First off, I am going to try to keep this short, but there was a lot to unpack with this podcast. It is obvious that he has not fully developed his stance on several circumstances surrounding overcrowding and jumps in hunter numbers. He makes it extremely obvious when he gets challenged beyond bashing on the YT guys too. If the interviewer ventures away from that line of questioning he gets very quite and makes every attempt possible to get back onto the YT channels or non profits. Are they complicit in what has happened in the hunting world? To the degree he is trying to make? No.
Matt Rinella is hitting on some decent points, but if failing to get to the root of the issues...which is needed to get a solid position on his stances/issues. I will admit that I am a follower of the YT channels and cannot wait until the next episode of all the big names; especially when it comes to turkey hunting channels. But to call them all out as the creators of these issues fails to get to what is really wrong with the scenarios going on with public land hunting.
Has the hunting industry failed us? Yes, but it started with Primos, Realtree, the old TNN shows from the 90s, etc. That generation failed to see the future of hunting and the atmosphere they created got the ball rolling in a bad direction.
So what should have happened? I think if those originals would have focused on getting more public property, highlighting problems with land locked property, and using their money gained to truly benefit the general public.
How do we fix it? This is the one that I really think Rinella is delusional (he thinks the community needs to stop following public hunting figures...impossible). I would love to see an organization (maybe TFT) come out and focus a huge amount of their time/resources on public land access and acquisition.
My opinion on what is going on and how to fix it with the least amount of fallout:
Public property over crowding was already becoming an issue way before YT. Ask any duck hunter in Arkansas. Sure it's gotten worse over the years, but in my experience, it started in the early 2000s. State agencies need to get this under wrap and focus more on acquiring additional public properties and/or providing more access. I know every state has this issue. There are thousands upon thousands of acres out there that could be opened up.
I will use duck hunting as an example. The White River National Refuge is over 150,000 acres. Of that acreage, almost half is off limits to duck hunting. Sure, ducks need refuges, but that amount in one area is wholly ridiculous. These are the types of properties that could be opened up with the strike of a pen, but will not without some of these bigger names helping out the cause.
Sorry for the rant, but Rinella kinda got my mind rolling and I had to put my .02 out there.
I listened to one a week or so ago and he had a woman from Instagram, I think her name was Laura and she brought up some of the same points Spurs mentioned. From what I remember, Rinella also brought up the idea with her that the fix for some of the issues is for "influencers" need to go away and stop posting hero pics on social media and so forth. She did a great job of defending herself as an influencer who really tries to pay a lot of respect to the animals, conservation, the heart behind it and showing hunters and hunting in a positive light. She did very strongly agree, that the public land hot spotting and all the videos and other services that have been popping up over the past decade or so are making a negative impact that is being felt by residents and non-resident hunters alike in the areas she frequents.
I've been there and many places in between and I agree that a lot of things are heading in the wrong direction. What I do love about the podcast is that whether 100% right or only partially right at least there are some conversations being had. It's not all one sided and I hope to hear more dialogue such as this and hopefully we can really see some positive things done because of the things we agree on that will benefit all hunters and wild game on our public and private lands for generations to come.
Kansas is looking at restricting non resident duck hunters from public land in the state wed- saturday for the 2024 season.
YouTubers and their loose lip practices are what got us here on public hunting. They did more damage in the past 10 years than primos etc did to public hunters in a lifetime. Of course you can add onx, podcasts, social media competition, free covid money, etc. The fix is loss of hunting opportunity for public land hunters and specifically non residents hunters. So if you are a public land hunters remember when you like, subscribe, view this content your are putting a nail in your own coffin
Quote from: Spurs on July 25, 2023, 10:49:55 AM
How do we fix it? This is the one that I really think Rinella is delusional (he thinks the community needs to stop following public hunting figures...impossible). I would love to see an organization (maybe TFT) come out and focus a huge amount of their time/resources on public land access and acquisition.
TFT nor any other non-profit has thee funds to acquire the amount of land we need to somewhat mitigate this overcrowding issue. The federal government are the only ones with the ability to just make more money to buy more land... But every proposal to do so is always met with criticism from Republicans at the state, local, and federal levels. Don't believe me? I know of 2 NWR proposals that the GOP has attacked in last few weeks, one in Pennsylvania, one in Maine. Big gubment stealing all the land mane!!!
Quote from: Spurs on July 25, 2023, 10:49:55 AM
I would love to see an organization (maybe TFT) come out and focus a huge amount of their time/resources on public land access and acquisition.
