Unfollowing Hunting Social Media Will Make Hunting Better: Matt Rinella Essay
- Thread starter 3forks
- Start date
- Status
JRam07
FNG
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2021
- Messages
- 40
Dudes a state ecologist, but yeah no one would care what he would have to say.
deerhunt1988
WKR
And more of a #conservationist than 99% of the instabros.
grizz_bait
FNG
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 67
what grabs me and a lot of other people is MR's honesty and the balls to call a spade a spade. no one else is saying what he's saying, and broadcasting it to as many hunters as possible. i couldn't care less that his brother is famous.
“Elites” a stretch, but we can take it.
*edit. just heading out to my job I’ve had for 30 years in my 1996 ford pick up. For some reason, it hardly feels elite
Last edited:
Unofficial guide to determining whether you're a hunter/influencer-bro or a crusty curmudgeon traditionalist:
Topic Bro Traditionalist Anything chambered in a caliber invented within the last 12 months will do...as long as it has a 25X scope with adjustable turrets Any caliber invented after 1906 is just another new fad Electronic devices in the field GPS with continuous tracking is essential gear...for accurately reporting to your followers the precise mileage & elevation gain of those BRUTAL hikes Can't spell GPS..."been fearsome confused for a month or two, but I ain't never been lost!" Chest rigs Essential gear...bino pouch + GPS pouch + RF pouch at a minimum No go...can't obscure that majestic mane of chest hair poking out of my half-buttoned mackinaw Baseball caps Flat brim...probably worn over the ears Want 'em like my woman...with a good amount of curvature Photos with dead animals Long-arm grip & grin from multiple angles, painstakingly select the shot that best represents "the brand" & post to every platform known to man Single Polaroid (maybe), goes into a photo album that no one is allowed to open Ethical limit on number of animals taken per year As much as the members of your Crossfit box & their dogs can eat in a year 1, maybe 2...as long as you eat all the organs & process the meat yourself with a manual grinder Social media #hunterathlete #publiclandowner @vortexoptics @fhfgear @mtnops
Solely responsible for the decline of western civilization
I lean strongly curmudgeon, but I'll gladly poke fun at both camps.
ddd-shooter
WKR
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2021
- Messages
- 624
That's the whole point. He's trying to be an outsider with a platform. Most outsiders don't get a platform, he does, because of his brother.
He's said we don't get much of an opinion from guys who AREN'T selling stuff with regard to hunting...
Think about it
All the big names you know that are hunting related are SELLING SOMETHING.
Why are their opinions objective, but his aren't?
- Banned
- #328
What, do you hope to accomplish? What's the mission?
I ask questions to outfitters, landowners, DIY folks. Most often the conversation gets boiled down to self interest. A lot of things start out well intentioned then get polluted by money or feelings of entitlement. Across the board. Doing good things for the wrong reasons is still wrong. Sometimes, good things are done for the right reasons. Seems like those never get talked about. Especially in this day and age.
Life happens, things change! It's very rare to see anyone reverse course these days. Most folks will die on their sword, sort of speak. You and I have spoke briefly in the past on here about some things. I have been very skeptical of your stuff and reasoning behind some of the things you do. Same as I am with landowners, MOGA and DIY people. Seeing you step away/change course from some things brought a little stretch of hope to my life. Perhaps somewhere down the road all the hunter groups can come together and work out some compromises and keep this thing going for future generations. Money is the greatest pollutant we have in our world. As time goes by and technology develops it only gets worse. More man, less GOD. Should be more GOD less man.
This social media ruining hunting argument is funny too me. As with most dilemmas they don't happen over night. This stuff started decades ago and has only increased as technology and desire for money increases. Not just in our community. If we all would just take a step back examine our motives. There is pile of room for improvement, in all of US!
