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

[ddd-shooter]

It's crap like this that I find to be harmful to my image as a hunter. Stumbled upon this the other day. I wonder how many people watch this and think "that's all it takes to start hunting?!"

 

[ddd-shooter]

The whole "no one would care about Matt without Steve" argument is valid.

But it makes Matt's point. Why are there no "ordinary" hunters leading the conversation about what hunting SHOULD BE? Why are the only people who get a voice "famous?"
We've been letting people who have a monetary incentive "lead the way" for too long imo.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

The whole "no one would care about Matt without Steve" argument is valid.

But it makes Matt's point. Why are there no "ordinary" hunters leading the conversation about what hunting SHOULD BE? Why are the only people who get a voice "famous?"
We've been letting people who have a monetary incentive "lead the way" for too long imo.

Agree 100%. We care what Matt thinks because his opinion is not dictated by YouTube earnings or some board of directors that wants to sell more backpacks than last year. He wrote an article that clearly shook the jimmies of the hunting media world. I think we would be discussing it either way.

 

[cnelk]

There should be a sub-forum on here for all the hunting media world fanboys.

That way they can send hugs and blow kisses to each other

 

[Poser]

Im so weary of this “nobody would care what Matt thinks if not for Steve” line. Steve wouldn’t be what Steve is if it wasn’t for Matt. When Matt shot his first elk, Steve was at home with his girlfriend. When Matt gunned his first bull, Steve was home with his girlfriend. When Matt arrowed his first bull elk, Steve was at work. When Matt shot his first Dall sheep, Steve was at home. When Steve arrowed his first cow elk, Matt was with Steve. When Steve arrowed his first bull elk, Matt was with Steve. When Steve shot his first Dall sheep, Matt was with Steve. I’ve always been more committed to hunting than Steve. Much of Steve’s passion for hunting began with me. ****, why am I trying to establish my hunting cred with strangers?? This forum is making me petty. Either my points are valid or they are not. The fact that you wrote several paragraphs on a thread devoted to my article indicates YOU care what I think doesn’t it???

I don’t buy the “nobody would care if” argument myself. A well articulated piece of thought provoking content is a well articulated piece of thought provoking content and it is not as if you are riding on Steve’s coattails to propel yourself to fame here. Does the last name give you a platform in American hunting culture? Sure. But, it’s not as if you are launching your “brand” onto the world by creating a YT video which you aim to go viral by dropping a “truthbomb” on the hunting media and pick up 100k subscribers along the way to monetize your channel.

The piece spurred a passionate conversation amongst many hunters and that was the goal. Whether it is was a recognizable last name published on a B list hunting specific website or a unrecognizable last name published in a mainstream publication with inherit reach makes no different at this point in the dialogue.
All I can interpret from the “nobody would care” argument is “yet here we are having the conversation.”

I suspect that people care much more about the ideas presented than they do about the last name and pulling the name card for means of discrediting is more of a petty shaming tactic for those incapable of tenable rebuttal or meaningful contribution.

 

[3forks]

I don’t buy the “nobody would care if” argument myself. A well articulated piece of thought provoking content is a well articulated piece of thought provoking content and it is not as if you are riding on Steve’s coattails to propel yourself to fame here. Does the last name give you a platform in American hunting culture? Sure. But, it’s not as if you are launching your “brand” onto the world by creating a YT video which you aim to go viral by dropping a “truthbomb” on the hunting media and pick up 100k subscribers along the way to monetize your channel.

The piece spurred a passionate conversation amongst many hunters and that was the goal. Whether it is was a recognizable last name published on a B list hunting specific website or a unrecognizable last name published in a mainstream publication with inherit reach makes no different at this point in the dialogue.
All I can interpret from the “nobody would care” argument is “yet here we are having the conversation.”

I suspect that people care much more about the ideas presented than they do about the last name and pulling the name card for means of discrediting is more of a petty shaming tactic for those incapable of tenable rebuttal or meaningful contribution.

Agreed.

If Matt was a member on this forum and had posted that essay on here, I think the discussion would have still run nearly as many pages.

Granted, the “sensationalism“ of having Steve Rinella be angry that his brother posted his essay may not have created as much of a splash within the industry. But, I bet this essay would still have prompted Randy Newberg to reply, and I would imagine Aron and others like him would have been just as pissed.

 

[Mt Al]

There should be a sub-forum on here for all the hunting media world fanboys.