That is not TFT's mission. They are doing a great job assisting in funding research that may help us get more turkeys on the ground. NWTF has done a little to assist with public access, but most people will never hunt where they've helped get public access. And getting public access is FAR from NWTF's goal.
Do you realize the funding necessary to acquire public hunting access? If a property is bought, lets just use an asking price of $2,000/acre. They buy a square mile (640 acres). That is $1.28 MILLION dollars. How many turkey hunters do you think you can cram onto that square mile while still maintaining a hint of hunting quality? That $1.28 million would much better spent by most organizations on research. One conservation group that comes to mind that actually HAS helped secure a lot more public hunting access is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They are one of the best in that regards. The Nature Conservancy is a big player oo.
Quote from: Spurs on July 25, 2023, 10:49:55 AMPublic property over crowding was already becoming an issue way before YT. Ask any duck hunter in Arkansas. Sure it's gotten worse over the years, but in my experience, it started in the early 2000s. State agencies need to get this under wrap and focus more on acquiring additional public properties and/or providing more access. I know every state has this issue. There are thousands upon thousands of acres out there that could be opened up.
The turkey public land overcrowding was on a slow rise or even mostly stable in most states. Until the YouTube/social media era. Since, we've seen DRASTIC leaps in demand unlike anything we've ever witnessed before. And the data is there to back it up. There is NO arguing it hasn't had a detrimental effect on public hunting opportunities. And guess what? MANY of us on this very forum predicted this would happen.
As far as states opening up more access, refer back to the costs above. Best we can hope for is more states getting private lands hunting programs where landowners get payment for allowing public access. But you ain't gonna see hardly any of that east of the MS River. And what little acreage that may be opened up by such programs will never be enough to meet the current demand of public land turkey hunting.
As far as NWR's allowing more public access, we are actually getting there thanks to Trump. He started the ball rolling to get more hunting opportunities opened up on NWR. Each year for the past 3-4 years more and more NWRs are allowing additional (or even the first) hunting opportunities. But guess what? Still won't be enough to meet demand.
What can states do to help? BAN or RESTRICT the commercial exploitation of our public land resources. The damage has already been done, but any further needs to be mitigated while possible. For a long time Missouri didn't allow commercial filming on its state owned lands. However they've since allowed it by permit at the low cost of like ~$500/day (or somewhere around there.) And the feds need to enforce their commercial use permitting regulations that are already in place in some areas. I guarantee you some of your favorite YouTubers haven't bought some necessary film permits in the past.
What can WE do to help? As Rinella's platform states, Hunt Quietly. Don't support hunting influencers/YouTubers. If you do, you are just further assisting in the commercialization of our public land hunting resource.
Those who profit from filming/sponsorships/etc. will use the excuse "Oh we need more hunters! The antis, the antis!" Think about this. How much turkey hunting opportunity have we lost from the antis? Now how much have we lost thanks to YouTube? Hmmmm.....
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on July 26, 2023, 10:04:56 AM
Quote from: Spurs on July 25, 2023, 10:49:55 AM
I would love to see an organization (maybe TFT) come out and focus a huge amount of their time/resources on public land access and acquisition.
That is not TFT's mission. They are doing a great job assisting in funding research that may help us get more turkeys on the ground. NWTF has done a little to assist with public access, but most people will never hunt where they've helped get public access. And getting public access is FAR from NWTF's goal.
Do you realize the funding necessary to acquire public hunting access? If a property is bought, lets just use an asking price of $2,000/acre. They buy a square mile (640 acres). That is $1.28 MILLION dollars. How many turkey hunters do you think you can cram onto that square mile while still maintaining a hint of hunting quality? That $1.28 million would much better spent by most organizations on research. One conservation group that comes to mind that actually HAS helped secure a lot more public hunting access is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They are one of the best in that regards. The Nature Conservancy is a big player oo.
Quote from: Spurs on July 25, 2023, 10:49:55 AMPublic property over crowding was already becoming an issue way before YT. Ask any duck hunter in Arkansas. Sure it's gotten worse over the years, but in my experience, it started in the early 2000s. State agencies need to get this under wrap and focus more on acquiring additional public properties and/or providing more access. I know every state has this issue. There are thousands upon thousands of acres out there that could be opened up.
The turkey public land overcrowding was on a slow rise or even mostly stable in most states. Until the YouTube/social media era. Since, we've seen DRASTIC leaps in demand unlike anything we've ever witnessed before. And the data is there to back it up. There is NO arguing it hasn't had a detrimental effect on public hunting opportunities. And guess what? MANY of us on this very forum predicted this would happen.
