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

[ddd-shooter]

the part of his essay I read said something along the line that hunting license numbers are hard to find or trust

USFW site says Idaho had the following "paid hunting license holders"

in 1985, 249,974

in 2003, 245,358

in 2019, 295,281

in 2020, 288,61

in 2021 275,244

Those numbers seem believable to me, an 18% swing from low to high (but decreasing the last two years to only 10% increase now)

I really don't see that many more people out as a total. I see more people going deeper, but that leaves a void somewhere else if hunter numbers are about the same.

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.

How much private land has been developed in the west in the last 36 years? How many new subdivisions, roads, farms sold? Would that concentrate hunters into less and less land?

 

[woods89]

In my personal robby opinion, we need more hunters, not less. Good game management has to be the rule. In my personal experiences, I see about the same number of hunters as in the 80s. maybe less in some areas and more in the backcountry. Hunters are better now, and I'm causing some of that. But I learned from the generations prior to mine too. Good game managment has to be the rule. But if we lose hunting (didn't one of our states just lose or are losing spring bear hunting), none of this will matter. The only hunting will be the very very rich.

I'm going to focus on this part and leave a question I've been wondering about.

I doubt there is a member on this site that wouldn't agree with me that doubling current hunter numbers would be disastrous to the resource. That would not even come close to hunters being any sort of majority. What is the end game? Do we endlessly chase more hunter numbers without any framework to recognize when we've gone too far? What is ''too far''? Are we planting and fertilizing a crop (of new hunters) that we won't have enough water for to get to harvest? And the big one for me, can I trust influencers to recognize when they've gone too far and stop, or will they keep trying to sell fancy camo and online seminars until opportunity is gone for most of us?

Maybe we don't need more hunters, but quieter and more forward thinking hunters. I don't know, but I sure have spent some time thinking about it.

 

[JRam07]

I thought Rokslide was an offroading forum for at least a year. Thought it was strange y'all talked about hunting so much...

I'm glad I'm nit the only one, thought it was a jeep forum for a long time.

 

[woods89]

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

This is a very fair point. I think the audience bears a fair bit of responsibility as well.

And thank you for being as accessible as you have been here. I may have my reservations about some of the long term aspects of your platforms but I respect your willingness to discuss.

 

[robby denning]

Remember I said game management has to rule. I would not want to double hunter numbers and just turn them loose on the resource. But as hunter numbers continue to decline as a percentage of the population, we are going to lose hunting opportunity and it’s happening right now.

We will always be a minuscule percent of the population, but we can’t shrink and shrink with no consequences. there’s a guy in my office Who just moved here, escaping from Washington “his words”. and asked me today if he shot a deer if I would teach him how to skin it. He knows a big circle of people who may be voting on hunting someday, and if they view him in a positive light as a hunter, they may not take my hunting rights away. As it stands right now, no one in his circle knows a hunter. So I’ll be happy to teach him how to skin a deer. And if he shares it on SM, that’s a win to me.

Remember this is my personal opinion, not necessarily that of rokslide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Will_m]

Let’s get down to how this whole thing can be summed up.

More hunters is good for people that make a living in the hunting industry. More hunters is not good for hunters.

Championing bringing more hunters in as being good for the community as a whole is a position that people in the hunting industry take to defend their position in such a way that puts those opposing that position as opponents to that which they are actually trying protect: hunting.

Easing barriers to access is not good for hunters. Maybe it protects “hunting” in a form that will be unrecognizable in the long run, but it does nothing but damage what it is currently (or really, what it was as early as 10-20 years ago) our idea of hunting.

I understand y’all make a living at this and it’s probably a really enjoyable time. Please stop acting like you are riding in on a white horse and saving something. You aren’t. You’re whoring out a resource for your financial benefit.

 

[robby denning]

How much private land has been developed in the west in the last 36 years? How many new subdivisions, roads, farms sold? Would that concentrate hunters into less and less land?

