Very interesting podcast episode

[DeerCamp]

I enjoyed the poacher podcast that ATHiker shared, and then I stumbled on this one.

I knew that Steve Rinella and his brother Matt no longer have a relationship, but they haven't really talked about it much. I was curious what happened. Well, I found my answer.

If you skip to around the 87 minute mark, they really get into the bones of it.

Ep. 304: The Fish Shack's Revenge - A Tiki Christmas Family Feud Extravaganza Blowout | MeatEater Podcasts

I also found the topic really interesting. I won't say that I agree with Matt, but I do understand him. I'll refrain from posting other thoughts until you guys get a chance to listen.

 

[MidTennFisher]

This episode is from close to two years ago when Matt first started making headlines with his anti-R3 stance. He has been able to make his point a whole lot better and has refined his statements and approach to things as of lately. I was on his podcast a while back discussing some issues here in SC that social media has exacerbated.

For those that don't know what R3 is, I call it Revenue, Revenue, Revenue. Those who stand to make money off of it call it Recruitment, Retainment, and Reactivation.

I would suggest to anyone who listens to the above podcast to also watch the below episode of Matt speaking to a crowd at the Pope and Young Convention not too long ago. He does a much better job at making his point as to not appear as he's been accused of. Which is not wanting any new hunters or that he's jealous of his brother. It is easy to jump to that conclusion because you saw other people say that, but I don't believe either of those.

 

[DeerCamp]

This episode is from close to two years ago when Matt first started making headlines with his anti-R3 stance. He has been able to make his point a whole lot better and has refined his statements and approach to things as of lately. I was on his podcast a while back discussing some issues here in SC that social media has exacerbated.

For those that don't know what R3 is, I call it Revenue, Revenue, Revenue. Those who stand to make money off of it call it Recruitment, Retainment, and Reactivation.

I would suggest to anyone who listens to the above podcast to also watch the below episode of Matt speaking to a crowd at the Pope and Young Convention not too long ago. He does a much better job at making his point as to not appear as he's been accused of. Which is not wanting any new hunters or that he's jealous of his brother. It is easy to jump to that conclusion because you saw other people say that, but I don't believe either of those.

My first conclusion was drawn listening to the very podcast I linked. I had never anything about him. In this episode, Matt constantly complains about overcrowding and not wanting more hunters.

He may have revised his argument since, but that's clearly where his head was at that time.

 

[MidTennFisher]

My first conclusion was drawn listening to the very podcast I linked. I had never anything about him. In this episode, Matt constantly complains about overcrowding and not wanting more hunters.

He may have revised his argument since, but that's clearly where his head was at that time.

Yea he is wording things much better these days and even acknowledged he needed to do so. I don't agree with everything he's said but I do think it's important for everyone to listen to him recently to see how he has fine tuned his stance on things. That's why I posted the link.

 

[DeerCamp]

Yea he is wording things much better these days and even acknowledged he needed to do so. I don't agree with everything he's said but I do think it's important for everyone to listen to him recently to see how he has fine tuned his stance on things. That's why I posted the link.

Watching now. I don't think any of his arguments are without merit, but they also don't reconcile with each other.

The average hunter in American right now is nearing 50 years old. Hunters in the 16-25 age group has almost reduced by 50%. Yes, there are more hunters and less land, but in the not too distant future the biggest group of those hunters is going to age out of the sport.

Hunter recruitment is a misguided target here. If we don't have enough younger hunters in the future, this conversation is irrelevant.

He comes off as appearing to have a sense of entitlement towards land access, tags and permits.

 

[DMD]

I didn't listen to any of the above, but the posts on this thread raised my antenna. I think about this quandary often. I, selfishly, wish I was the only person in America who hunted. Lol. And, a part of me gets frustrated with the attitude of people constantly trying to recruit new hunters. Land access in parts of Tennessee is dwindling fast. Heck, I remember when you could find a tracts of private land to hunt free, and 10s of thousands of acres of land company land everywhere. Not so much anymore. So, why do I want to recruit more competition, when our resources and opportunities are dwindling. There are plenty of deer but less and less land to hunt. BUT....I also know this - the ONLY thing keeping hunting legal is the number of hunters. The public attitude towards hunting and hunters is swiftly trending against us. Between Hollywood, slob hunters ( who turn the average citizen against hunters), and social media (where people can find other anti hunters and work together) - we are facing an inevitable tidal wave of anti hunting and anti hunter attitude. The only way to fight that is with maintaining and increasing numbers of hunters. So, what are we to do?