As far as states opening up more access, refer back to the costs above. Best we can hope for is more states getting private lands hunting programs where landowners get payment for allowing public access. But you ain't gonna see hardly any of that east of the MS River. And what little acreage that may be opened up by such programs will never be enough to meet the current demand of public land turkey hunting.
As far as NWR's allowing more public access, we are actually getting there thanks to Trump. He started the ball rolling to get more hunting opportunities opened up on NWR. Each year for the past 3-4 years more and more NWRs are allowing additional (or even the first) hunting opportunities. But guess what? Still won't be enough to meet demand.
What can states do to help? BAN or RESTRICT the commercial exploitation of our public land resources. The damage has already been done, but any further needs to be mitigated while possible. For a long time Missouri didn't allow commercial filming on its state owned lands. However they've since allowed it by permit at the low cost of like ~$500/day (or somewhere around there.) And the feds need to enforce their commercial use permitting regulations that are already in place in some areas. I guarantee you some of your favorite YouTubers haven't bought some necessary film permits in the past.
What can WE do to help? As Rinella's platform states, Hunt Quietly. Don't support hunting influencers/YouTubers. If you do, you are just further assisting in the commercialization of our public land hunting resource.
Those who profit from filming/sponsorships/etc. will use the excuse "Oh we need more hunters! The antis, the antis!" Think about this. How much turkey hunting opportunity have we lost from the antis? Now how much have we lost thanks to YouTube? Hmmmm.....
I was kinda using TFT/NWTF as an example, but I think we can both agree that it is totally within the NWTF mission to open up access...although I doubt they really put as much focus on that as they like to portray.
Purchasing land is only one way to get access. Arkansas has a land leasing program (timber company property) that works wonders, it is just under utilized and very little people outside of the immediate area know about it. I really liked the idea that Rinella had about requiring some of these land owners that receive farm subsides to allow hunter access...like a trade off deal for the use of public funding. Although I would imagine there would be some HUGE push back from the farming lobbyists.
I just looked up that Missouri law and that actually blew my mind. I am highly doubtful that those guys are flipping that kind of coin to do their filming, which could spell disaster if they get caught...
In all honesty, odds are that nothing anyone does will make it good enough for everyone. Someone is always going to have a problem and that is the nature of freedom of speech.
Quote from: TurkeyReaper69 on July 26, 2023, 09:53:51 AM
Quote from: Spurs on July 25, 2023, 10:49:55 AM
How do we fix it? This is the one that I really think Rinella is delusional (he thinks the community needs to stop following public hunting figures...impossible). I would love to see an organization (maybe TFT) come out and focus a huge amount of their time/resources on public land access and acquisition.
TFT nor any other non-profit has thee funds to acquire the amount of land we need to somewhat mitigate this overcrowding issue. The federal government are the only ones with the ability to just make more money to buy more land... But every proposal to do so is always met with criticism from Republicans at the state, local, and federal levels. Don't believe me? I know of 2 NWR proposals that the GOP has attacked in last few weeks, one in Pennsylvania, one in Maine. Big gubment stealing all the land mane!!!
Well, as deerhunt stated, Trump did change that quite a bit, but DEFINITELY not enough. But as I stated, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Land leases, farm subsidies requirements, opening hunting on previously closed areas, etc. Sure it won't be enough, but it'd get things rolling in the right direction.
We gotta be honest with ourselves and figure out how to get the social media negative to work as positives. YT, Meta, Instagram, and all that stuff is here to stay. If we can get those people to use their platform to work in our direction, it'd be the best of both worlds.
The way some of these thread have taken drastic turns lately has me worried I may be seen as trying to stir the pot, but I think this dialog need a lot of attention. This is where Rinella completely loses me at. His form of lambasting anyone who disagrees with him not only hurts his argument, but really make me want to completely ignore him. If he would just take it down a couple of notches, he would probably be grabbing more people's attention and may actually get some of the people he hates up to the table for discussion instead of on the defense.
I'm just a construction guy that has too much time on his hands, but I think there is a way to coexist with both worlds...we just gotta make sure the end result benefits everyone.
Quote from: TurkeyReaper69 on July 26, 2023, 09:53:51 AM
Quote from: Spurs on July 25, 2023, 10:49:55 AM
How do we fix it? This is the one that I really think Rinella is delusional (he thinks the community needs to stop following public hunting figures...impossible). I would love to see an organization (maybe TFT) come out and focus a huge amount of their time/resources on public land access and acquisition.