Lots, yes the habitat is diminishing, one more reason to have lots of hunter support. I just read somewhere where one of our Game nFish Department bought a bunch of land the hunters can now hunt. That doesn’t happen without hunters buying hunting licenses. Same with block management and access yes in Idaho, it’s opened up thousands of acres of private land, nay not accessible before. That came from lots of hunters dollars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Next Ridge]

the part of his essay I read said something along the line that hunting license numbers are hard to find or trust

USFW site says Idaho had the following "paid hunting license holders"

in 1985, 249,974

in 2003, 245,358

in 2019, 295,281

in 2020, 288,61

in 2021 275,244

Those numbers seem believable to me, an 18% swing from low to high (but decreasing the last two years to only 10% increase now)

I really don't see that many more people out as a total. I see more people going deeper, but that leaves a void somewhere else if hunter numbers are about the same.

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.

From numbers I can get for my states elk it seems similar, yes there are swings but there isn’t a big steady trend up. Yes, there are definitely more archery hunters than in the past, offset by decline in rifle hunters.

The numbers I’d love to see but can’t find anywhere are how many of the per year hunters are on their first or second year hunt. Personally I see a lot of people try it a little but don’t stick with it. One - two years and then it just doesn’t stick. I know I’m in the minority but suspect sometime soon attrition will start to outpace recruitment even for big game western hunting.

 

[ddd-shooter]

Lots, yes the habitat is diminishing, one more reason to have lots of hunter support. I just read somewhere where one of our Game nFish Department bought a bunch of land the hunters can now hunt. That doesn’t happen without hunters buying hunting licenses. Same with block management and access yes in Idaho, it’s opened up thousands of acres of private land, nay not accessible before. That came from lots of hunters dollars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And if hunter numbers are pretty stable as is (not percentage of the general population but actual numbers) then we’re good to maintain license dollars. The fund will continue as is, or even increase as licenses become premium and states charge more for them.
We simply aren’t losing hunters like is being portrayed by some “industry” types.

 

[robby denning]

Let’s get down to how this whole thing can be summed up.

More hunters is good for people that make a living in the hunting industry. More hunters is not good for hunters.

Championing bringing more hunters in as being good for the community as a whole is a position that people in the hunting industry take to defend their position in such a way that puts those opposing that position as opponents to that which they are actually trying protect: hunting.

Easing barriers to access is not good for hunters. Maybe it protects “hunting” in a form that will be unrecognizable in the long run, but it does nothing but damage what it is currently (or really, what it was as early as 10-20 years ago) our idea of hunting.

I understand y’all make a living at this and it’s probably a really enjoyable time. Please stop acting like you are riding in on a white horse and saving something. You aren’t. You’re whoring out a resource for your financial benefit.

No, I got other ways to make a living too. If the hunting industry falls, my lack of income from it will be the least of my worries. It will be watching the North American model of game management, the best in the world, cease to exist. That’s what I’m fighting for

Everybody forgets I spend 80-90%of my hunts on public land to, right along side all these “masses“ that are ruining hunting.
Other than draw odds completely suck, I still find more hunting that I can even get to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

And if hunter numbers are pretty stable as is (not percentage of the general population but actual numbers) then we’re good to maintain license dollars. The fund will continue as is, or even increase as licenses become premium and states charge more for them.
We simply aren’t losing hunters like is being portrayed by some “industry” types.

Industry-type here (working hard to give you a place to share your ideas)

Sure, but we are losing influence. Which state just lost bear hunting for the spring or is about to? Anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brn2hnt]

And if hunter numbers are pretty stable as is (not percentage of the general population but actual numbers) then we’re good to maintain license dollars. The fund will continue as is, or even increase as licenses become premium and states charge more for them.
We simply aren’t losing hunters like is being portrayed by some “industry” types.

This entire thread is about how we are creating too many hunters with social media and other medias right? How it's becoming too easy to get into hunting, all the people on public land now, etc. Right?