The first 2 questions I asked are completely rhetorical! Also aimed at everyone who wastes a few minutes reading my pontification
Just read a post on this thread calling rokslide admin elites'. HAAAAHAAAHAAA, prime example of the real problem. These guys are working regular jobs. monitoring this monkey fest. Acquiring deals for us. Taking time to review gear. Put out in depth videos explaining some of their testing process for gear. along with other things. Blue collar folks being of service it seems to me.
Reading your posts on this thread and a couple other threads have given me a change in perspective about you. I still do not agree with some of the anti outfitter stuff. I also don't agree with MOGA. I do however, respect your effort on behalf of public land. Outfitters play just as vital of a role in our community as anyone else. As do landowners. Once again greed and ego is their problem. Until money ceases to be peoples driving force, not much change can or will happen.
Consumers are the only ones that can give money power!
Inventories are essential to any business. Businesses go broke without them. From what I can tell you definitely take inventory and adjust fire as needed.
Anyway, I think you are on the right track mostly. HAAHAAHAAA, not that anyone cares what this monkey thinks.
I am glad you got on here and responded to some of this.
Not elite in a financial or societal sense. More the fact that they are unable to receive or respond to critique, even when 100% relevant to a thread, without responding with ban threats, name calling, or disregarding completely.
This is in contrast to Randy, who has provided thoughtful responses to questions, complete with reasoning for his views and allowing that he may not know it all.
KurtR
WKR
I have met and learned some really good stuff about dog training on social media. Met some good people in waterfowl hunting to. I’m not going to lie I like seeing pics of big bucks and bulls. I guess I’m glad I live where I get to hunt more than a week a year and social media does not affect it one bit.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 273
Since I'm stuck indoors today, I'm happy to answer any of those questions. Over the years, on a forum I own, I've written many pieces about what follows, so I've summarized some of that here in hopes of answering your questions, however rhetorical the questions were intended to be.
As to anti-outfitter comments, not sure where that is traced to, given I refer dozens of people to outfitters each year. Some take my position against industry subsidies as being anti-outfitter. Being self-employed most my life, I'm just not a big fan of government picking winners and losers when developing policies or handing out public assets, such as hunting opportunity. If some view my anti-subsidy positions as anti-outfitter, I guess that's how it goes.
As for your idea of having another job, I've had a "real job" the entire time that I've done this media gig. In my real life I'm a CPA, I make my living by "disinheriting the Federal Treasury." If not for that job and rental properties, there is no way I could have kept the media platforms going. The platforms have been money losers when operated the way I have chosen to do it. But, that is my decision and I'm completely comfortable with the investment made. I've stepped away from the CPA firm in the last year to focus more on this, retaining my largest client so I still have money for "bait and bullets" (my wife's term). My wife made me promise this would not be our livelihood, as she knew it would cause me to eventually hate hunting. Good advice on her part, as after all the years of creating content I still enjoy doing this.
Note - The "per post character limit" requires that I post my response in more than one post.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 273
@Deadfall - Here's some more to your questions.
So, to your first question - What, do you hope to accomplish?
To make sure that public land hunting and hunters have a voice. To deter the trends that I felt were efforts against public land and public access. To get more hunters to volunteer or contribute to conservation, either through their individual efforts or as part of a larger organization. To show that hunting is mostly about food acquisition, along with some adventure, challenge, and intrigue to make hunting the unique activity it is. And, to show hunts that tie many of those points together.
When I started this in 2008, I had grown frustrated that the previous ten years of my time working against the sale /transfer of public lands seemed to be getting nowhere. I would say these trends of that time, "State Transfer," "no Net Gain" and other anti-public land efforts, were what caused me to do this and formed one of the primary goals I had hoped to accomplish
I had been a volunteer and board member for some national hunting organizations and it was hard to make much progress, at least at the pace as I was accustomed to in the business world. And, I was looked at as some sort of fool by saying there was an effort underway to trade, sell or otherwise impair the public lands that host 70% of the western hunting.
