Interesting essay on hunting by Matt Rinella

[P7M13]

Saw this link over on rokslide.
One quote I saw early in the essay was, "The US simply doesn't have the habitat needed to support the wildlife and hunters it used to." I would correct that to The US public hunting grounds simply....
Though, I would say, here in Oregon there is plenty of public land supporting populations that hide well enough to skunk most hunters.

I don't watch hunting channels after seeing fifteen minutes of one, which was nothing more than product placement of high dollar items and offered no learning.

Opinion: Unfollowing Hunting Social Media Will Make Hunting Better

Matt Rinella explains why he thinks hunters should shun social media and only share hunting photos with loved ones and IRL friends.

webcache.googleusercontent.com

Read More

 

[BillyJean]

It's an interesting article and POV for sure. He was also just on his brother Steven's podcast where the two of them really got into it pretty hard discussing the article.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

While I understand the writers intent...I disagree.

I hunt...I am a hunter...there is no shame in being a hunter , I have no real need or pressing reason to hide what I enjoy.

That said...I also know folks that dislike hunting and hunters and would use my passion for hunting and the fact that I am hunter to insult or otherwise abuse me.
So again...I understand the writers intent....Just don't agree to it.
Since my hunting does me or others no harm.

I also don't "harvest" ...as a hunter I may kill an animal...but "Harvest"...Nope.
Killing is killing...changing the name to harvest does not make a whit of difference to the animal.
Killing while hunting should be done respectfully...as in respect to the animal hunted , the land hunted in and to the hunter's shooting and hunting skill.

As a side note...I don't take or post pictures of the animals I kill...
I simply don't like to...which is all that means...not that I am right...or that my way is better...
It just means that I don't 'cause I don't like to...not that others must do as I do.
Andy

 

[Bobbygun]

While I understand the writers intent...I disagree.

I hunt...I am a hunter...there is no shame in being a hunter , I have no real need or pressing reason to hide what I enjoy.

That said...I also know folks that dislike hunting and hunters and would use my passion for hunting and the fact that I am hunter to insult or otherwise abuse me.
So again...I understand the writers intent....Just don't agree to it.
Since my hunting does me or others no harm.

I also don't "harvest" ...as a hunter I may kill an animal...but "Harvest"...Nope.
Killing is killing...changing the name to harvest does not make a whit of difference to the animal.
Killing while hunting should be done respectfully...as in respect to the animal hunted , the land hunted in and to the hunter's shooting and hunting skill.

As a side note...I don't take or post pictures of the animals I kill...
I simply don't like to...which is all that means...not that I am right...or that my way is better...
It just means that I don't 'cause I don't like to...not that others must do as I do.
Andy

I will have to give the article more thought, because I agree with everything you said, except the part about disagreeing with the author. Maybe we focused on different things as far as what the author's intent was? I agreed with much of what he wrote.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@Bobbygun
I disagree with author...because he writes as if he is right...and if you do otherwise , you are wrong.
As that is how it read and still reads to me , after a 2nd and 3rd reading.
Andy

 

[Bobbygun]

@Andy54Hawken

Oh, okay. That I can buy into.

I did agree with many of the individual points he made though. Especially regarding private hunts, expectations, and crowding on public lands.

It's a tough situation. Much is made about hunter recruitment, but the last thing I need is more human competition where I hunt. The animals are already spooked enough from the wolves, bears and cougars. The bucks are nearly universally nocturnal. Elk are terribly call shy. It wasn't always this way. The Spring bear tags in Southwestern Oregon used to be over the counter, first come first served. Now they are in a draw where last year there were nearly 1,000 more applicants than tags available.

 

[Xaevian]

As he posts his elitist opinion on social media...

 

[Caveman Jim]

As he posts his elitist opinion on social media...

I've got an interesting observation that would clear this all up, let's just get rid of the Internet, social media, the whole ball of wax lets EMP the world.
He probably sits when he pees.

 

[Idaho44]

Read and skimmed the article, agree with most of what I read. I was fortunate to have 'hunted' when it was an obscure outdoor pursuit (subsistence hunting). Don't hunt today, since I don't consume much meat and physically hard to walk the hills thanks to arthritis. Most if not all the 'honey holes' I hunted are overrun with 'sportsmen' type hunters and they 'hunt' like it's a military exercise.