And yet as you point out, we aren't losing any.

Imagine how bad hunter numbers might be if all of these various platforms, media companies, forums, etc weren't promoting as they do...

The same results for an exponential increase in inputs is a very far cry from great news.

 

[woods89]

Remember I said game management has to rule. I would not want to double hunter numbers and just turn them loose on the resource. But as hunter numbers continue to decline as a percentage of the population, we are going to lose hunting opportunity and it’s happening right now.

We will always be a minuscule percent of the population, but we can’t shrink and shrink with no consequences. there’s a guy in my office Who just moved here, escaping from Washington “his words”. and asked me today if he shot a deer if I would teach him how to skin it. He knows a big circle of people who may be voting on hunting someday, and if they view him in a positive light as a hunter, they may not take my hunting rights away. As it stands right now, no one in his circle knows a hunter. So I’ll be happy to teach him how to skin a deer. And if he shares it on SM, that’s a win to me.

Remember this is my personal opinion, not necessarily that of rokslide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough.

 

[ddd-shooter]

Industry-type here (working hard to give you a place to share your ideas)

Sure, but we are losing influence. Which state just lost bear hunting for the spring or is about to? Anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally respect the site and your work here.
Probably all of them, truth be told.
But again, we’ll never win at the ballot box on numbers alone. Every hunter needs to have 100 people who understand our benefit to the landscape and agree that they are not bloodthirsty douches. That will help.
Anyone know where lots of hunters are portrayed as big douches, visible to multitudes of people?

 

[robby denning]

Totally respect the site and your work here.
Probably all of them, truth be told.
But again, we’ll never win at the ballot box on numbers alone. Every hunter needs to have 100 people who understand our benefit to the landscape and agree that they are not bloodthirsty douches. That will help.
Anyone know where lots of hunters are portrayed as big douches, visible to multitudes of people?

Social media! What do I win?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snowy]

@robby denning appreciate your replies.

I think the concern many of us have is that hunting media is pushing demand higher and higher, taking more from the resource at an accelerated pace, but the resource continues to diminish.

@Ryan Avery @Justin Crossley @Jared Bloomgren what do you think about the article?

How do you feel about a media based relationship to hunting in light of the consistently diminishing resource?

Why do you make hunting media part of your life and career?

 

[KurtR]

How is the resource being affected by more hunters if the tag allocations stay the same? It’s less opportunity for people to draw tags but the amount killed would not change would it?

 

[prm]

The whole issue of having more hunters is a conundrum. Yes more hunters helps (maybe) with voting, etc. Though I have not seen evidence of that. The quality, and ability to hunt are declining though.
The quality of OTC hunts is not good. Not much to say there.
In my case I went 0-3 on elk draws. And I wasn’t putting in for difficult draws. As the draw situation gets more difficult it is becoming very hard to hunt the same areas year after year. I prefer to hunt areas I’ve gotten to know a bit. Not easy. I can‘t just travel out west to scout, find suitable parking areas, or do what is in my mind the basic prehunt planning to feel comfortable with a new area. I grew up in the Rockies but can’t draw the areas I really know, and apparently can’t draw the areas Ive learned over the years.
Hunting with family or friends is getting harder with the way the draws work. And then there is the cost…
I certainly don’t see anything improving with hunting.

 

[Randy Newberg]

I'm truly curious about something though. It might be rude to inquire, and forgive me the brashness of the inquiry, but you've categorized your businesses associated with hunting as a money-losing endeavor at least a couple of times now. The implication being that your efforts to promote hunting actually cost you money...and by associated that you're doing so primarily out of a self-less desire to promote an activity we all love.

Yet, I see you affiliated with multi-million dollar companies in Netflix, Leupold, OnX, Gerber, and Howa rifles to name but a few. Am I to believe that in spite of those associations you're somehow LOSING money on hunting?