At the time, outdoor TV was also the primary driver of hunting media, having overtaken print. YouTube had just started and social media was yet to gain traction. What was the message of outdoor TV - hunt private estates, show nothing about the food aspects of hunting, and talk nothing about conservation.
I wanted to give a different voice to what people could watch on TV. So, I hired a production company ($300K) and bought airtime ($180K) and set out to film public land hunts that reflected how hunting occurred for me and most my friends. 2008 was a terrible year to start a business like this, as two months into it the stock market crashed and every business that committed to this new idea of "self-guided public land hunting" pulled out. I ended that year with $25K of sponsorship revenue. You don't need to be a CPA to conclude that was a stupid idea.
But, when I got the ratings after the first season, we ended up as the 7th rated show out of the 100+ that were on the network. That told me that at least the message had some resonance, even if it wouldn't make any money. So, my wife and I, along with a few CPA clients who wanted to be minority owners in a company promoting public land issues, ponied up enough money to film a second season, and then a third season.
I give that background to explain what motivations I had at the time; my concern about how public lands were being viewed and compromised. And, how I thought outdoor TV and its refusal to show any of the food aspects were contributing to the image the public had that hunters did not do so for food and was a complete disconnect to how hunting happened for most people.
The approach was this - For us to get people to understand the value of public lands, it required that they have a tangible connection to those land. Not just hiking or camping, but going out and hunting them. To this day, my connection to lands I hike or camp is only a fraction of my connection to the lands I hunt. Just a function of how immersive one activity is, hunting, compared to any other activity.
With the need to connect people to hunting these public lands, it required showing them that this could be done on their own, thus the name of the first TV show, "On Your Own Adventures." That also required a lot of information, details, ways to obtain tags, how to navigate the public/private, etc. Most of that informational stuff got cut when drafts were sent to the network, eventually making digital platforms like YouTube much more useful for me.
We donated many of our commercial slots to non-profit groups, or sold them at our cost. The idea was that you cannot disconnect hunting from the public lands where it occurs or from the conservation groups that were helping secure more access and/or improving the habitat on public lands. So, we had to continue to support conservation organizations. And, I continued my advocacy in the political arena, as I knew the strategy of the opposition was to take our issues to state legislatures and Congress.
So, that has evolved today to the current content spectrum that has four main categories; 1) entertainment, 2) information, 3) education, and 4) advocacy. It involves a YouTube channel that me and my crew operate, social media that I hire to be managed by a firm, two podcast that I operate, a forum that me and my wife moderate, and a new subscription based channel that allows people to consume our content without paying the big tech companies via their time (ads) or their personal information.
I hope to accomplish the same thing today that we set out to do in 2008. Just using the different platforms that exist today. I will likely add or drop platforms as distribution options change, just like I did when we left TV after 2017. Will we ever make any money at it? I don't know, we might. If we do, I'm not going to make any apologies for it. I will continue to keep my day work that pays my bills and managing my commercial rental properties that have been my retirement strategy, keeping my promise to my wife that this endeavor will not be our livelihood.
And I will continue to do it the way I want, the way I think is best for what I set out to do, making some mistakes along the way, learning from those mistakes, and realizing that no matter what we do or how we do it, some will disagree. Feedback is always helpful, even it if causes some consternation, thus why I have my own forum where I get more feedback than I can read.
Now to your second question - What's the mission?
That is pretty much explained above, but in the first paragraph of the business plan I crafted in 2008, it is written as this....."To promote self-guided public land hunting and create advocates for that cause."
Hope that answers some of your questions. That is why I like that Matt Rinella is out saying what he is. I like that conversations are happening around the messaging of hunting, who is doing it, how it is being done and I don't shy away from that discussion. I encourage the discussion.
Hopefully that explains why I don't give two chits about likes, views, shares, or whatever. That has zero impact on what we produce and what we put out there. If I was concerned about that I would drop all our content related to conservation, access, politics/policy, how to be an advocate, etc., given those get almost no likes, shares or views, and generate very little revenue and have a high cost. That content is part of our goal, so we're gonna do it no matter what.
