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

[S.Clancy]

This is what happens when making more $$$ becomes the morals of a population. Make as much as you can, unintended consequences be damned.

 

[ScottR_EHJ]

I'm going to throw this out there, as it kind of goes against some of the common belief sets driving this topic. Wyoming general deer tag sales are on a downward trend over the last 10 years. It's not astronomical but it is real. The last two years have been up but the overall number was still lower than the historical highs during that time frame.

The other telling trend in this is the number of "active" hunters in the survey.

Food for thought related to overcrowding. Is this what it is like in every western state? Well I know CO apps were up by huge numbers last year. In Wyoming the leftover list is a shell of what it once was(even though some cow/calf tags are cut way back from yesteryear) meaning more people want them straight out of the gate.

Is the popularity up? Absolutely. Is the competition up for the available tags? Absolutely. Is social media driving the apps up? Certainly helps, but it isn't the singular piece IMO(Yes, I work for and manage the social media here at Eastmans'). However, I do feel like there are more people going farther into the backcountry than in years past, the better gear we have access to is making it far more comfortable than even 10 years ago.

My gut says though that 2020 and 2021 app numbers won't stay this high forever. Hunting is hard work and as such people will head back to the grocery store. However, I don't know that we will see record low number of applications at any point soon in a game and fish newsletter.

One trend that is really interesting to me though is how many people are moving from mid to high point levels to zero and choosing opportunity hunts to keep going. That is for sure something to consider in places like CO and even Montana. Idaho addressed it by capping NR tag numbers in general hunts.

All this to say, education and social media certainly has played a role with western hunting popularity. It has it's negatives sides for sure and it has positive sides. I have made a lot of like minded friends through it. I have also done a lot of "Why in the world would you post that?" type of internal conversations.

 

[d-bone20917]

Are you saying he is a liar and doesnt get stuff like that from people?

Not at all. I think hunting celebrities get a lot of feedback from all sorts of people. My issue is with him believing that it's the posts of him with dead critters that is saving lives. After all, that's the issue Matt brings up. He agrees in his article that a lot of good things come out of social media, but he has an issue with people posting pictures with dead animals for content. It would have been nice if any of the three on that podcast read the article.

 

[Htm84]

if these guys are pushing so many to the anti side of things why is over crowding due to social media influencers a conversation?

It seems this is such a floating target conversation...hard to nail things down..

Nothing personal

Just food for thought

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. You show a guy with a dead animal to two people. One guy thinks wow that looks fun and the other guys reaction is that’s terrible nobody should be able to do that.

 

[Sawdog]

My take away from the podcast episode and the article is a few things. First - Matt HATES Meateater. Most of the comments about social media seemed to be directed directly at ME. And he HATES that Steve makes money at it. When he says - "No one asked other hunters if they are OK with all this media attention", I personally heard that as Steve didnt ask his older brother and thats not OK. There was some weird purity stuff where Matt is basically saying "if you hunt for any reason I dont like you shouldnt be here." But the main take away was what Matt really wants is to less hunting pressure and maybe instead of painting all social media with the brush of "I dont like it therefore it must be bad" brush what he seems to want and what might actually be actionable is to cut tag quotas in half in all Western States (or any place he hunts). Of course then the tag cost would need to be doubled. That seems allot more realistic than getting everyone to pass Matts purity test.

 

[Muledeerhunter406]

My take away from the podcast episode and the article is a few things. First - Matt HATES Meateater. Most of the comments about social media seemed to be directed directly at ME. And he HATES that Steve makes money at it. When he says - "No one asked other hunters if they are OK with all this media attention", I personally heard that as Steve didnt ask his older brother and thats not OK. There was some weird purity stuff where Matt is basically saying "if you hunt for any reason I dont like you shouldnt be here." But the main take away was what Matt really wants is to less hunting pressure and maybe instead of painting all social media with the brush of "I dont like it therefore it must be bad" brush what he seems to want and what might actually be actionable is to cut tag quotas in half in all Western States (or any place he hunts). Of course then the tag cost would need to be doubled. That seems allot more realistic than getting everyone to pass Matts purity test.

I think you'd be surprised how many residents would be ok with cutting tags in half and having to pay 2x more for our tags! I know I'd be 100% ok with that

 

[Idaho_Potato]

Not at all. I think hunting celebrities get a lot of feedback from all sorts of people. My issue is with him believing that it's the posts of him with dead critters that is saving lives. After all, that's the issue Matt brings up. He agrees in his article that a lot of good things come out of social media, but he has an issue with people posting pictures with dead animals for content. It would have been nice if any of the three on that podcast read the article.

Agree 100%. His instagram could be the exact same content with 98% of the dead animals removed and he would get the same result of people reaching out and stories of the motivation.