TFT nor any other non-profit has thee funds to acquire the amount of land we need to somewhat mitigate this overcrowding issue. The federal government are the only ones with the ability to just make more money to buy more land... But every proposal to do so is always met with criticism from Republicans at the state, local, and federal levels. Don't believe me? I know of 2 NWR proposals that the GOP has attacked in last few weeks, one in Pennsylvania, one in Maine. Big gubment stealing all the land mane!!!
People here are still pissed about the NWR taking the land when they did. The govt used eminent domain though. I am on a VFD and we have NWR in the heart of our district. They still expect us to initial attack wildfires, protect their buildings/equipment, respond to rescues, etc. They provide zero money to us. They used to have grants but did away with that. They stored a tender in our station and allowed us to use it as long as we crewed it when they needed it. They took that back a few years ago. The fire guys are good and will come help us if we call, and we have some equipment they loaned us on our trucks until we can afford to buy our own. More public land is good for us hunters, but there is a reason folks are against acquiring more. I just highlighted one of them.
I know of 2 states that offer a program where land owners get reduced taxes if they manage the forest a certain way and allow the public to hunt it.
Alright fellas,
Let's all make our voices known and get this whopping 12.3 acres in MS transfered to the MDWFP. This would be a huge win for public access!
Hunting shows on television and the internet have done far more harm to hunting than good! They were, are, and will always be by and large either an outlet to brag and showboat or to make money. Most of the people who produce this rubbish either don't think ahead about the consequences or simply don't care. I've said it many times before and I will say it again, hunting will be destroyed by hunters, not by anti hunters.
I assume Matt Rinella is Steve Rinella's brother? He has done shows, accompanying his brother, on the Meateater series available on YouTube and the Sportsman's Channel. His turkey hunting in a Montana NF episode isn't bad. Almost made we want to buy a llama. It is an older episode.
Put "meateater turkey hunt" in your YouTube search feature and it will come up. If I remember he shoots a jake which on this forum would get him castrated and boiled in oil.
I long ago gave Meateater a subscribing click. One of the better series. Someplace on one of these forums it was rumored the two brothers had a falling out. Apparently true. Oh well.
I just scanned the previous post. Did anyone not know who Matt Rinella is? I don't do Podcast so I've never heard him.
His brother probably got mad at him for shooting that Jake.
No he didn't. Another Meateater show has Steve hunting with a retired biologist who explains that this "shoot a jake" phobia is probably a fallacy.
Quote from: joey46 on July 27, 2023, 06:56:04 AM
I assume Matt Rinella is Steve Rinella's brother? He has done shows, accompanying his brother, on the Meateater series available on YouTube and the Sportsman's Channel. His turkey hunting in a Montana NF episode isn't bad. Almost made we want to buy a llama. It is an older episode.
Put "meateater turkey hunt" in your YouTube search feature and it will come up. If I remember he shoots a jake which on this forum would get him castrated and boiled in oil.
I long ago gave Meateater a subscribing click. One of the better series. Someplace on one of these forums it was rumored the two brothers had a falling out. Apparently true. Oh well.
I just scanned the previous post. Did anyone not know who Matt Rinella is? I don't do Podcast so I've never heard him.
You're correct. He is Steve's brother and they used to do a lot of stuff together, but according to Matt, they are astranged at this point due to their views on hunting/some other stuff...this all came out on a different podcast.
Quote from: Farmboy27 on July 26, 2023, 08:39:21 PM
Hunting shows on television and the internet have done far more harm to hunting than good! They were, are, and will always be by and large either an outlet to brag and showboat or to make money. Most of the people who produce this rubbish either don't think ahead about the consequences or simply don't care. I've said it many times before and I will say it again, hunting will be destroyed by hunters, not by anti hunters.
I am on the fence with this with this simple theory, but I honestly think this focus is doing nothing to help our situation. Which is why I made this thread.
Matt Rinella may be 100% correct in his theories, Joe Rogan may be the worst thing to every happen to hunting, heck, Peta may be secretly funding the whole thing and sitting back just laughing. But who really cares what created it...the BIGGER ISSUE is how to we right the ship. Pointing fingers will not solve a single issue that hunters have, be it public land, low populations, disease, habitat, etc. Creative solutions and smarter people will need to fix it.
That is the point I am making. Matt needs to slow down on the crap talking and bring some of these guys to the table for a civil debate. That is the only way a solution will be made.
You're not going to cancel YT guys, the hunting industry will continue to grow and we will be sitting here still pointing fingers instead of coming up with a reasonable solution.
I will agree with you Spurs, hunting shows and YouTube aren't going anywhere. That's because the hunting public continues to embrace them.