Thanks for asking. Thanks to all who are engaging in this discussion. It is helpful to me.
#BlowUpYourFacebook
So, to your first question - What, do you hope to accomplish?
To make sure that public land hunting and hunters have a voice. To deter the trends that I felt were efforts against public land and public access. To get more hunters to volunteer or contribute to conservation, either through their individual efforts or as part of a larger organization. To show that hunting is mostly about food acquisition, along with some adventure, challenge, and intrigue to make hunting the unique activity it is. And, to show hunts that tie many of those points together.
When I started this in 2008, I had grown frustrated that the previous ten years of my time working against the sale /transfer of public lands seemed to be getting nowhere. I would say these trends of that time, "State Transfer," "no Net Gain" and other anti-public land efforts, were what caused me to do this and formed one of the primary goals I had hoped to accomplish
I had been a volunteer and board member for some national hunting organizations and it was hard to make much progress, at least at the pace as I was accustomed to in the business world. And, I was looked at as some sort of fool by saying there was an effort underway to trade, sell or otherwise impair the public lands that host 70% of the western hunting.
At the time, outdoor TV was also the primary driver of hunting media, having overtaken print. YouTube had just started and social media was yet to gain traction. What was the message of outdoor TV - hunt private estates, show nothing about the food aspects of hunting, and talk nothing about conservation.
I wanted to give a different voice to what people could watch on TV. So, I hired a production company ($300K) and bought airtime ($180K) and set out to film public land hunts that reflected how hunting occurred for me and most my friends. 2008 was a terrible year to start a business like this, as two months into it the stock market crashed and every business that committed to this new idea of "self-guided public land hunting" pulled out. I ended that year with $25K of sponsorship revenue. You don't need to be a CPA to conclude that was a stupid idea.
But, when I got the ratings after the first season, we ended up as the 7th rated show out of the 100+ that were on the network. That told me that at least the message had some resonance, even if it wouldn't make any money. So, my wife and I, along with a few CPA clients who wanted to be minority owners in a company promoting public land issues, ponied up enough money to film a second season, and then a third season.
I give that background to explain what motivations I had at the time; my concern about how public lands were being viewed and compromised. And, how I thought outdoor TV and its refusal to show any of the food aspects were contributing to the image the public had that hunters did not do so for food and was a complete disconnect to how hunting happened for most people.
The approach was this - For us to get people to understand the value of public lands, it required that they have a tangible connection to those land. Not just hiking or camping, but going out and hunting them. To this day, my connection to lands I hike or camp is only a fraction of my connection to the lands I hunt. Just a function of how immersive one activity is, hunting, compared to any other activity.
With the need to connect people to hunting these public lands, it required showing them that this could be done on their own, thus the name of the first TV show, "On Your Own Adventures." That also required a lot of information, details, ways to obtain tags, how to navigate the public/private, etc. Most of that informational stuff got cut when drafts were sent to the network, eventually making digital platforms like YouTube much more useful for me.
We donated many of our commercial slots to non-profit groups, or sold them at our cost. The idea was that you cannot disconnect hunting from the public lands where it occurs or from the conservation groups that were helping secure more access and/or improving the habitat on public lands. So, we had to continue to support conservation organizations. And, I continued my advocacy in the political arena, as I knew the strategy of the opposition was to take our issues to state legislatures and Congress.
So, that has evolved today to the current content spectrum that has four main categories; 1) entertainment, 2) information, 3) education, and 4) advocacy. It involves a YouTube channel that me and my crew operate, social media that I hire to be managed by a firm, two podcast that I operate, a forum that me and my wife moderate, and a new subscription based channel that allows people to consume our content without paying the big tech companies via their time (ads) or their personal information.
