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

[Farmcritter]

thx for posting!

 

[kwackkillncrew]

his brother new what he was doing. he was adding more publicity to his podcast by having a very controversial debate with his brother. In one of the podcasts matt was in he said he asked steve if he would put his article or an article on the ME website and said he wanted to have him come on the podcast instead...

 

[ethan]

This is the other very important side of the coin. It's a chicken/egg question. There's convicted or soon to be convicted poachers with huge followings. There's a whole image stigma attached to hush where you could reasonably guess if someone follows them. Are the influencers the problem or the hundreds of thousands of people that follow them? Both obviously. The question of needing more hunters has been bantered. The parallel question is do we want these people as hunters? This is where Matt's points can hopefully make inroads. If your inclination is to hit the like button after watching a guy gutshoot his 4th deer in a row at 700yds you are the problem.

THIS /\ /\!!!!!

 

[ddavis_1313]

This is the other very important side of the coin. It's a chicken/egg question. There's convicted or soon to be convicted poachers with huge followings. There's a whole image stigma attached to hush where you could reasonably guess if someone follows them. Are the influencers the problem or the hundreds of thousands of people that follow them? Both obviously. The question of needing more hunters has been bantered. The parallel question is do we want these people as hunters? This is where Matt's points can hopefully make inroads. If your inclination is to hit the like button after watching a guy gutshoot his 4th deer in a row at 700yds you are the problem.

Care to share the convicted or soon to be convicted poachers with huge followers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[204guy]

Care to share the convicted or soon to be convicted poachers with huge followers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2 that come to mind are bowmar and muleyfreak. Not sure if muleyfreak actually meets the definition of poacher but whatever he did he lost hunting privileges for a couple years I believe. This is the only sm I'm on so I don't really know what most of these guys are posting. I only know when it's controversial enough to be on here.

 

[Sourdough]

I don't get that.

I keep reading this thread and wondering "what people are talking about". I just don't get it.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

I keep reading this thread and wondering "what people are talking about". I just don't get it.

From your cabin on a mountain in the wilderness of Alaska, you still seem to have internet access.

 

[TheTone]

Care to share the convicted or soon to be convicted poachers with huge followers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are a bunch. Brian call, muley freak, bowmar has a pile of charges in court they keep delaying, nugent, Greg ritz had one for wasting a deer but I think paid to have it go away.

 

[Sourdough]

Yes........very-very-very slow. comes by microwave through land phone.

From your cabin on a mountain in the wilderness of Alaska, you still seem to have internet access.

 

[huntaholic123]

if you're on instagram I enjoy the posts from Make Hunting Great Again, TSD, Copper Plated Sixes, and Hunt Domain. No sponsors, just call out influencers and people in the hunting industry for doing stupid things. Good comedic relief and keeps me up to date on who's breaking the law. I know it kind of goes against what we are talking about here but at least they use the same platforms to hold people accountable.

 

[Glockster26]

The 2 that come to mind are bowmar and muleyfreak. Not sure if muleyfreak actually meets the definition of poacher but whatever he did he lost hunting privileges for a couple years I believe. This is the only sm I'm on so I don't really know what most of these guys are posting. I only know when it's controversial enough to be on here.

It’s literally the same as a speeding ticket. Duh No need to look at everyone else involved in the case has been found guilty or plead guilty. They are pure as the driven snow.

 

[wind gypsy]

Meme stolen from Hunttalk member Nameless Range

 

[wind gypsy]

There are a bunch. Brian call, muley freak, bowmar has a pile of charges in court they keep delaying, nugent, Greg ritz had one for wasting a deer but I think paid to have it go away.

Chris Bracket, Bill Busbice jr.

 

[drago]

Here is a very rough framework trying to highlight differences in values for everyone at the table.
This includes Jains, religious infidels, natives, blacks, asians, whities, kids, women, LGBTQ+-, depressed vets searching for meaning, Joe Rogan, vegans, vegetarians, "traditional" hunters, MeatEater hunters, Rokslide hunters, sexy Instagram hunters, outfitters, trappers, ranchers, normal public, Industry, Scientists, Ethics Professors, Philosophers, serial poachers, serial killers, New Jersey Cat Ladies, PETA, etc.

The idea is that all these parties listed above want to kill/not kill some/all species with different intents. Ultimately you want to track and understand the intent/incentives. So you have all species as the main set (throw in humans for good measure). From there, every person/party subdivides their own list into sets based on the intent of killing. This subdivision should not take any form of legality into consideration. Also there are tons of other factors not represented here ( type 1 errors, scarcity and complexity of genomes, complexity of animals behaviour, behavioral impact of hunting pressure, etc. ) Nevertheless, this visualization will make it a lot easier to find common ground or difference in opinion and come to constructive solutions when discussing specific management topics.

Below is a rough abbreviated sketch for my personal subdivisions of said species list.
Note: I went ahead and further ranked my list based on a vague, totally subjective idea of consciousness. This is totally personal and I am in no way passing judgement if someone elses list is ranked in a different order or not ranked at all. This ranking also makes for a neat visualization.

On second thought, my subdivisions are pretty boring and dont fully illustrate the idea.

Here is my interpretation of what the average hunters list would look like. This should make for a better visualization. Subdivisions are subsets of each other.

*Gopher not Golpher

How is all this relevant to the topic? Maybe it's not. I guess I am just trying to distill the idea of traditional hunters Matt refers to and put it in a larger perspective.

Steve Rinella's subset of killing for profit is probably a lot larger and encompassing than Matt's, I doubt Matt even has one at all.