 

[CorbLand]

I think you'd be surprised how many residents would be ok with cutting tags in half and having to pay 2x more for our tags! I know I'd be 100% ok with that

If that many people support this, that should tell you that the only thing this will do is decrease the opportunity to hunt. Unless the price increase reduces demand by 50%, this would ultimately have a negative affect on opportunity.

Go to one of the LE units in Utah and tell me if reducing tags really does reduce the number of people on the landscape. People want to hunt and they will go whether they have a tag or dont.

 

[ndayton]

If that many people support this, that should tell you that the only thing this will do is decrease the opportunity to hunt. Unless the price increase reduces demand by 50%, this would ultimately have a negative affect on opportunity.

I think most residents support cutting non- res tags and raising non res prices, but would be willing to pay more if it meant they could hunt more quality hunts instead of rat racing 200 other hunters to the "best" glassing spot.

 

[Muledeerhunter406]

I think most residents support cutting non- res tags and raising non res prices, but would be willing to pay more if it meant they could hunt more quality hunts instead of rat racing 200 other hunters to the "best" glassing spot.

This is what I was getting at

 

[CorbLand]

I think most residents support cutting non- res tags and raising non res prices, but would be willing to pay more if it meant they could hunt more quality hunts instead of rat racing 200 other hunters to the "best" glassing spot.

The problem is the only way to get less people in the woods is to issue less tags. That would decrease opportunity. I live in a state that most would deem pretty terrible for opportunity. Trust me, tags in your pocket are worth more than dealing with less people. Issuing less tags also does not always equate to less people in the woods. Utah LE elk is a prime example.

Also, dont most states issue NR tags based on a percentage? So how much could you effectively decrease NR tags to really make that big of a dent in the number of people in the woods? How could you do this without decreasing resident opportunity?

 

[ndayton]

The problem is the only way to get less people in the woods is to issue less tags. That would decrease opportunity. I live in a state that most would deem pretty terrible for opportunity. Trust me, tags in your pocket are worth more than dealing with less people. Issuing less tags also does not always equate to less people in the woods. Utah LE elk is a prime example.

Also, dont most states issue NR tags based on a percentage? So how much could you effectively decrease NR tags to really make that big of a dent in the number of people in the woods? How could you do this without decreasing resident opportunity?

In my state not much change as we are 5% allocation to non res, but Wyoming that would open a lot of tags to residents if they cut available tags to non residents.
I don't know Utah so I will take your word but if 25 non resident tags get cut and moved to the resident pool then that means 25 more residents get a tag that didn't the year before thus increasing opportunity.
How much increase? Maybe negligible I don't know.

 

[CorbLand]

In my state not much change as we are 5% allocation to non res, but Wyoming that would open a lot of tags to residents if they cut available tags to non residents.
I don't know Utah so I will take your word but if 25 non resident tags get cut and moved to the resident pool then that means 25 more residents get a tag that didn't the year before thus increasing opportunity.
How much increase? Maybe negligible I don't know.

It increases opportunity for residents and I am all for that. States owe nonresidents nothing but if you transfer the tags, you will still be racing 200 people to the best glassing point.

All you did was take something from the left hand put it your right hand and think it made it better.

 

[ndayton]

It increases opportunity for residents and I am all for that. States owe nonresidents nothing but if you transfer the tags, you will still be racing 200 people to the best glassing point.

All you did was take something from the left hand put it your right hand and think it made it better.

I should clarify my rat race statement. Lets say you don't want to wait 10 years as a resident to get a good tag in Colorado so you get an OTC tag or 0-1 point tag, which is over crowded with people racing towards every bugle leading to a poor hunting experience.
If you were to move more available tags to residents by reducing non-res tags in the 10 point unit you are increasing available opportunity for that controlled hunt for residents. So maybe it then takes a resident 5 points to draw instead of 10 or maybe it does nothing again I don't know.
The point is making better hunts more accessible to residents more often.
To clarify this would screw me over on a lot of out of state tags I want to hunt, but I completely understood why Idaho did what it did and support other states if it means better hunting experiences for residents.

 

[CorbLand]

I should clarify my rat race statement. Lets say you don't want to wait 10 years as a resident to get a good tag in Colorado so you get an OTC tag or 0-1 point tag, which is over crowded with people racing towards every bugle leading to a poor hunting experience.
If you were to move more available tags to residents by reducing non-res tags in the 10 point unit you are increasing available opportunity for that controlled hunt for residents. So maybe it then takes a resident 5 points to draw instead of 10 or maybe it does nothing again I don't know.
The point is making better hunts more accessible to residents more often.
To clarify this would screw me over on a lot of out of state tags I want to hunt, but I completely understood why Idaho did what it did and support other states if it means better hunting experiences for residents.

I fully understand your point. My point is that people are going to complain about 200 people chasing the same bugle whether they get the tag once every 5 years or 10. The argument will always be that they would rather wait to have a quality hunt and bam, before you know it, you're waiting 15, 20, 25 years to get a tag. Guess what? People still complain.