I hope to accomplish the same thing today that we set out to do in 2008. Just using the different platforms that exist today. I will likely add or drop platforms as distribution options change, just like I did when we left TV after 2017. Will we ever make any money at it? I don't know, we might. If we do, I'm not going to make any apologies for it. I will continue to keep my day work that pays my bills and managing my commercial rental properties that have been my retirement strategy, keeping my promise to my wife that this endeavor will not be our livelihood.
And I will continue to do it the way I want, the way I think is best for what I set out to do, making some mistakes along the way, learning from those mistakes, and realizing that no matter what we do or how we do it, some will disagree. Feedback is always helpful, even it if causes some consternation, thus why I have my own forum where I get more feedback than I can read.
Now to your second question - What's the mission?
That is pretty much explained above, but in the first paragraph of the business plan I crafted in 2008, it is written as this....."To promote self-guided public land hunting and create advocates for that cause."
Hope that answers some of your questions. That is why I like that Matt Rinella is out saying what he is. I like that conversations are happening around the messaging of hunting, who is doing it, how it is being done and I don't shy away from that discussion. I encourage the discussion.
Hopefully that explains why I don't give two chits about likes, views, shares, or whatever. That has zero impact on what we produce and what we put out there. If I was concerned about that I would drop all our content related to conservation, access, politics/policy, how to be an advocate, etc., given those get almost no likes, shares or views, and generate very little revenue and have a high cost. That content is part of our goal, so we're gonna do it no matter what.
Thanks for asking. Thanks to all who are engaging in this discussion. It is helpful to me.
#BlowUpYourFacebook
Hmmm....well there is a entire forum for feedback. Also difference between critical and critique. Also imagine running this site could be closely compared to taking a dozen 12 yr Olds to work with you. Why this, why that, what's this do, you're doing it wrong.....5 million questions and comments before noon. Kind of stuff that would even give the pope wrinkles.
Longer you do something better you get at nipping issues in the bud. Perhaps they been at this long enough to have an idea of when something can start going sideways then spin out. We all know that ideas can easily be misconstrued on here in a hurry.
Maybe it's not threats, just warnings or little flicks behind the ear to get our attention so we don't get spun out to bad. Help keep threads flowing in healthy way.
Then too Maybe they just human like the rest of us. Just because they may not respond to something doesn't mean they not hearing it or looking at it.
Then too, when I'm on track and being true to myself operating in a good place, I don't feel the need to justify myself. Which is not same as discussing opinion or idea.
When I first joined this sight, before I understood what this really is and limitations of it; I got spun out about something and found myself in principals office for a week. It's good to get a dose of humility from time to time.
If me my mods are calling anyone names, make sure you let me know, the rules apply to us too. I try to never do that but can’t say that I havent when emotions get high. I had to apologize to members on more than one occasion.
As far as banning, when it’s clear people are just here to upset the place, they’re not welcome. Just ruins the forum and takes up too much admin time. We all have other jobs
Holy moly...lots to go through. Glad you're inside today. That was great reading.
I have a better understanding now of where you coming from with the outfitter conversation. I agree to a point. Not sure subsidy is the right word. Then again not necessarily the wrong word. For this purpose I'll go along with the subsidy idea. ( free falling rabbit hole).
First I believe there is a disconnect between the public and outfitters. The cause of that is multi faceted with wrongs on Both sides. Leave that for another day perhaps.
Second, I agree to a point about the subsidy thing. I do not believe in unlimited subsidy. Our government subsidizes a pile of things in several arenas. I'm speaking only with regard to montana. This is the state I have experience in with all these topics. I have worked for many years with a public land outfitter. I have seen first hand how hard it has become to book hunts.
A outfitter on public land has a certain number of days. His booking window is tight from a number/person perspective. Under the old system, he could book his hunts and not have to worry if hunters would get a tag. I agree completely the old system was flawed and 1 dimensional.
