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

[Tod osier]

It is not at all the same. It’s bragging over the sacred act of killing a sentient being for food. It’s not to be made a spectacle of for the likes of strangers. We need to wake up to the fact that bragging over dead animals is more consequential and perverse than bragging over basketball trophies.

I'm with you on 99% of your arguments, but do not agree on the sacred act of killing sentiment. We are meant to hunt, we enjoy it, it is a natural part of our being, I see it no more consequential then that and there is something that resonates to me in a grip and grin. I love grip and grins and they make me feel good to see someone's success: grip and grins of kids, grip and grins of old men when they were young, grip and grins with a good dog, grip and grins with a hard earned animal of a lifetime... What brought the grip and grin about is what is problematic for me... if the animal was killed for the grip and grin rather than for the hunt and for the meat - that is the problem.

 

[CHSD]

It is not at all the same. It’s bragging over the sacred act of killing a sentient being for food. It’s not to be made a spectacle of for the likes of strangers. We need to wake up to the fact that bragging over dead animals is more consequential and perverse than bragging over basketball trophies.

Do you never talk about your hunts with your buddies? If you talk about your kills is that not, "Bragging over sacred act of killing a sentient being for food." Do you take any pictures of you and your kills? I would suggest that most people that post their kills to their personal social media account is not bragging to strangers, but to their friends, families and colleagues. And most of those people, I would wager, are not receiving any monitorial gain from posting the pictures.

I completely agree that killing is a sacred act. 100%! Killing for the sake of content I personally view as wrong.

I also think that a bigger issues is commercialization of hunting. Outfitters gain to much pull with legislators allowing for more non resident license to be sold. I have personally seen many private lands that landowners would allow hunting on and now the elitists pay them out for hunting rights so their big dollar clients can hunt. And now the little guy can no longer hunt the same fields. Which I cannot grip to much about because I do not blame the farmer for taking the cash.

 

[wmr89]

Why should hunters that have been quietly going about their business as long or longer than Steve and Randy have to have their experiences ruined by them hyping up hunting to make a buck? And I mean literally ruined. I sometimes see 30-40 trucks at trailheads in the state where Steve and Randy live.

This is the heart of the Matt Rinella argument. "I don't like that people shared their passion and inspired others. There were truck parked at a public land trail head! Trucks! Other hunters on public lands using tags that the state legally issued! How dare they! How dare they find out that the thing I am passionate about is an extremely fulfilling pastime! I have been here longer and I don't want these new people enjoying my hobby."

I think that more new hunters are connecting with nature and their heritage than trying to get likes. There are more hikers, mountain bikers, campers, backpackers AND hunters utilizing public resources these days. Social media plays a part, certainly. People see it on social media and it resonates with something deep inside their nature. That is why these new hunters stick around after they find out that elk hunting is not a simple as Joe Rogan makes it seem on the Deseret Ranch (Side bar: When has Joe ever been anything but transparent about hunting big ranches and not public land?). It is important to recognize the increase in hunter participation and adjust accordingly. Protecting the resource is more important than satisfying every hunter. Yes, this means hunting has changed. You may not be able to draw that same elk tag every year. States may have to stop offering unlimited OTC tags. Does that suck? Yes, but being a hunter for longer than someone else doesn't mean you have rights to a public resource over someone else. The more people who are connected to hunting and have a positive view of it, the more likely this way of life will exist at all going forward.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

The only thing people get mad about is the truth

Nah you ever seen the kinda donnybrook you can start by saying the AR15 stands for Assault Rifle 15 and it was made by Mattel?

People get mad about truth but they also get mad about opinion and about lies and about opinions about which character was wrong on the last episode of friends. This "people are mad so i must be right" stuff is hot garbage.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

This is the heart of the Matt Rinella argument. "I don't like that people shared their passion and inspired others. There were truck parked at a public land trail head! Trucks! Other hunters on public lands using tags that the state legally issued! How dare they! How dare they find out that the thing I am passionate about is an extremely fulfilling pastime! I have been here longer and I don't want these new people enjoying my hobby."

It's not the heart of the argument, I think you just want it to be the heart so you can dismiss the whole discussion without putting in any thought.

 

[woods89]

This is the heart of the Matt Rinella argument. "I don't like that people shared their passion and inspired others. There were truck parked at a public land trail head! Trucks! Other hunters on public lands using tags that the state legally issued! How dare they! How dare they find out that the thing I am passionate about is an extremely fulfilling pastime! I have been here longer and I don't want these new people enjoying my hobby."

I think that more new hunters are connecting with nature and their heritage than trying to get likes. There are more hikers, mountain bikers, campers, backpackers AND hunters utilizing public resources these days. Social media plays a part, certainly. People see it on social media and it resonates with something deep inside their nature. That is why these new hunters stick around after they find out that elk hunting is not a simple as Joe Rogan makes it seem on the Deseret Ranch (Side bar: When has Joe ever been anything but transparent about hunting big ranches and not public land?). It is important to recognize the increase in hunter participation and adjust accordingly. Protecting the resource is more important than satisfying every hunter. Yes, this means hunting has changed. You may not be able to draw that same elk tag every year. States may have to stop offering unlimited OTC tags. Does that suck? Yes, but being a hunter for longer than someone else doesn't mean you have rights to a public resource over someone else. The more people who are connected to hunting and have a positive view of it, the more likely this way of life will exist at all going forward.