I am all for what you are saying but it doesnt solve what is being discussed in this thread.

 

[CJ19]

States can do want they want with their NR/Res tags. The residents should have final say. However, I like hunting lots of different states and think it would a mistake to limit NRs to the point that people cant afford to hunt these western states.

Just dont forget, its us eastcoasters that you western residents would like to push out that are paying a significant portion of the federal money for public land resources that you are taking advantage of. I know there is court case precedent that establishes the states have the right to manage their own wildlife, but it doesnt sit well with me when resident public land hunters of western states bitch about NRs bc they want all the tags to themselves only to around and hunt federal public land that im paying taxes to fund. You push too many NR hunters out and you can kiss our support for issues like fighting againt PLT goodbye.

 

[ndayton]

I fully understand your point. My point is that people are going to complain about 200 people chasing the same bugle whether they get the tag once every 5 years or 10. The argument will always be that they would rather wait to have a quality hunt and bam, before you know it, you're waiting 15, 20, 25 years to get a tag. Guess what? People still complain.

I am all for what you are saying but it doesnt solve what is being discussed in this thread.

Please understand this isn't my hill to die on I'm not the cut tags guy. I was clarifying why someone from say Wyoming that sees 20% of their tags go to non-residents may hold this as a solution.

Personally, at this time I don't see a solution to this problem and not posting grip n grins will have little to no effect on this problem. To solve this, you would have to convince every hunter new and old to stop using the internet for hunting information. Good Luck.

 

[Will_m]

It’s Matt Rinella. I couldn’t resist weighing in. People that inspire people to hunt so they can sell them products invite the veterans to everyone else’s houses, not their own. They live in gated mansions on the hill. They hunt their fans private lands, fly to Alaska and other expensive hunting locations and enter expensive tag lotteries so they don’t have to deal with the crowding they create. Even good-hearted people that engage in R3 invite the veterans to other peoples houses, whether those people like it or not. R3 is pushy that way. I don’t believe more hunters render the future of hunting more secure. More hunters means more dumb asses putting controversial pictures on the internet. That’s how grizzly hunting got banned in B.C. More generally, 3.4% of Canadians hunt, and I don’t think the future of hunting is any less secure there than here where the number is 5%. New Zealand has 1.4% and is a hunting paradise I’m told. The future of hunting rests with getting existing hunters to fight for it, not in creating new hunters on already extremely overcrowded public land.

Can’t believe nobody has made you post a selfie holding an egg in your right hand to prove your identity yet.

Where the Internet police at??

That being said, big fan of the article, the idea and the balls to put it out there.

 

[robby denning]

Can’t believe nobody has made you post a selfie holding an egg in your right hand to prove your identity yet.

Where the Internet police at??

That being said, big fan of the article, the idea and the balls to put it out there

We talked on the phone so no egg necessary

 

[Squamch]

It’s Matt Rinella. I couldn’t resist weighing in. People that inspire people to hunt so they can sell them products invite the veterans to everyone else’s houses, not their own. They live in gated mansions on the hill. They hunt their fans private lands, fly to Alaska and other expensive hunting locations and enter expensive tag lotteries so they don’t have to deal with the crowding they create. Even good-hearted people that engage in R3 invite the veterans to other peoples houses, whether those people like it or not. R3 is pushy that way. I don’t believe more hunters render the future of hunting more secure. More hunters means more dumb asses putting controversial pictures on the internet. That’s how grizzly hunting got banned in B.C. More generally, 3.4% of Canadians hunt, and I don’t think the future of hunting is any less secure there than here where the number is 5%. New Zealand has 1.4% and is a hunting paradise I’m told. The future of hunting rests with getting existing hunters to fight for it, not in creating new hunters on already extremely overcrowded public land.

Well Matt, that's not what got grizzly hunting banned here in BC. An online poll, administered in the urban center that is greater Vancouver, got the hunt banned. The pictures that -may- have been used with that poll, could have come from hipstergram, or from any number of old books, published about hunting anywhere grizzlies have been hunted, or any of the sources in between.

The fact is, you don't like other people hunting. I get that, I have some very successful friends, and I struggle with jealousy too. However, the deal with public land in your country, is that it is for everyone to use. Bad enough so much recreational use is already banned on so much of it, excluding major user groups.

We need the largely non-hunting public to be on our side. Illustrating that, in my opinion, is best done by showing them what hunting is about. Showing that it ISN'T all about the kill...although that is 100% the goal of the operation. Posting pictures from camp, to pack, to meal, especially with animals that many people don't think are edible, helps with that. Game meat diplomacy, as I've heard it called.

Anyway, you certainly had some good points, especially about the commoditization (not totally sure that is a word, but it conveys the idea I'm getting at), of dead animals as a sales tool. Good luck hunting!