Under the new system, he has to book with a WAG as to how many won't draw. If he over books and everyone draws then he's in a pickle. If he only books for the days he has then some don't draw, he's in the same pickle barrel. Except now he's running around trying to fill holes. This means that some hunts have hunters from different "cultures",backgrounds, and other factors. That can easily lead to a rough camp, which makes life extremely difficult on the guides (I speak from personal experience as a multi decade guide). As we all know some personalities do not mix well with others. Many more factors that could be added.
This also is a flawed and 1 deminsional deal.
Last year MOGA wanted 60 percent....what a pile if poo poo....greed is what that is.
I do believe however, there should be a pool of tags for outfitters. Atleast the public land guys whose livelihoods depend on hunters. I do not believe private land outfitters should be in that pool. Unless some rules and oversight are put in place.
I get it, can't tell anyone what to do on their own land. We can set some guidelines as to what anyone involved in a subsidy is allowed to do. We can absolutely level the playing field in the outfitter world. Right now private land outfitting is a free for all. The public land guys pay A LOT of fees. If the privates want some subsidy tags the field should be even. If private land folks don't want to participate. That's ok, let them take their chances in general draw.
The number of NR using an outfitter hasn't changed much. I do firmly believe the qualifications/bar for being an outfitter need to change! As there are a bunch of bums in that industry putting a bad taste in mouths. Same as the media industry.
Riflehuntr19
FNG
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 36
@Randy Newberg Randy, you are clearly on a very short list of the most respected voices of the hunting community. You do much good. You are maybe the only one that guys would believe is not in this for the money. Thanks for all you do. Matt is addressing all the glam and ridiculousness of bro culture and self aggrandizement common in social media. That has nothing to do with you.
Matt is also addressing a failure by hunting influencers or figures to look at the broader context of their actions, whether for selfish reasons (as is assumed for most) or for lack of understanding. Matt's criticism of overpromoting hunting and causing decreasing opportunities is a serious criticism of some of your actions. Given the engagement on this thread, and other comments across the internet, I think it is clear that hunting media figures have made information regarding western hunting more available, marketed the hunt experience, and caused a tremendous increase in hunting applications. WY, which you've said is the best state to apply for ad nauseum, is going to be 8-10 years to draw a general tag for those getting points now. MT takes multiple points to get a general tag. ID OTC hunts are very limited now and hard to get. OTC perhaps going by the wayside in CO. It's easy to blame the economy and other causes, but it is clear (AZ pays influencers because they know the effect) that hunting figures have influenced these dramatic decreases in draw odds due to demand. You go so far as to tell everyone the deadline for each state, say exactly how to apply and describe the inns and outs, and recommend applying in multiple states. In the near future when it takes years to get any non resident tag in the west, how will that affect the public lands message you're promoting? Why can't you promote your message without trying to get more and more and more hunters out west? Is there ever a point when there's enough western hunters? Do you care about the effects on western hunters' availability to get tags in their state or neighboring states?
It is seen as very lazy and intellectually dishonest for hunting leaders to respond to criticisms of this type by saying we need more hunters. As far as the west is concerned, getting a tag is the issue, not having insufficient demand of any kind. We're talking about exponential application growth and regular doubling of points necessary to draw a unit in many areas. Hunting leaders seem to be prioritizing the eastern hunter who has never hunted the west to get a larger pool to market towards. Western hunters who prefer stable hunting numbers, or at least non overly crowded, should be considered as well. At some point, the point creep is bad enough that it hurts everyone involved. Hunters need other outlets for great hunting experiences besides the handful of western states you have recommended.
I think you can be a leader in the hunting community if you will address this issue. How can you promote the importance of public lands without contributing to additional point creep? How can you respect and value western hunters who want to be able to draw a tag and not lose opportunities due to exponential application increases? How can you promote public land opportunities in other parts of the country besides the states you have said are good (WY, MT, AZ, UT, ID, CO, NM, NV)? You have said CA, OR, WA aren't good enough hunting to justify applications. Let's stop mentioning the best states and spread the wealth of applications a bit more. Midwest and Eastern opportunities will be what's required to provide the additional hunters you want for hunter recruitment to have a place to hunt. To do this, I think you will have to recognize that you are a leader and have contributed to this issue. Many are frustrated about it. You can do something about it. Thanks again for what you do. The intent was for this to be a respectfully stated criticism and I'm interested in what i know will be a thoughtful response.