How many more people?

Everyone I've asked agrees that doubling hunter numbers from 5% to 10% would be unsustainable. Private land is mostly saturated at this point so the vast majority would wind up on public. So from that we can say that the level of sustainability is somewhere between 6 and 9%. What gains are we going to make from 6-9% that are not being made with 5%? And will they offset the issues caused by extra pressure?

I'm honestly asking, and I'm open to having my mind changed. But no-one so far has been able to give a good answer other than that we need more hunters.

If this should be a sport wide push, don't we need some goal posts?

 

[kwackkillncrew]

how many people who are against matts argument are people going west to go hunt? I would bet its alot of them. I would put money on it that if the rolls were reversed and the Eastern states were like the west and people from the west were going east to hunt they would say the same thing that matt is saying. Regardless of what it is keep it down in the lower 48 please.

 

[wmr89]

It's not the heart of the argument, I think you just want it to be the heart so you can dismiss the whole discussion without putting in any thought.

No, it is. If you listen to the podcasts he always come back to crowding. He brings up valid points that are worth consideration when trying to support his argument, but it always comes back to too many hunters. And since there are too many hunters, "traditional hunters" can't hunt the way they used too. Should wildlife be exploited for profit? How do we handle crowding? Are too many hunters a strain on the resource? Important issues, and I do believe he cares about them. I don't think he is jealous of Steve. I think he just wants to pull up to his hunting spot and not see anyone else. I can't blame him.

 

[wapitibob]

How many more people?

Everyone I've asked agrees that doubling hunter numbers from 5% to 10% would be unsustainable. Private land is mostly saturated at this point so the vast majority would wind up on public. So from that we can say that the level of sustainability is somewhere between 6 and 9%. What gains are we going to make from 6-9% that are not being made with 5%? And will they offset the issues caused by extra pressure?

I'm honestly asking, and I'm open to having my mind changed. But no-one so far has been able to give a good answer other than that we need more hunters.

If this should be a sport wide push, don't we need some goal posts?

It's a problem for OTC hunt areas, limited entry takes care of its self. Where everybody sees it is in overall draw odds, and I don't have a problem with that. I'll take the odds hit for a larger base and new hunters getting to experience what I've taken for granted for 50 years.

 

[Dirtbag]

how many people who are against matts argument are people going west to go hunt? I would bet its alot of them. I would put money on it that if the rolls were reversed and the Eastern states were like the west and people from the west were going east to hunt they would say the same thing that matt is saying. Regardless of what it is keep it down in the lower 48 please.

Nope, sorry as soon as my accubow sponsorship contract is signed and can cover the cost I'll be up there. I'll post some pics of my trip to get my next sponsorship, I want to hunt the Yukon as well.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

Regardless of what it is keep it down in the lower 48 please.

I wouldn't hold your breath. This last year there seemed to be a rash of DIY alaska hunts all over social media. Newberg did one, Kifaru, Hush etc. Just rent a van and head up the haul road lol. OTC tags, outfitter and transporters, whole shebang. There is clearly money to be shaken out of the alaska wilderness too.

 

[ddd-shooter]

It's a problem for OTC hunt areas, limited entry takes care of its self. Where everybody sees it is in overall draw odds, and I don't have a problem with that. I'll take the odds hit for a larger base.

To his question, how much larger of a base?
100,000 hunters?
1,000,000?
15,000,000 would still only put us at roughly 10% of the pop, as we currently have about that many

 

[woods89]

It's a problem for OTC hunt areas, limited entry takes care of its self. Where everybody sees it is in overall draw odds, and I don't have a problem with that. I'll take the odds hit for a larger base and new hunters getting to experience what I've taken for granted for 50 years.

Extreme example, I know, but how are you going to maintain that larger base if big game tags are 5 years apart for everyone?

Maybe it will be a self correcting problem.

 

[3forks]

It's a problem for OTC hunt areas, limited entry takes care of its self. Where everybody sees it is in overall draw odds, and I don't have a problem with that. I'll take the odds hit for a larger base and new hunters getting to experience what I've taken for granted for 50 years.

What you’ve experienced and taken for granted for the last 50 years is a far different experience from what hunting is today.

 

[Btaylor]

how many people who are against matts argument are people going west to go hunt? I would bet its alot of them. I would put money on it that if the rolls were reversed and the Eastern states were like the west and people from the west were going east to hunt they would say the same thing that matt is saying. Regardless of what it is keep it down in the lower 48 please.

Western states do not have exclusive claim to being over run with NR hunters. I have pulled into a local hunting store near where I do a lot of my hunting and there were 18 vehicles in the lot including mine and 13 states represented.

 

[CorbLand]

The only thing that caused our perspectives to diverge was one of us started to get fame and money from hunting and the other kept on doing it for the traditional reasons.