That way they can send hugs and blow kisses to each other

I've only read the posts on this page from the cataclysmic confundium of blather - but you are spot on!!

PLEASE made a sub forum for hunting media fanboys!!










Also, does anyone, anywhere have a problem with being a 'follower'? I can see 'interested' 'curious' 'mildly entertained by', etc.. But to willingly be called a 'Follower' of someone? I don't get that.

 

[Rknight]

Im so weary of this “nobody would care what Matt thinks if not for Steve” line. Steve wouldn’t be what Steve is if it wasn’t for Matt. When Matt shot his first elk, Steve was at home with his girlfriend. When Matt gunned his first bull, Steve was home with his girlfriend. When Matt arrowed his first bull elk, Steve was at work. When Matt shot his first Dall sheep, Steve was at home. When Steve arrowed his first cow elk, Matt was with Steve. When Steve arrowed his first bull elk, Matt was with Steve. When Steve shot his first Dall sheep, Matt was with Steve. I’ve always been more committed to hunting than Steve. Much of Steve’s passion for hunting began with me. ****, why am I trying to establish my hunting cred with strangers?? This forum is making me petty. Either my points are valid or they are not. The fact that you wrote several paragraphs on a thread devoted to my article indicates YOU care what I think doesn’t it???

I enjoyed the article and the prospective. I also thought you made good points on your blog post against hunter recruitment. I’m not saying you are not knowledgeable or don’t make good points. What I said was that without Steve’s social media presence and the exposure gained from that you wouldn’t have the platform to make these points to such a large audience. It’s a double edged sword, without the media exposure these conversations would only happen in our small groups and not have threads in multiple forums discussing what you wrote

 

[ODB]

It's crap like this that I find to be harmful to my image as a hunter. Stumbled upon this the other day. I wonder how many people watch this and think "that's all it takes to start hunting?!"

This is nauseating. And it’s it done 100% for the profit motive. These videos are made by people, who, if hunting ended tomorrow, would simply say, “Well, what’s next?”

You should know that Meateater and Barstool sports are funded by the same organization.


And for the record, I love how the sponsored huntress refers to a Kodiak recurve as a 'longbow.' Nothing says competency like not even knowing the type of bow you are shooting.

 

[Super tag]

For me the most frustrating fact about the for profit media hunters is that they have seemingly unlimited funds, they have driven up the cost of ALL of the good landowner tags, and “buy” the special lottery tags that are available in the premium areas so that they can make a show. For example, I was told by a very good source that some of these guys put in 50k and more for the Idaho Super tags, elk and deer. That only a year ago it was guaranteed that if you spent that much you would draw one of the tags, now it’s up to 75k and higher. That’s just wrong, and wouldn’t be this way if it weren’t for the media involvement. These tags should belong to all of us and we should all have a legitimate chance to draw.
I was curious about the cost so I inquired about purchasing an outfitter tag a year ago in a premium Idaho deer unit and was told that it’s sold out for the next 10 years to the same guy. And that the guy paid more than the asking price to get the tag for 10 years. That’s BS. Average guys have been priced and moved right out of any opportunity to experience a once in a lifetime hunt. The only way to fight back is to stop supporting the media, and the sponsors. Try to get involved with the state management and stop the purchase of these opportunities that should be available for all of us to have a real shot at drawing but we don’t. Rockslide is my one and only source, I won’t watch any hunting show period, won’t support any group or sponsor in any way (knowingly) if we all do this maybe we can make some changes?

 

[Poser]

Agreed.

If Matt was a member on this forum and had posted that essay on here, I think the discussion would have still run nearly as many pages.

Granted, the “sensationalism“ of having Steve Rinella be angry that his brother posted his essay may not have created as much of a splash within the industry. But, I bet this essay would still have prompted Randy Newberg to reply, and I would imagine Aron and others like him would have been just as pissed.

Likewise agree. And any of the sensationalism that has resulted of the last name association and aforementioned influencers only seems to further support the ideas as presented in Matt’s argument. If thinking and talking about this within hunting circles spurs certain types of reactions from certain influencer statuses, does that not further validate certain truths in the ideas? I mean, if Matt were just woolgathering and the ideas held no water, would influencer with a podcast and line of hunting gear even care enough to respond? It as if a fissure opened in the earth and the underbelly of truth is seeping out like hot steam and lava.