 

[th88]

100% on board with Hunt Quietly and Matt Rinella. As another poster mentioned, he has really refined his points and podcasting skills. In the beginning, some of the podcasts were a bit rough to listen to but they've gotten much better. YouTubers and Hunting Influencers have jacked hunting up big time for folks all across the nation. Especially public land hunters and hunters out west. A great example of it here in the east is the continued loss of public land turkey hunting opportunities. Which by the way, there is an episode on that too (Episode 42: Turkey Promotion)

Episode 42. Turkey Promotion - Hunt Quietly (podcast) | Listen Notes

When folks lose their place to hunt, can't afford a lease anymore, can't draw a tag, all three of which are compounding at astonishing rates, how are we supposed to keep hunters? You can recruit all the hunters you want, but they must have a place to hunt that will give them somewhat of a quality experience!

 

[BSK]

I would suggest to anyone who listens to the above podcast to also watch the below episode of Matt speaking to a crowd at the Pope and Young Convention not too long ago. He does a much better job at making his point as to not appear as he's been accused of. Which is not wanting any new hunters or that he's jealous of his brother. It is easy to jump to that conclusion because you saw other people say that, but I don't believe either of those.

Thanks so much for posting that video MidTennFisher. You are correct that he has refined his arguments much more successfully than in the past. ATHiker had turned me on to Matt's Meateater podcast, and I have to admit, after listening to several of them, I came away thinking Matt was a selfish whiner whose goal was to get other hunters off the public land he wants to hunt.

In the above video presentation, Matt brings up some very important points. However, to be honest, I don't know what the solutions are, nor have I heard anyone else come up with viable ideas.

 

[AT Hiker]

I hadn't listened to many of Matt's podcast lately, for no reason other than I got caught up on other ones. So, a couple weeks ago I pull his up and see that they are interviewing Danny Rinella. How many dang Rinellas are there? They are all involved in the outdoor realm too, must have been a very strong family influence.

For the record, I don't recommend that episode unless you are into Alaska fishing.

Anyways, I don't see how you can argue with Matt's stance. I'm guilty of a lot of what he speaks up against, many of us are whether you want to admit it or not.

Social media influencers have ruined so much. They admit it now as well, I mean many are now going on outfitted or trespass type hunts because they cannot get tags anymore. Or, they have a "guest" on who has the tag and someone tags along and documents it.
Or, they get invited by fan boy to hunt with them on their premier property.

It is not just hot spotting or giving away honey holes either. It's the social media presence that allures so many people to get involved in something that they never would have if social media never existed. This is not just specific to hunting. Hiking trail heads are full now, walk down the trail and you're likely to encounter a "influencer" with a camera stuck in their face.

I'll give you another example. Just today, at a family birthday party, I was talking with my sister in law about their recent Las Vegas trip(they go every MLK weekend) Her exact words "it was weird this year, I've never seen so many people talking to smart phones stuck in their faces. They even have them now with lights all around the phone and carriers attached to their waste".

EVERYONE is an influencer now. When you influence something that offers very little room for new patrons, it gets busy real fast.

As for outfitters and leasing. It's simple, people with the means choose not to deal with the masses so they dish out the dollars. Matt uses the milk river as an example; before it got its name from TV hunters people had ample and free access to hunt those nice whitetails. It got famous, then it got busy, then it went to the highest bidder.

In my short tenure of out of state hunting, things have drastically changed. Most have been negative. Harder to draw tags, more pressure, less access….

What took me a decade to learn can now be learned on YouTube in one winter, for free. On the surface it sounds great but in reality the system isn't set up for it.

*I typed all that out on my phone. Hopefully it's coherent, I'm not proofreading it.

 

[AT Hiker]

I didn't listen to any of the above, but the posts on this thread raised my antenna. I think about this quandary often. I, selfishly, wish I was the only person in America who hunted. Lol. And, a part of me gets frustrated with the attitude of people constantly trying to recruit new hunters. Land access in parts of Tennessee is dwindling fast. Heck, I remember when you could find a tracts of private land to hunt free, and 10s of thousands of acres of land company land everywhere. Not so much anymore. So, why do I want to recruit more competition, when our resources and opportunities are dwindling. There are plenty of deer but less and less land to hunt. BUT....I also know this - the ONLY thing keeping hunting legal is the number of hunters. The public attitude towards hunting and hunters is swiftly trending against us. Between Hollywood, slob hunters ( who turn the average citizen against hunters), and social media (where people can find other anti hunters and work together) - we are facing an inevitable tidal wave of anti hunting and anti hunter attitude. The only way to fight that is with maintaining and increasing numbers of hunters. So, what are we to do?

IMO, we should recruit Hunter supporters, not hunters. Hunters will come naturally, think holistic and grass roots.

Shane Mahoney makes a good argument for wild game consumption. Essentially he says that a few hunters can feed many people.

Think about it. The landscape cannot support the number of hunters it would take to make a difference in the financial or political realm. So let's assume 5% of the US population hunts, even if we doubled that or tripled it, we would never make the majority. So let's keep that number to a manageable level so our minority can enjoy the sport. Then, we recruit Hunter supporters, feed them delicious wild protein and assist them in managing a landscape that flourishes with wild things.

That's the kind of majority that we all benefit from.

 

[BSK]

IMO, we should recruit Hunter supporters, not hunters. Hunters will come naturally, think holistic and grass roots.

Shane Mahoney makes a good argument for wild game consumption. Essentially he says that a few hunters can feed many people.

If I were an organizer (which I'm not) and a great wild game cook (which I'm not), I would find some community event and set up a booth where non-hunters can try different types of freshly cooked wild game meat. That might be a great way to create more hunter supporters.

 

[DeerCamp]

I hadn't listened to many of Matt's podcast lately, for no reason other than I got caught up on other ones. So, a couple weeks ago I pull his up and see that they are interviewing Danny Rinella. How many dang Rinellas are there? They are all involved in the outdoor realm too, must have been a very strong family influence.

For the record, I don't recommend that episode unless you are into Alaska fishing.

Anyways, I don't see how you can argue with Matt's stance. I'm guilty of a lot of what he speaks up against, many of us are whether you want to admit it or not.

Social media influencers have ruined so much. They admit it now as well, I mean many are now going on outfitted or trespass type hunts because they cannot get tags anymore. Or, they have a "guest" on who has the tag and someone tags along and documents it.
Or, they get invited by fan boy to hunt with them on their premier property.

It is not just hot spotting or giving away honey holes either. It's the social media presence that allures so many people to get involved in something that they never would have if social media never existed. This is not just specific to hunting. Hiking trail heads are full now, walk down the trail and you're likely to encounter a "influencer" with a camera stuck in their face.

I'll give you another example. Just today, at a family birthday party, I was talking with my sister in law about their recent Las Vegas trip(they go every MLK weekend) Her exact words "it was weird this year, I've never seen so many people talking to smart phones stuck in their faces. They even have them now with lights all around the phone and carriers attached to their waste".

EVERYONE is an influencer now. When you influence something that offers very little room for new patrons, it gets busy real fast.

As for outfitters and leasing. It's simple, people with the means choose not to deal with the masses so they dish out the dollars. Matt uses the milk river as an example; before it got its name from TV hunters people had ample and free access to hunt those nice whitetails. It got famous, then it got busy, then it went to the highest bidder.

In my short tenure of out of state hunting, things have drastically changed. Most have been negative. Harder to draw tags, more pressure, less access….

What took me a decade to learn can now be learned on YouTube in one winter, for free. On the surface it sounds great but in reality the system isn't set up for it.

*I typed all that out on my phone. Hopefully it's coherent, I'm not proofreading it.

This is why I said none of his points are without Merit but I don't think they all resonate together.

The one that I definitely agree with is the people who are primarily hunting for attention. I don't think this is Steven Rinella. I was always drawn to meat eater because I felt like that was the kind of Hunter I wanted to be.

I think the fact that he is willing to be estranged from his brother over opinions on hunting tells you a lot about the kind of person that he is

 

[Antler Daddy]

If I were an organizer (which I'm not) and a great wild game cook (which I'm not), I would find some community event and set up a booth where non-hunters can try different types of freshly cooked wild game meat. That might be a great way to create more hunter supporters.

That is exactly what the Field to Table r3 employees do in GA. Then they find people to train on special weekends and they get special access hunting.