Quote from: Spurs on July 26, 2023, 02:45:17 PM
I was kinda using TFT/NWTF as an example, but I think we can both agree that it is totally within the NWTF mission to open up access...although I doubt they really put as much focus on that as they like to portray.
Purchasing land is only one way to get access. Arkansas has a land leasing program (timber company property) that works wonders, it is just under utilized and very little people outside of the immediate area know about it. I really liked the idea that Rinella had about requiring some of these land owners that receive farm subsides to allow hunter access...like a trade off deal for the use of public funding. Although I would imagine there would be some HUGE push back from the farming lobbyists.
I just looked up that Missouri law and that actually blew my mind. I am highly doubtful that those guys are flipping that kind of coin to do their filming, which could spell disaster if they get caught...
In all honesty, odds are that nothing anyone does will make it good enough for everyone. Someone is always going to have a problem and that is the nature of freedom of speech.
Well, as deerhunt stated, Trump did change that quite a bit, but DEFINITELY not enough. But as I stated, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Land leases, farm subsidies requirements, opening hunting on previously closed areas, etc. Sure it won't be enough, but it'd get things rolling in the right direction.
We gotta be honest with ourselves and figure out how to get the social media negative to work as positives. YT, Meta, Instagram, and all that stuff is here to stay. If we can get those people to use their platform to work in our direction, it'd be the best of both worlds.
The way some of these thread have taken drastic turns lately has me worried I may be seen as trying to stir the pot, but I think this dialog need a lot of attention. This is where Rinella completely loses me at. His form of lambasting anyone who disagrees with him not only hurts his argument, but really make me want to completely ignore him. If he would just take it down a couple of notches, he would probably be grabbing more people's attention and may actually get some of the people he hates up to the table for discussion instead of on the defense.
I'm just a construction guy that has too much time on his hands, but I think there is a way to coexist with both worlds...we just gotta make sure the end result benefits everyone.
Yeah, it is in NWTF's mission. I'm aware of few projects across the U.S. where they've played a significant role in actually opening up access. Plenty of projects where they play a very small hand, but then will add it to pad their numbers and look like the hero. I can tell you from personal experience working with them. It'd be challenging to find projects in most states, where they were the key player in getting the access. Which is a shame considering how long they've been around and all the effort they've put towards to recruiting more turkey hunters. The following is NWTF's success, almost A HALF AN ACRE per hunter recruited! This model is not sustainable if we expect to maintain affordable, quality turkey hunting.
(https://i.imgur.com/u21TEfn.png)
I'm familiar with the Arkansas program, and it is a good one. There have been substantial public land losses in the southeast that are industrial forest lands. Alabama had multiple industrial forest WMAs, through long-term losses and even the generosity of a family. Well money talks, and those WMAs have been lost completely. I'm aware of another WMA that is currently being leased as well, but shrinking by the year. Mississippi lost a timber lease WMA a couple years ago. But you can't blame the state agencies for these losses, if prices get high enough they simply can't afford to keep pumping money into land they don't own. It would be nice to see other states try the Arkansas model, but with lease prices continually rising (thanks to the commercialization of hunting), I don't see it being economically feasible without major federal government funding (of which there is a little out there).
Farm subsidies allowing hunter access, great idea! Insurmountable odds of it happening.
There are a few folks on social media platforms who somewhat "try" to help the situation or resource. But for every one of them there is a half dozen who don't. And most all have profit/notoriety as a motive. If they received neither, there'd be few of them left.
Agree 100% on Rinella needing to tone it down a bit, and he has. You can tell it big time if you listen to Hunt Quietly. In the beginning his delivery was rough and he was too hardcore, unmoving on his stances and not willing to budge. Well that mentality can alienate people in the middle, or those not sure which side to be own. Rinella realized this and has calmed down a lot and became a better podcast host. He is now getting some GREAT guests on and gaining a lot of traction. It thrilled me to see your thread post, because at this point, any publicity is good publicity to help the Hunt Quietly movement grow. To see Rinella talked about on the Joe Rogan podcast, thanks to him triggering Cam Hanes, was awesome. We need to spread all the awareness we can about what is happening to hunting and what the future is going to look like if we don't start working on changing things.
Quote from: Farmboy27 on July 27, 2023, 09:30:20 PM
I will agree with you Spurs, hunting shows and YouTube aren't going anywhere. That's because the hunting public continues to embrace them.
Exactly, and I am one that will likely continue to watch...helplessly addicted to some of them and keep hoping that this continued scrutiny will somehow reach them.
Perfect world would be if some of the guys he has mentioned will swallow their pride and reach out to him for a type of collaboration. Sure they may not align on all issues, but together, they may find middle ground to benefit all parties.