This is where the argument will always break down. There is no "industry" standard to what "traditional" reasons are. This is left up to interpretation and anytime you or anyone else tries to define it, it will be the definition that you or they see fit to make the argument trying to be made. Because of this, it will never hold any weight and will always be seen as "selfish."

I don't buy the argument that you are jealous of your brothers success. Success is arbitrarily defined, just like a traditional hunter is. The West is known for people having larger families. As long as people are having kids, there will be more and more hunters in the woods.

Social media has influenced hunting. I saw it first hand when I was in college. People would find out I liked hunting and start talking to me about the Hush boys, Hanes or Born and Raised and how badass they were. My response was always 180 deer and 350 bulls are badass.

Good luck Matt, I agree with what you are saying and disagree with what you are saying. Its going to be an uphill battle for this one and I commend you for sticking your neck out. If there is one thing that you do not differ from your brother on its the sound of your voice. Holy shit does that get confusing sometimes.

 

[EastMT]

These are good thoughts. Thanks. Yes, Newberg and Steve have been good for our reputation among non-hunters. What I take issue with is the crowding they cause on what were already overcrowded areas. It’s not that they’ve merely made nonhunters view hunters more positively, they’ve made nonhunters hunters. Why should hunters that have been quietly going about their business as long or longer than Steve and Randy have to have their experiences ruined by them hyping up hunting to make a buck? And I mean literally ruined. I sometimes see 30-40 trucks at trailheads in the state where Steve and Randy live. I know Steve takes major issue with spot pirating, but I believe these guys have spot pirated the entire universe of public land hunting locations. And I don’t know about Randy, but I can tell you Steve would be every bit as annoyed about the hype as I am had he chosen a different career path. If you want to know what Steve would think about hunting social media and hunting tv had he chosen to work in another area, then all you have to do is look at what I think. Up until 12 years ago, Steve and me were hunting partners that held exactly the same views on hunting. The only thing that caused our perspectives to diverge was one of us started to get fame and money from hunting and the other kept on doing it for the traditional reasons.

I live across town from you, and I quit hunting this year when the rut hit, ate my tag. This year was definitely the most disgusting year for me.

I drew a Wyoming tag, went down for a week (was supposed to be). There were camps 200yds apart, packed completely full, it was nuts. I don’t hunt to meet people in the woods. I picked the nastiest, steepest hell hole I figured nobody was dumb enough to go down, headed in. First deer I saw was a forky, said screw it I’m done and took him home. I don’t enjoy hunting in crowds, would rather not go.

It was so packed around home, every square of public was 2-3 trucks. I told my wife I was done, didn’t fill the Montana tag. My wife was shocked, I told her I’d wait until season was done and hunt coyotes, no crowds.

There are so many places on the hunting videos that I recognize exact spots, I can show you the exact hill Randy killed his sheep. It’s a high traffic area anyway, may be why the guide took them there, but that video blew it out even more I’m sure. I really like all these guys and listen, but I do disagree with the methods sometimes.

 

[wmr89]

How many more people?

Everyone I've asked agrees that doubling hunter numbers from 5% to 10% would be unsustainable. Private land is mostly saturated at this point so the vast majority would wind up on public. So from that we can say that the level of sustainability is somewhere between 6 and 9%. What gains are we going to make from 6-9% that are not being made with 5%? And will they offset the issues caused by extra pressure?

I'm honestly asking, and I'm open to having my mind changed. But no-one so far has been able to give a good answer other than that we need more hunters.

If this should be a sport wide push, don't we need some goal posts?

"How many" depends on your goal. Hunting is already unsustainable in many areas and has been for a long time. Point creep has been around since before social media. For a majority of Americans it is not realistic to only consume wild game meat unless they want a mostly vegetarian lifestyle. Pretending that the influx of hunters in the last few years has changed that is just not realistic. The gains to be made with adding 5% of the population would be that every one of those people has a family, has co-workers, has friends. And they can shed a positive light on hunting to those people. They can discuss legislation regarding hunting with people who would have otherwise just assumed hunting is bad. I'm not here to say "we need more hunters!" But I am saying that more people having a positive view of hunting is a good thing. If your goal if for you to never have someone in your hunting spot or to always get the tag you want. Then your goal is a lot less hunters. More pressure means stricter control on tags to reduce the effects on the resource. Yes, that is an unfortunate consequence of hunting growing in popularity . Personally, I wish there were less hunters AND more support of hunting by the public. That just isn't realistic. And who am I to be the gatekeeper and say someone else shouldn't be hunting?

 

[bozeman]

That's why I am glad I invested in 640 acres in CO and 280 acres in KS........

 

[3forks]

Western states do not have exclusive claim to being over run with NR hunters. I have pulled into a local hunting store near where I do a lot of my hunting and there were 18 vehicles in the lot including mine and 13 states represented.

Honest question, but are those 13 different state plates all from white tail states?

I ask because I wonder if that’s regional guys maximizing hunting opportunities in states close to them.

I‘ve never seen a post on this site where some western guy starts off with “Hey white tail guys… I’m not looking for your honey hole, but can you lead me by the hand so I can kill my first WT?”