 

[fishpoem]

While I understand the writers intent...I disagree.

I hunt...I am a hunter...there is no shame in being a hunter , I have no real need or pressing reason to hide what I enjoy.

That said...I also know folks that dislike hunting and hunters and would use my passion for hunting and the fact that I am hunter to insult or otherwise abuse me.
So again...I understand the writers intent....Just don't agree to it.
Since my hunting does me or others no harm.

I also don't "harvest" ...as a hunter I may kill an animal...but "Harvest"...Nope.
Killing is killing...changing the name to harvest does not make a whit of difference to the animal.
Killing while hunting should be done respectfully...as in respect to the animal hunted , the land hunted in and to the hunter's shooting and hunting skill.

As a side note...I don't take or post pictures of the animals I kill...
I simply don't like to...which is all that means...not that I am right...or that my way is better...
It just means that I don't 'cause I don't like to...not that others must do as I do.
Andy

A comment on "harvest," a term more properly applied to agriculture. I hunted much of a lifetime, studied sports hunting for a Ph.D. thesis, then on a Guggenheim fellowship studied subsistence hunters. Hunting by definition involves killing, so it's interesting how subsistence hunters refrain from using "kill" to explain what they do. More typically, they use "catch," as in catching the animal's spirit. Hunting, as a phenomenon, is far more complex psychologically than the average person realizes - especially anti-hunters. I started writing a book about it, never finished. Probably should finish one of these days. The truth is that hunting lives deep inside each of us. It has to. That was our primary economy activity for over 300,000 years. What we have now - markets full of food, restaurants everywhere, bountiful resources - is an extreme historical anomaly. This era represents less than 1/2% of our history and unlikely to last. Once the mega eco-corrections begin, which they will within a century or two, hunting will be back on center stage. There will no choice. And it won't be easy...

 

[RVTECH]

I'll accept some of the 'points' the author made but several things he said are essentially wrong or inaccurate.

So, even if there are a few less hunters, those hunters are buying more licenses and spending more time crowding the woods.

This is not entirely correct. For one thing hunters don't buy 'more licenses'. If he is referring to putting in for additional draw tags hunters have been putting in for multiple tags ever since the draws started. AND the hunts typically don't overlap so there are NOT more hunters 'crowding the woods'

No matter how great areas look in terms of feed and cover, game can't live where there are hunters on every ridge.

This also makes no sense. There are only so many tags allocated so there will only be one hunter per tag in the woods. He makes it sound like it is an unregulated free for all.

The US simply doesn't have the habitat needed to support the wildlife and hunters it used to.

Yes it can AND there are overall fewer hunters in general. I do not know near the numbers I used to, say only 20 years ago and I know of many who stopped hunting altogether. AND lets not forget - the long term ratio has been approx. 10 % of the hunters kill 90 % of the game.

Also, since the 1980s, the American landscape has changed in major ways. The US population size has increased by a third, the square footage of housing per person has doubled, and many former hunting spots are consequently residential neighborhoods now.

While this is probably true it has NOT decreased 'hunting spots' by a third. Most new housing is built as the cities grow outward and does not dramatically affecting hunting areas. I can speak from experience having lived in Central Oregon since Bend was 12, 500 population to nearly 99 K now and while this is an approximate increase of 692 % we have NOT lost 692 % of hunting areas.

There is more but that's just some of what I saw I didn't quite agree with.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I hunt , therefore I am.

I hunt for many reasons ...some of which are easy to articulate...others not so much....
Any of which can be difficult for the non-hunter or anti-hunter to understand.
To be honest I don't over think / over worry much about that.

With that said...
When hunting or doing anything firearm /Archery related in public or potential public view , I do my best to not appear as the stereotype "slob hunter / slob shooter".
I keep a clean camp...clean up after my activities , etc...