Matt is also addressing a failure by hunting influencers or figures to look at the broader context of their actions, whether for selfish reasons (as is assumed for most) or for lack of understanding. Matt's criticism of overpromoting hunting and causing decreasing opportunities is a serious criticism of some of your actions. Given the engagement on this thread, and other comments across the internet, I think it is clear that hunting media figures have made information regarding western hunting more available, marketed the hunt experience, and caused a tremendous increase in hunting applications. WY, which you've said is the best state to apply for ad nauseum, is going to be 8-10 years to draw a general tag for those getting points now. MT takes multiple points to get a general tag. ID OTC hunts are very limited now and hard to get. OTC perhaps going by the wayside in CO. It's easy to blame the economy and other causes, but it is clear (AZ pays influencers because they know the effect) that hunting figures have influenced these dramatic decreases in draw odds due to demand. You go so far as to tell everyone the deadline for each state, say exactly how to apply and describe the inns and outs, and recommend applying in multiple states. In the near future when it takes years to get any non resident tag in the west, how will that affect the public lands message you're promoting? Why can't you promote your message without trying to get more and more and more hunters out west? Is there ever a point when there's enough western hunters? Do you care about the effects on western hunters' availability to get tags in their state or neighboring states?
It is seen as very lazy and intellectually dishonest for hunting leaders to respond to criticisms of this type by saying we need more hunters. As far as the west is concerned, getting a tag is the issue, not having insufficient demand of any kind. We're talking about exponential application growth and regular doubling of points necessary to draw a unit in many areas. Hunting leaders seem to be prioritizing the eastern hunter who has never hunted the west to get a larger pool to market towards. Western hunters who prefer stable hunting numbers, or at least non overly crowded, should be considered as well. At some point, the point creep is bad enough that it hurts everyone involved. Hunters need other outlets for great hunting experiences besides the handful of western states you have recommended.
I think you can be a leader in the hunting community if you will address this issue. How can you promote the importance of public lands without contributing to additional point creep? How can you respect and value western hunters who want to be able to draw a tag and not lose opportunities due to exponential application increases? How can you promote public land opportunities in other parts of the country besides the states you have said are good (WY, MT, AZ, UT, ID, CO, NM, NV)? You have said CA, OR, WA aren't good enough hunting to justify applications. Let's stop mentioning the best states and spread the wealth of applications a bit more. Midwest and Eastern opportunities will be what's required to provide the additional hunters you want for hunter recruitment to have a place to hunt. To do this, I think you will have to recognize that you are a leader and have contributed to this issue. Many are frustrated about it. You can do something about it. Thanks again for what you do. The intent was for this to be a respectfully stated criticism and I'm interested in what i know will be a thoughtful response.
Sorry think I might of been misunderstood about any job comments. I know you are a CPA, which seems to me like another thankless job/painful one.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 273
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.
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.
Recon I got some things to look into.
Glad you engaging today
- Status
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
Idaho Mule Deer Management with Eric Freeman
-
TT#28 Idaho Bear Hunting with Roger Holscher and Chris Young
-
Rockstar Research with Kevin Monteith
-
Hunting Big Mule Deer: Obey the Wind & Still-Hunting
-
TT#27 DIY New Zealand Hunting with Australian Duo Miller and Pitts
-
Fewer Bucks, More Fawns?
-
Mathews Lift Review
-
Wyoming Range Winter Wrap-Up with Jeff Short
-
The Pursuit with Cliff Gray
-
Mile High Mule Deer Seminar