Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Changing the Hunting Industry- Matt Rinella- podcast & discussion

Sligh1

Sligh1

Administrator
Staff member
This is good. Matt Rinnella- Steve’s brother. A lot to unpack here…. Please give a listen & then fire back some thoughts. There’s zero doubt I heard some things I’ve never thought of before that are fantastic outlooks on problems & solutions. *There’s not one person that will listen to this that will agree or disagree with all of it. It’s too complex an issue. The problems discussed- many are very real though. Give this a listen when in vehicle or time to chew. Fire back on thoughts. Obviously this topic is near and dear to many on here in some form…

 
Great listen. Definitely makes you think. It's interesting to think where we would be if hunting hadn't been/wasn't promoted so much. Can't blame people for taking advantage of an opportunity, but unfortunately it was at the the expense of a natural resource and access to quality hunting.
But I do believe some do not/did not have ill intentions, but negative things happened as a result. Its kinda like the Tommy Boy dinner roll scene. We just love it so much that sometimes we love it to death.
I do agree with Matt on promoting Hunt Quietly, makes a ton of sense. There's no reason to put your harvest photo up on Facebook, besides to brag or get approval from people you don't give 2 f's about. That goes for anyone posts on social media. I guess I'd rather stay off the map and share things within my family and close friends. There's alot to unroll with this topic for sure!
 
Interesting discussion. I have a number of thoughts.
- From the first time I saw the pushing of "gotta get more people involved in hunting!" from THP and others, it's created a real pause for me. There's nowhere for everybody to go. These guys had some good points and rebuttals to the need for more of us to "defend what we love" and "strength in numbers" or whatever.
- This wasn't a big part of the discussion but it came up in regards to public perception.... I can't stand the term "Trophy Hunting". Am I a trophy hunter for wanting the biggest buck in the woods every year if I also throw him in a pot of chili all winter long? Does that make me a mean, nasty trophy hunter?
- I agree that social media has been a net negative for hunting annnnnd pretty much everything else. There was a point in my life where my maturity wasn't where it is now and I felt the need to post the big shed, the big deer, etc. for God and everybody to see. Those days are long gone and my consumption of material from all those platforms is way down and I couldn't be happier. It's a toxic environment. I'll share my pictures with close friends and family that share the interest and hope to see their success stories in return. Nobody else needs to see.
- I also, unfortunately, agree with the hosts on landownership being my only path to have a quality hunt in the future. That writing has been on the wall for a while. I'm working towards that goal and hope that I can eventually out save the current land market trajectory.
- Interesting discussion on THP ruining people's long time spots. Not sure I agree with how much flak they are getting from Matt but I see his point. That isn't the root of the issue but..... interesting take.
- I listened while working so it's possible I missed the topic but I didn't not hear any discussion about his brother Steve/Meateater. Is Meateater ruining hunting? Are they not feeding this decline in access? Meateater is on one of the largest streaming platforms in the world. Are they different from THP in their motives and outcomes with viewers? I'd love to see Steve and Matt on this podcast discussing this topic together. And maybe they have?
- The discussion on government (taxpayer) funded programs and requiring public access on that land if you take part is SUPER interesting to me and would be interested to read more discussion on that here out of curiosity. Maybe even in it's own thread, idk. I tend to be in the political camp of the government ruins everything they touch. How much have these program propped up land prices. Would people have bought farms for hunting if they didn't have the CRP payments to lean on and help pay for it? 160 acres right up the road just sold in the last year or so. I've been over every square foot of that farm and half of it barely grows weeds. The new buyer is farming it this year to re-enroll in CRP. How different would that sale look with the proposed public hunting access piece? Or no government involvement at all? No CRP? And I know this could potential affect me someday. A CRP payment could potentially be the difference between me affording a farm or not. Or maybe it's messed up the land value to the point I'd been better off if it never existed (which I might argue)
- I'm definitely pro-capitalist so telling a farmer he can't lease his ground, someone can't lease ground to hunt, by land for only themselves to hunt, not allow hunting on the ground they bought, etc. isn't what I'm about. It's their money/property so they can do what they want. It's wild what happened to rec land though. Really land in general I guess. It sucks having farms leased out from under you. It sucks having farms sold out from under you that you aren't ready/able to buy. But it's part of it.

Overall, I do think we are our own worst enemy in a variety of ways. We've swung the pendulum a long way in one direction. How much further will it swing before it has to start swinging back, who knows. Matt has some good points. I think he's off base on a few small ways but I don't disagree with much he has to say. One of the hosts put it well at the end..... the currently active hunters (like us) are the forgotten. The "industry" is after the 95% of the population that has never hunted or used to hunt and trying to get them back. That's where the money is. Not us folks that have hunted for decades and will continue to.
 