Dave

Not rude at all. The "tongue in cheek" answer to why I do what I do and how I do it is ....."Because I can." (full sarcasm intended)

I'll try to explain.

I preface by stating that the reasons I do this and the reason I operate how I do. My method of operation is not for altruistic reasons. This is just what I like to do and what I want to do. This endeavor satisfies my own desire of what to do with my time during the last productive years of my life. I've had some serious health events in life that changed my perspective of what I find worthy of my time and my money, which I now see as a blessing in disguise.

I find the effort very interesting, at times very challenging, and some days very fulfilling. It's that simple; not some big charitable endeavor, not an effort to make a pile of money, just doing what I like and gives me satisfaction. Who knows, someday I might tire of it and I might want to spend my time and money doing something different.

Yes, the cumulative losses of this business since inception would be embarrassing to a CPA. My investment to keep it afloat, along with not taking a salary for me and my wife since 2008, is flat out stupid. I have some minority investors who have invested amounts in addition to that.

My wife and I have our "Board of Directors" meeting every year. She always asks, knowing what the answer would be, "Would you advise your CPA client to continue a business like this?"

That said, we have been at break-even since leaving TV after 2017. I've not had to invest any additional capital since then, with some years being a small loss and some years a small profit.

The companies we are affiliated with are great partners and have been with us for a long time. They really don't ask for anything specific, just to keep producing content that shows self-guided public land western hunting.

I could run on a much lower cost structure. I would skip the film permit gig and save $20-25K per year. I could not use two camera guys on every hunt, saving a lot of money. I could not carry liability insurance. I could lower payroll costs. I could do a lot of things differently, but I choose not to. That's on me, nobody else. I want to produce a certain amount of content, across a variety of platforms, and do it at a certain quality. All requires money.

I could take on a lot more sponsors, knowing they don't fit our message. I've turned down deals with ATV companies, much bigger boot companies, more lucrative optics and firearms agreements. But, I'd have zero credibility if every season you saw me with a different "world's best rifle/bow/whatever."

Point is, I could run the business differently and it would make a profit. But, if that requires me to do it in a way that does not accomplish our WHY or it requires us to do things that aren't why I started the business, I'll just keep at it the way I have.

Some day I might make some of my money back. If I do, I'll not feel the least bit guilty about it. I do it this way because I am blessed to be in the situation I am and this is what I prefer to do. Some would invest their time and money differently, feeling that was a good use of their time/money. I can hardly believe I live in a country where after 30 years of hard work I am now in a position to what I please, how I please, and not worry about the financial rewards. That's a blessing beyond anything I could have asked for. So long as my wife and my finances allow that, such is what I will continue to do.

I suspect we all know somebody who is in a position in their life where all their financial obligations are taken care of, they have enough to live on, and we wonder, "Why the hell do they blow their money on that?" That's me. Blowing my time and money on something people might not understand.

The only reason the topic of profit/loss has any relevance to this discussion is that the majority of comments assume that all content producers make every decision based on the financial returns. That is a logical assumption, given most businesses are operated for profit maximization. I only mention how I chose to do it when people try to claim our content, our platforms, and our strategy are all about profit maximization, when I'm that strange duck who is blessed to be able to do it for my own reasons, even in spite of what @cnelk professes to know about me, my finances, and my motivations for how I want to blow my time and money at this point of my life.

OK we disagree.

No way does a businessman not make some sort of a profit by promoting their business for years and years.

Dont piss on our boots and tell us its raining.

Good on you for making a profit, but I tend to agree with @Riflehuntr19 in what he's posted

Keep on - Keeping on

If I posted the "Retained Earnings (Deficit)" from the balance sheet of this operation, the accountants on this forum would shake their head.

But, since you know all about the numbers of this operation, "keep on keeping on."

 

[Snowy]

@KurtR tag allocations aren’t the same that’s my point. Media is dramatically influencing demand on a resource that’s diminishing for other reasons.