A few years ago... I helped some mushroom hunters , get "un-lost" as well as feeding them and getting some hot coffee into their cold wet bodies....they were surprised at my actions...since I did not fit their expectations of a hunter.
( Which they stated )

I relate the above , because....
There is no crime or shame in being a hunter.
That just because someone judges you...it may not be you...after all , they are the ones judging or make assumptions about you.
Andy

 

[ZigZagZeke]

"...crowding the woods."

Yeah, right...


"Matt Rinella is a research ecologist and a lifelong hunter and angler." Yes, all the rabid "ecologists" identify as "lifelong hunter and anglers".

 

[RVTECH]

.since I did not fit their expectations of a hunter.
( Which they stated )

To what 'expectations' were they 'expecting' of a hunter - as per their statements ?

 

[Koda]

There is so many variables to this its hard to pick where to begin. But a couple of points is I agree social media can harm hunting's image and hunters should use care what they post. In other ways social media can help hunting by advocating ethics and conservation and reaching out to new hunters. Its always so easy to point fingers at social media but in reality its no different than real life, back in the day people used to strap the severed heads of their trophy kills to their bumpers for the drive home and many hunters advocated to stop doing that.

The population grows, the US has roughly tripled its population in just the last 100 years. Once can roughly correlate that to about 3x as many hunters? I haven't tracked if there are more hunters now, hunting pressure has always been a thing on public lands. The good news is at least here in the west we have lots of public lands but there are other variables that affect wildlife populations like drought, disease, habitat loss etc. Over the years good tags have become harder to draw, its currently taking me about every 5-6 years for an any bull tag in a decent unit. I'm observing elk populations and bull to cow ratios declining though... hunting has become harder. In short, someday in the far distant future things look bleak for hunting and I fear it will become a sport for the ultra rich only social media notwithstanding.

 

[P7M13]

@Andy54Hawken , perhaps I did not read the article with an open mind. I read from the perspective that these shows should be unsubscribed by the general hunting population because they transform hunting into a circus, complete with the blatant commercialism and the deception that was epitomized by PT Barnum.
I did not see his logic in his comment about hunting numbers increasing. I see license sales staying static. Tag sales increasing doesn't mean much to me, it's still the same hunter with their single license. Sure, in some states where deer populations (and other species) are exploding, buying six tags is not a stretch.
While he Rinella faults the ego aspect of it, you cannot (IMO) separate that primal instinct from modern man. Though, killing an animal does not make anyone any more of a stud than siring some spawn with thier cavewoman.

My point to hunting is I'd like to kill and gather some honest meat.

let's just get rid of the Internet, social media, the whole ball of wax lets EMP the world.

Yup. x10
Without all this technology and digital distraction, I believe we would live simpler, more fulfilling lives, and still work just as hard.

To what 'expectations' were they 'expecting' of a hunter - as per their statements ?

They were expecting a gomer, complete with chewing tobacco, missing teeth, a poor grasp of the king's English, compadres who are both sons and nephews at the same time -- you know, white trash. Andy probably welcomed them with a quote from The Prophet.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

rhaps I did not read the article with an open mind. I read from the perspective that these shows should be unsubscribed by the general hunting population because they transform hunting into a circus, complete with the blatant commercialism and the deception that was epitomized by PT Barnum.

I agree

They were expecting a gomer, complete with chewing tobacco, missing teeth, a poor grasp of the king's English, compadres who are both sons and nephews at the same time -- you know, white trash. Andy probably welcomed them with a quote from The Prophet.

And yes , that was pretty damn near what happened...
Andy

 

[Bobbygun]

"...crowding the woods."

Yeah, right...
View attachment 1095471

"Matt Rinella is a research ecologist and a lifelong hunter and angler." Yes, all the rabid "ecologists" identify as "lifelong hunter and anglers".

Woods? Where are the trees? Just kidding.

Research ecologist? I'm not exactly sure what that is, but I'm pretty sure it would qualify to serve on ODFW's Wildlife Commission. That is, if they didn't disqualify him for being a lifelong hunter and angler.

 

[solv3nt]

I'm curious, would Matt Rinella have a sounding board if it weren't for his celebrity brother?

 

[Koda]

I'm curious, would Matt Rinella have a sounding board if it weren't for his celebrity brother?

they are probably in cahoots, im sure Matts article just boosted Steves web traffic.