Matt & Steve apparently don’t talk. Bad.
That’s sad. & wrong. Imperfect people with their disagreements- whatever they may be. Life is very short & all this is meaningless in big picture. I hope those 2 find a road to peace. They will deeply regret it as one & both meets the end of life. This type of family fighting happens all the time. It’s sad & common. God doesn’t want us taking our earthly grievances to the grave.
 
Crossbow industry is ONE example of the selfish, corrupt & destructive forces to hunting. How they go about it, why & the results. Tons of examples like this.
I too cringe at “greed with no considerations for the consequences”!!!!! I cringe at our social media “look at me”.

****& lemme be clear as a side note….. I’ve turned down filming my hunts for 25 years. Only time I did it was when MWW asked me to teach habitat & I agreed to film a hunt ONE YEAR to show the results. & I kept my word & that was it. I don’t want it to be “look at me”. I will take on public stuff when it’s: helping others, teaching, conservation, legislation, helping young hunters, habitat, improving skills, whatever. BUT- my posts, vids, etc are about: hunting, hunters, conservationists, the resource, etc - it’s NOT about ME!!!!!!!!
 
Matt had an IG account I followed and agreed with. Theres alot of people from the south and west that are not happy that their Fish&Wildlife/DNR programs were paying money to THP and others to promote NR turkey hunting in their states with already insane pressure and declining populations.
 
Wow, Matt sure doesn't have the charisma his brother Steve does. What a snooze fest. I'll have to listen back through it again, as I kept dozing off.
 
Access has been an issue for 25 years or more. Social media has definitely made it worse. Years ago I lost access to the farms that I hunted for my whole life and hunted public fairly often with mixed results. It definitely drove me to buy a small piece so my boys could avoid the painful, unpleasant experiences that can happen on the public. Definitely an interesting topic that I can think of no great solution for. Like it or not everything is about the $.
 
hillrunner said:
He was on the meateater podcast discussing this a while back. It got pretty heated.
Click to expand...
You're right. Here it is for anyone that's interested. Starts around halfway through.
www.themeateater.com

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

Steven Rinella talks with Matt Rinella, Danny Rinella, Kevin Gillespie, Ryan Callaghan, Brody Henderson, Sean Weaver, Hunter Spencer, Phil Taylor, Corinne Schneider, and Janis Putelis. Topics discussed: Phil and Kevin's shared love of pop-up tiki bars; the incredible land masses that would open...
www.themeateater.com www.themeateater.com

I felt Matt was reaching on some things in this one and came off as a clown at times. Particularly when he went for a "gotcha" with Steve asking him if he'd ever been on a hunt for MeatEater and wished he was with his family instead. Steve said that of course he had and Matt's reply was essentially "oh so you're valuing influence and making money off hunting over your family". I mean.... wtf is he supposed to say? "Oh hell no. Screw the fam bam. Hunt or die!" No. Come on, Matt. Weak.

It's too bad this has ruined their relationship. Your family is certainly more important than the hill they've both apparently decided to die on.
 
First off I didn’t watch the Podcast as of yet..maybe this weekend.

Making it mandatory to allow public hunting to enroll in CRP ? Someone suggested that ?

That will kill the program. Very few will enroll, nobody would in Iowa. That’s a real slippery slope . I’m not sure an insurance company would even write that for liability?

What a headache. Who would take care of the habitat ? Would this 5 acre CRP be open to hunting, but the timber next to it would not be ? We’d lose so many acres.
 
Hardwood11 said:
First off I didn’t watch the Podcast as of yet..maybe this weekend.

Making it mandatory to allow public hunting to enroll in CRP ? Someone suggested that ?

That will kill the program. Very few will enroll, nobody would in Iowa. That’s a real slippery slope . I’m not sure an insurance company would even write that for liability?

What a headache. Who would take care of the habitat ? Would this 5 acre CRP be open to hunting, but the timber next to it would not be ? We’d lose so many acres.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the specific example in the podcast, just a relatable example I used. They talked about getting public funding for irrigation systems.

Kill the CRP program? Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe it makes fewer want to enroll but payouts become more lucrative. Supply-demand. Would that not eventually make things fall in a middle ground?

I disagree that nobody would enroll. Obviously you wouldn't. But you hunt. I wouldn't either. But there's plenty of landowners that don't hunt and would gladly accept a fatter CRP check in exchange for letting a stranger shoot pheasants or deer on the farm. They're receiving taxpayer money. Should the landowner be able to have their cake and eat it too? To be clear, I don't have an opinion either way. I just thought it was an interesting discussion.

Say it does kill the program. How do things evolve downstream? What if government got their grubby little paws out of everything?

Again, I haven't picked a side. Just thought it was interesting to think about.
 