The only other possible reaction of anger I can perceive would be if certain influencers believed Matt were trying to tear them down to build himself up analogous to an influencer being the hair band “Warrant” and Matt being the band “Nirvana” and the year is 1991. However, if it is fame, fortune and a elevated platform that Matt desired, I think we can all agree that status is/was readily available to him and yet he shuns it. There is a difference between being a hunter and desiring to pursue hunting celebrity status. Being thoughtful, critical and philosophical is not the means with which to pursue hunting fame. 75 grip n grins apparently is. Let’s not pretend that we cannot easily discern the difference between criticism of influencer status and effects vs. desire for such status and effects.

 

[mlgc20]

Likewise agree. And any of the sensationalism that has resulted of the last name association and aforementioned influencers only seems to further support the ideas as presented in Matt’s argument. If thinking and talking about this within hunting circles spurs certain types of reactions from certain influencer statuses, does that not further validate certain truths in the ideas? I mean, if Matt were just woolgathering and the ideas held no water, would influencer with a podcast and line of hunting gear even care enough to respond? It as if a fissure opened in the earth and the underbelly of truth is seeping out like hot steam and lava.

The only other possible reaction of anger I can perceive would be if certain influencers believed Matt were trying to tear them down to build himself up analogous to an influencer being the hair band “Warrant” and Matt being the band “Nirvana” and the year is 1991. However, if it is fame, fortune and a elevated platform that Matt desired, I think we can all agree that status is/was readily available to him and yet he shuns it. There is a difference between being a hunter and desiring to pursue hunting celebrity status. Being thoughtful, critical and philosophical is not the means with which to pursue hunting fame. 75 grip n grins apparently is. Let’s not pretend that we cannot easily discern the difference between criticism of influencer status and effects vs. desire for such status and effects.

Say what you want about the issues of hunting and overcrowding. But, I will fight to the death any man that dares besmirch the good name of Warrant.

 

[hibernation]

the penitent poses touching the animal. The look of anguish carrying a heavy pack; bloody knives and hands, maybe an extended arm holding a backstrap; an awkward, artsy angle on the antlers, etc etc etc. It becomes theater after a point.

I think I'm going to throw up if I see another soft focus, slow motion, long focal length, super zoomed in series of jump cuts on elk antlers.

 

[slick]

Agreed. I cant stand watching films where in the intro they feel the seemingly incessant need to talk in a "sexy" voice about the romanticized thought process of "why I hunt... it's in my blood... i don't do it for X reason, but because its inherent to who i am BLAH BLAH BLAH"

 

[ddd-shooter]

This is nauseating. And it’s it done 100% for the profit motive. These videos are made by people, who, if hunting ended tomorrow, would simply say, “Well, what’s next?”

You should know that Meateater and Barstool sports are funded by the same organization.

Had no idea. But its people like this who "need a job" that I think are at the heart of this argument. Add in social media, and it really does become a race to the bottom of the brainstem when it comes to content.

 

[Poser]

Say what you want about the issues of hunting and overcrowding. But, I will fight to the death any man that dares besmirch the good name of Warrant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

Agreed. I cant stand watching films where in the intro they feel the seemingly incessant need to talk in a "sexy" voice about the romanticized thought process of "why I hunt... it's in my blood... i don't do it for X reason, but because its inherent to who i am BLAH BLAH BLAH"

I agree then they get all sad when they shoot something. I mean you went out with the intention of killing shit. If it’s that tough on you just go to the store and kneel over some ground beef.

 

[AKBC]

It makes me sad that someone would publicly call out his brother.

 

[204guy]

I've only read the posts on this page from the cataclysmic confundium of blather - but you are spot on!!

PLEASE made a sub forum for hunting media fanboys!!










Also, does anyone, anywhere have a problem with being a 'follower'? I can see 'interested' 'curious' 'mildly entertained by', etc.. But to willingly be called a 'Follower' of someone? I don't get that.

This is the other very important side of the coin. It's a chicken/egg question. There's convicted or soon to be convicted poachers with huge followings. There's a whole image stigma attached to hush where you could reasonably guess if someone follows them. Are the influencers the problem or the hundreds of thousands of people that follow them? Both obviously. The question of needing more hunters has been bantered. The parallel question is do we want these people as hunters? This is where Matt's points can hopefully make inroads. If your inclination is to hit the like button after watching a guy gutshoot his 4th deer in a row at 700yds you are the problem.

 

[slick]

His brother decided to make it public. MeatEater didn’t have to post that podcast.

Since Steve made it public I feel it fair for Matt to say whatever he’d like regarding their conversation.