't seen any change in complaints in my 25 years of hunting. So its good to know some things are static in this world!

This is a great discussion overall with much to brew on for anyone who cares about the perpetuity of wildlife and hunting.

this is great, thanks for digging in.

The Hunter vs. Applicant needs to be known as that could be very significant. I'd just like to know the real numbers.

As you sum it up, hunters have been complaining forever about other hunters and that's not changing.

 

[ColoradoV]

Interesting.. I wont use names but to say yea it get old some guys posting photos of landmarks on IG. Found a few in the south west of Colo this year not even trying. Also if you are not doing your own scouting - not sure again if posting landmarks is in the best taste…

Guys will do it for likes is what it is and the guys in the know for the most part have a solid grasp of who is into what. Seems these same guys shoot a 180 type buck and do everything they can to make it look bigger, pics of the close up velvet, pack out, and 14 pics over time of a 180” buck ……. Then they move on scorched earth style and shoot a 170” buck repeat…. This is fb and ig.

A few have been mentioned in this thread and some guys should be more like Ulmer…. Or post a single pic behind a giant then move on..

I am guilty as well I don’t do fb but do ig w less than 1000 folks and have posted here what 300 times in 10 years. All pin hole pics from one of the 12-15 units I roll through on 30+ days of scouting each year. The only time I get behind a buck is one photo maybe 2 - if I wrote a magazine article and I am done w the magazines not as they are bad just not for me..

Will I continue to post my pin hole pics of 200” bucks yea pry as I got a bunch and it is fun. Will you see 20 pics of my next buck start to finish, tag cutting, celebrating, and the lot. Hell no might post a pic of my daughter holding the 200+” horns as I cut em off the skull in the field and hang ‘em in line…. Less weight to pack out without a skull and cape. Real talk….

I also like to see updates scouting and the like on ig and will look at them but have to say I have unfollowed or don’t follow quite a few “fake influencers” in the mule deer world…..

With that said it will get worse before it gets better as I don’t see it changing anytime soon…

 

[prm]

I think the change is back in the day folks did the hunts, Alaska, Africa, Yukon, and then wrote of the adventures.
Today folks head out with the intent to make a story. They put in for draws, pay outfitters, book hunts on reservations, you name it, all with the primary intent to make “content”.

That word annoys me. “Content makers” and all their talk of it make me dislike it.

You’re on to an element of social media that I don’t personally find appealing, and that’s hunting, or actions within a hunt, for the purpose of social media or rather self promotion. That term “create content” triggers me! No idea why, but it just turns me off.

Using social media to tell the story of a good hunt I have no issue.

I hunt for the adventure, the enjoyment, and challenge. If the story is about that adventure and it makes me feel like I’m there I’ll probably like it. Once it becomes about an individual, stroking their ego, or about products, I’m out.

This is clearly not a black or white subject area. I’m glad Matt wrote his piece and hope it fosters discussion and thought as it has here.

 

[Woodrow F Call]

The "Follow Matt Rinella" link was blank, thats why it was pointed out. You can't follow him on social media, he doesn't have any. It looked like an auto-generated section by the website the article was posted on, not something Matt himself posted. There's a screenshot on page 2 of this thread.

Thanks, I definitely missed that part.... still funny we are discussing it, no?

 

[ODB]

A person can post a grip and grin on rokslide, but if they posted on Instagram they’re a lowlife?

I think you are missing a key point to the issue: that when you kill animals to post pics of them in order to monetize the hunt by ads or sponsors, etc,. you have changed the primary reason to hunt and kill animals. The animal has been commodified and in order to keep the money coming in, you must kill more in order to post more to earn more - lather, rinse, repeat.