Regardless Matt's two articles were cause for some serious introspection and made a lot of things click for me.

 

[Billy Goat]

Here is a very rough framework trying to highlight differences in values for everyone at the table.
This includes Jains, religious infidels, natives, blacks, asians, whities, kids, women, LGBTQ+-, depressed vets searching for meaning, Joe Rogan, vegans, vegetarians, "traditional" hunters, MeatEater hunters, Rokslide hunters, sexy Instagram whores, outfitters, trappers, ranchers, normal public, Industry, Scientists, Ethics Professors, Philosophers, serial poachers, serial killers, New Jersey Cat Ladies, PETA, etc.

The idea is that all these parties listed above want to kill/not kill some/all species with different intents. Ultimately you want to track and understand the intent/incentives. So you have all species as the main set (throw in humans for good measure). From there, every person/party subdivides their own list into sets based on the intent of killing. This subdivision should not take any form of legality into consideration. Also there are tons of other factors not represented here ( type 1 errors, scarcity and complexity of genomes, complexity of animals behaviour, behavioral impact of hunting pressure, etc. ) Nevertheless, this visualization will make it a lot easier to find common ground or difference in opinion and come to constructive solutions when discussing specific management topics.

Below is a rough abbreviated sketch for my personal subdivisions of said species list.
Note: I went ahead and further ranked my list based on a vague, totally subjective idea of consciousness. This is totally personal and I am in no way passing judgement if someone elses list is ranked in a different order or not ranked at all. This ranking also makes for a neat visualization.
View attachment 361751
On second thought, my subdivisions are pretty boring and dont fully illustrate the idea.

Here is my interpretation of what the average hunters list would look like. This should make for a better visualization. Subdivisions are subsets of each other.
View attachment 361749
*Gopher not Golpher

How is all this relevant to the topic? Maybe it's not. I guess I am just trying to distill the idea of traditional hunters Matt refers to and put it in a larger perspective.

Steve Rinella's subset of killing for profit is probably a lot larger and encompassing than Matt's, I doubt Matt even has one at all.

Regardless Matt's two articles were cause for some serious introspection and made a lot of things click for me.

I'm confused.

What do condoms have to do with it?
That a technical term?

 

[mhabiger]

Here is a very rough framework trying to highlight differences in values for everyone at the table.
This includes Jains, religious infidels, natives, blacks, asians, whities, kids, women, LGBTQ+-, depressed vets searching for meaning, Joe Rogan, vegans, vegetarians, "traditional" hunters, MeatEater hunters, Rokslide hunters, sexy Instagram whores, outfitters, trappers, ranchers, normal public, Industry, Scientists, Ethics Professors, Philosophers, serial poachers, serial killers, New Jersey Cat Ladies, PETA, etc.

The idea is that all these parties listed above want to kill/not kill some/all species with different intents. Ultimately you want to track and understand the intent/incentives. So you have all species as the main set (throw in humans for good measure). From there, every person/party subdivides their own list into sets based on the intent of killing. This subdivision should not take any form of legality into consideration. Also there are tons of other factors not represented here ( type 1 errors, scarcity and complexity of genomes, complexity of animals behaviour, behavioral impact of hunting pressure, etc. ) Nevertheless, this visualization will make it a lot easier to find common ground or difference in opinion and come to constructive solutions when discussing specific management topics.

Below is a rough abbreviated sketch for my personal subdivisions of said species list.
Note: I went ahead and further ranked my list based on a vague, totally subjective idea of consciousness. This is totally personal and I am in no way passing judgement if someone elses list is ranked in a different order or not ranked at all. This ranking also makes for a neat visualization.
View attachment 361751
On second thought, my subdivisions are pretty boring and dont fully illustrate the idea.

Here is my interpretation of what the average hunters list would look like. This should make for a better visualization. Subdivisions are subsets of each other.
View attachment 361749
*Gopher not Golpher

How is all this relevant to the topic? Maybe it's not. I guess I am just trying to distill the idea of traditional hunters Matt refers to and put it in a larger perspective.

Steve Rinella's subset of killing for profit is probably a lot larger and encompassing than Matt's, I doubt Matt even has one at all.

Regardless Matt's two articles were cause for some serious introspection and made a lot of things click for me.

Sorry I can't resist (big Caddyshack fan)....

Sandy:
Carl I want you to kill all the gophers on the golf course

Carl Spackler:
Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key.

Sandy:
Not golfers, you great fool. Gophers. The *little* *brown*, *furry* *rodents*.

Carl Spackler:
We can do that. We don't even need a reason.

 

[grfox92]

It makes me sad that someone would publicly call out his brother.

This is where I feel like I can't take Matt seriously at all.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[drago]

I'm confused.

What do condoms have to do with it?
That a technical term?

Im sorry for the confusion, it thought I was being funny.

If you have a subset where the intent of killing is managing a population, and that pupulation is humans, you cant really start killing off people unless you are Stalin. Encouraging condom use is dealing with the problem in an alternative way.

 

[grfox92]

His brother decided to make it public. MeatEater didn’t have to post that podcast.

Since Steve made it public I feel it fair for Matt to say whatever he’d like regarding their conversation.

Matt talked all of shit S**t before he was on the MeatEater podcast to discuss it ....

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Billy Goat]

Im sorry for the confusion, it thought I was being funny.

If you have a subset where the intent of killing is managing a population, and that pupulation is humans, you cant really start killing off people unless you are Stalin. Encouraging condom use is dealing with the problem in an alternative way.

I get it now.


It seems stupid is reproducing faster than it was.


There was a movie about it once....