What about offering a premium on top of crp for allowing public hunting? It seems like South Dakota has ground that is private but has public access. Maybe they do something like that.
 
Hardwood11 said:
...

Making it mandatory to allow public hunting to enroll in CRP ? Someone suggested that ?

...
Click to expand...
That sentiment ^^ pops up from time to time. But seriously, if you follow that logic out then everyone that receives and federal funding for whatever reason would be obligated to offer their property for public access, whether it be hunting or otherwise. That's just not going to happen, nor does it make any sense IMO. Virtually every property owner everywhere has received some form of gubmint support/payment.
 
I’ve listened and honestly still processing- but the point of the companies pushing the agendas (crossbows for example) are spot on. As soon as sales plateau out they will move onto the next agenda to keep making money. It’s a vicious cycle that hunters ourselves (some of us see) are missing and getting caught up in. Super good listen- want to process a bit more before I spout to much
 
Daver said:
That sentiment ^^ pops up from time to time. But seriously, if you follow that logic out then everyone that receives and federal funding for whatever reason would be obligated to offer their property for public access, whether it be hunting or otherwise. That's just not going to happen, nor does it make any sense IMO. Virtually every property owner everywhere has received some form of gubmint support/payment.
Click to expand...
But you could have the option to opt out. You can give them the middle finger and still have it all to yourself. I'd opt out of social security yesterday if I had the chance.

I'll stop on this tangent after posting this because I don't want to derail this thread and send it down an off-topic, political rabbit hole, but shouldn't the goal be less government reliance for everyone? Doesn't matter whether you're the crackhead on lifelong welfare or a farmer/landowner relying a little too much (maybe?) on government subsidies. What's the difference? What about mega corporations or banks that get overleveraged and want a bailout? Is there maybe a little hypocrisy here?

I just kinda feel like everything is so artificially propped up and have to wonder how things would be if it all went away. CRP (tax dollars) prop up the grain market, the land market is propped up. Oh your land is worth a lot? Oh we're gonna have to tax you on that. Corn -> ethanol -> gas pump -> tax. CRP check, taxed. "Oh here's a little tax break for you because you bought a truck for farm use; see we're helping you out, fine citizen! Oh by the way, these line items here are for tax, title, license you can sign your name by the 'x'." It's a racket. But you're right, it'll never happen because the government would have to relinquish the firm grip they have on the nutsack of its citizens.

I'm not advocating for or against the public access if you take government payments but I thought it was an interesting concept. I know it, it sounds like a very commie idea! I get it! But maybe it's time to keep your hands in your own pockets? Just my .02

No intention to ruffle feathers here either. I know there are lots of landowners here. Outside of my house, I don't own land (I will someday, hell or high water) but I did grow up on a farm and the family definitely has CRP as we speak. So maybe I'm a hypocrite too :)
 
RinggoCy said:
But you could have the option to opt out. You can give them the middle finger and still have it all to yourself. I'd opt out of social security yesterday if I had the chance.

I'll stop on this tangent after posting this because I don't want to derail this thread and send it down an off-topic, political rabbit hole, but shouldn't the goal be less government reliance for everyone? Doesn't matter whether you're the crackhead on lifelong welfare or a farmer/landowner relying a little too much (maybe?) on government subsidies. What's the difference? What about mega corporations or banks that get overleveraged and want a bailout? Is there maybe a little hypocrisy here?

I just kinda feel like everything is so artificially propped up and have to wonder how things would be if it all went away. CRP (tax dollars) prop up the grain market, the land market is propped up. Oh your land is worth a lot? Oh we're gonna have to tax you on that. Corn -> ethanol -> gas pump -> tax. CRP check, taxed. "Oh here's a little tax break for you because you bought a truck for farm use; see we're helping you out, fine citizen! Oh by the way, these line items here are for tax, title, license you can sign your name by the 'x'." It's a racket. But you're right, it'll never happen because the government would have to relinquish the firm grip they have on the nutsack of its citizens.

I'm not advocating for or against the public access if you take government payments but I thought it was an interesting concept. I know it, it sounds like a very commie idea! I get it! But maybe it's time to keep your hands in your own pockets? Just my .02

No intention to ruffle feathers here either. I know there are lots of landowners here. Outside of my house, I don't own land (I will someday, hell or high water) but I did grow up on a farm and the family definitely has CRP as we speak. So maybe I'm a hypocrite too :)
Click to expand...
I feel like you called me a hypocrite...in short, I will say that no, I do not believe that I am a hypocrite for receiving some form of government payment...in exchange for NOT planting crops on my land and then not allowing full public access to my ground.

How would such a thing even work? Would I, as the landowner, be held responsible in case of an accident on my land...where I had not overtly granted permission for someone to be due to it being "public"? Again, in short, private property rights run very deep in this country and have a lot to do with our overall prosperity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom