# Rinella Brotherly Feud



## splatek (Dec 20, 2021)

As a relatively new, adult-onset hunter, wrapping up my 3rd full season, I'm less curious about the brotherly feud and more interested in the opinions of each: One says there are too many hunters and social media is ruining hunting; the other is more or less a slave to the media, Netflix, Insta, etc. 

Without some social media and shows like MeatEater, I would have never started hunting. And, I am not that good at picking spots, so many of my spots are not crowded. I can see, however, the position of someone that hikes miles and miles in the off-season scouting, only to find a half dozen trucks parked at the trail head come the opener. Personally, I would feel like a farce to say we need less hunters, because it's too crowded, when without such social media/tv shows, I would not be in the woods hunting, making new friends, and learning some self-sustenance. 

Curious about others' opinions.


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 20, 2021)

I just listened to this podcast as I was finishing up a drafting job... First off, in my opinion, Matt Rinella is a (word I am not allowed to say). 

Unfortunately we live in the world of social media. Some are more consumed with it than others. I do agree with Matt that there are people that hunt for the wrong reasons, which may be for likes or attention. 

I do not feel that social media has affected the places that I hunt. If it has, I have not noticed it. I have not noticed over crowding, but I know a lot of people in Ga have complained about over crowding

I do not think we necessarily NEED MORE hunters. I believe that we do need to keep our numbers up so that we have enough hunters to oppose future rules/laws that might cut into our rights to hunt. I believe that hunting will eventually be a thing of the past (not in our lifetime), and I want there to be enough hunters in the future generations to fight that. (Conspiracy theory? I don't think so.) 

As for hunting media, some is good, most is bad. I only consume the media that suits me. I feel that MeatEater is a good one and it seems that they do great things for our right to hunt. I never had the desire to bear hunt until I listened to The Bear Hunting Magazine Podcast and heard them talking about how great the meat is. So hunting media put a new (unsuccessful) bear hunter in the woods this year.


----------



## dang (Dec 20, 2021)

I also just wrapped up the podcast on my flight this morning. I see both sides of it and I thought Steve handled it well. If Matt Rinella thinks a dozen trucks at the trailhead in a giant mountain range is over crowded he oughta come hunt a 3day Georgia check-in gun hunt on a 4000 acre property ?

Seriously though, I hunt public land, I deal with pressure plenty and I do just fine. I think, and would imagine there are others that will agree, public hunting in our state rewards those that are willing to do things most aren’t. With a little creativity a tiny loss of sleep and some miles on your boots, you can find some great hunting in Georgia. Social media is nothing more than a tool that connects people. It’s been happening forever but todays version is just a lot more effective. I’ve met some great dudes through social media who hunt the same areas as me and all over the state. 

I think the brother misses the mark a bit. He’s seems to have this opinion that an entire generation of younger hunters who grew up online hunt for the wrong reasons. I think a few bad apples can spoil the bunch but he’s painting with some pretty broad strokes and I feel like he had a bit of a selfish and entitled stance on the whole thing. 

Hunting doesn’t survive without the next generation.


----------



## dwhee87 (Dec 20, 2021)

I think the netflix series is well done, and portrays hunting in a very positive light. The Meateater podcast is excellent, and dives into many things tangential to hunting....biology, endangered species, game laws, conservation, etc. The spin-off Bear Grease podcast (Clay Newcomb's) is also good...I've only listened to one so far, about Folsom points found at a 10,000 year old bison harvest dig.

Steve has figured out a way to monetize his love of the outdoors and hunting, and does it justice, IMO.

Too many hunters? Don't know. I do know that the money we all spend on licenses/tags mostly goes to a good use. Less hunters, less money, less conservation, less education.  Double edged sword, I suppose.

I've been fortunate not to have to public land hunt (except for one DIY elk hunt in CO years ago...which made the corner-stepping episode of Meateater more interesting), so can't speak to crowded public lands. But I think anytime you have public land within a few hours' drive of a large metro area, you are gonna bump into people. Out west, probably less so.


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 20, 2021)

dwhee87 said:


> I've been fortunate not to have to public land hunt



What are you saying? Us public guys are just peasants?! just kidding.

I feel very fortunate to be able to hunt public land, and I love every second of it!


----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 20, 2021)

I'm not real familiar with those guys, but from my experience hunter interest has dwindled greatly since I was a youngster.
I think the social media magnifies a small problem and gives a small percentage of people louder voices to complain about it.
As an aside, I've just picked up on the use of trapping as a conservation tool for my game animals. Without social media (GON), I could only be possibly 1/10 as far along.. Communicating with others others about my interest has made it much more enjoyable and entertaining for myself.
Complaining about what other hunters do and how they do it It's a great disservice to our interest.
And if you are on public land, you can't believe that you have a place to yourself. People scout all weeks of the year with the goal of all being at the same area at the same time. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you really had it figured out you would be at places where nobody else was gonna show up. Sharing woodsmanship, skills, and knowledge (like people used to take pride in) would go a long way towards helping us all today.
-$.02.




Hunting participation peaked in 1982, when nearly 17 million hunters purchased 28.3 million licenses. Today, however, only 11.5 million people in the United States actually hunt. That’s less than 4% of the national population.
https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/01/decline-in-hunting-threatens-conservation-funding/


----------



## dwhee87 (Dec 20, 2021)

Whit90 said:


> What are you saying? Us public guys are just peasants?! just kidding.
> 
> I feel very fortunate to be able to hunt public land, and I love every second of it!


The day will come that I will have to, likely. The 'camp' I belong to will likely be sold in 2022, and I'm currently living on a 35 acre tract, that I'll probably have to give up after next season. Good thing is, I'm only about 3 miles as the crow flies from Dawson Forest.


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 20, 2021)

dwhee87 said:


> The day will come that I will have to, likely. The 'camp' I belong to will likely be sold in 2022, and I'm currently living on a 35 acre tract, that I'll probably have to give up after next season. Good thing is, I'm only about 3 miles as the crow flies from Dawson Forest.



That's convenient!


----------



## cliffdweller (Dec 20, 2021)

The "passing along of a trade or hobby, passion, or sport" looks a bit different than it did when some of us were young,  but it's enjoyable to watch people do it well.  Steve is a phenomenal hunter who gives it everything he's got, and I find the whole enchilada inspiring...wish I could see all of those places he goes.  But atleast I get to see it through his eyes. I hope he keeps shedding light on these public lands...who knows,  maybe I will get up the energy to try it....once.
Btw..looks FAR from overcrowded where he is hunting. I seriously doubt that a few vids are going to send the masses flying into the wilderness to try and mimic his every move. I love watching meateater


----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 20, 2021)

Just watch my 1st episode tonight of him and his guide friend elk hunting...
 That was a very interesting conversation about the guide's perspective... 
 I've been through that on the fishing side but never the hunting, even though hunting was my major love over fishing coming up. I'm trying to switch that around in my old age because of diminished physical capabilities. But when hunting season comes... Well, I haven't cranked either of my 2 boats since July.


----------



## NCMTNHunter (Dec 21, 2021)

Keep in mind that Matt’s issue is more of a western problem than what we see here. Here in the East our supply of game is high enough, demand is low enough that we can still just guy a license and go hunt. The issue of over crowding out west isn’t so much a problem with the number of trucks at the trailhead. It’s and issue of the demand on the resource is so high that over the counter hunting is disappearing and tags are getting harder and harder to draw. 

They didn’t really talk about it in their debate but social media along with podcasts, OnX, and other online resources have help lower the barrier for us easterners to go out there and be successful.

I do think Matt has a valid point though I feel like it is a much smaller contributor to the problem than he does. I’ve pondered the ethics of companies using and promoting public resources to sell products myself.


----------



## mallardsx2 (Dec 21, 2021)

We need more public land. That is the real underlying issue and argument in about every state. I think thats what Matt's biggest gripe is. And it IS a valid gripe.

Game agencies should be raising the rates of hunting licenses 2 fold across the country for the next 5 years and gobble up as much vacant land as possible for hunting and fishing before its all sold off. Use the increase in hunting license revenue to pay for it.

People would cry initially, but they would look back in 50 years and see that it was a good decision.


----------



## dang (Dec 21, 2021)

mallardsx2 said:


> We need more public land. That is the real underlying issue and argument in about every state. I think thats what Matt's biggest gripe is. And it IS a valid gripe.
> 
> Game agencies should be raising the rates of hunting licenses 2 fold across the country for the next 5 years and gobble up as much vacant land as possible for hunting and fishing before its all sold off. Use the increase in hunting license revenue to pay for it.
> 
> People would cry initially, but they would look back in 50 years and see that it was a good decision.



I agree. My comparison with the Georgia gun hunts was sarcastic and more for comedic effect. I realize they are apples to oranges and it’s a different world out West. We have an entire generation of young people who grew up in a digital world. They’re going to talk online and fill their feeds with interesting things they are passionate about. If they’re hunters, that means photos and conversations about hunting. That isn’t going away and I don’t believe it solves the problems he’s facing either. I feel his points would have been better received if he tried harder to get to the root of the problem which I think others here have touched on. Increasing access to better disperse the hunters we do have, increasing funding to free up money to acquire more public access hunting lands. Instead he seemed to want to stop short and pretend that the root cause of all these problems is online hunting content and a picture of a buck on a box of deer ammo. His arguments felt misguided. 

The beauty of public lands is that they belong to the public (including non-hunters). What I don’t understand is why he feels that he is any more entitled to the use of those lands than anyone else. To want 50% less hunters, but not be willing to take part in that reduction comes across (to me) as selfish and if your solution to the problem is to just stop talking about, showing and marketing hunting in today’s digital world and turn it into this big secret activity sounds like a recipe for slowly eroding the sport for younger hunters and our future generations.


----------



## dang (Dec 21, 2021)

I also don’t understand his argument for companies not using hunting content to market their products. Some of the most effective pieces of hunting gear were sold to me through the consumption of hunting media and seeing their value put to action in the field. To expect a company to market a hunting product to hunters without showing it's effectiveness seems absurd. I enjoy seeing gear put to use, on a hunt, in a situation that is relatable to the things I do. Apply it to any other product and the argument becomes absurd. What if Oklahoma Joe tried to sell their pellet grills without ever putting out any content showing someone cooking on them? Companies are selling hunting products, designed to make the end user more effective at killing animals. It's what their target audience does and it is what the product is designed for. The whole argument that this is somehow exploiting wildilfe was lost on me. I just see it as showcasing a product in action and framing it in a way that lets that product and the value it provides shine. A video of a guy over-cooking a dry and mediocre brisket doesn’t make me want to buy a pellet grill….and a video of a guy bumbling around the deer woods spooking game and not seeing anything doesn’t make me want to buy his grunt tube. Cook a killer brisket and show me how you did it and I'm interested…go out on public land and call up a big deer and show me how you setup and how you used that gear to do it…and I'm interested.


----------



## jbogg (Dec 21, 2021)

I can understand Matt Rinella‘s as well as many other western hunters frustrations. Makes me feel blessed to live in Georgia. I cannot imagine living somewhere where I had to hope I was drawn to hunt my own state. With that said, I think Rinella is being simplistic, and unrealistic.  When he says many people are hunting for the wrong reasons it sounds to me like he is upset because many people are not hunting for the same reasons as he is. 

Stating that shows like MeatEater are guilty of lying by omission for not broadcasting all of their wounded loss hunts is intellectually dishonest. Doing so would only serve the interests of the anti-hunters. 

While I have enjoyed this forum for years, I am not a fan of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram for a multitude of reasons. With that said, social media is here to stay, and will only become more powerful. Adapt and overcome, or stay home and complain.


----------



## Evergreen (Dec 21, 2021)

mallardsx2 said:


> We need more public land. That is the real underlying issue and argument in about every state. I think thats what Matt's biggest gripe is. And it IS a valid gripe.
> 
> Game agencies should be raising the rates of hunting licenses 2 fold across the country for the next 5 years and gobble up as much vacant land as possible for hunting and fishing before its all sold off. Use the increase in hunting license revenue to pay for it.
> 
> People would cry initially, but they would look back in 50 years and see that it was a good decision.



Not sure I agree with this, in theory it would be nice to have more public land, but like everything else leave it to the government to mess it up or one day just up and decide its illegal to hunt public land. Not sure I want them to have anymore property than they already do


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Dec 21, 2021)

Evergreen said:


> Not sure I agree with this, in theory it would be nice to have more public land, but like everything else leave it to the government to mess it up or one day just up and decide its illegal to hunt public land. Not sure I want them to have anymore property than they already do



More land isn't the answer here in north Georgia.  Half my county is government land.  Spend that money on management instead.  Habitat improvement would increase the carrying capacity of the land we have now.


----------



## lampern (Dec 21, 2021)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> More land isn't the answer here in north Georgia.  Half my county is government land.  Spend that money on management instead.  Habitat improvement would increase the carrying capacity of the land we have now.



Yes it is.

State land can be managed.

Federal national forest cannot.

Solution is for the state to buy land and manage it.


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Dec 21, 2021)

lampern said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> State land can be managed.
> 
> ...



The federal land around here was commercially logged for decades, providing early successional habitat for all manner of game.


----------



## lampern (Dec 21, 2021)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> The federal land around here was commercially logged for decades, providing early successional habitat for all manner of game.



Everytime they try to manage the national forest in NC there are lawsuits and nothing is ever done


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Dec 21, 2021)

Same here.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 21, 2021)

Evergreen said:


> Not sure I agree with this, in theory it would be nice to have more public land, but like everything else leave it to the government to mess it up or one day just up and decide its illegal to hunt public land. Not sure I want them to have anymore property than they already do


I think public land is one of the very few things our federal government has gotten right. I'm all for it.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 21, 2021)

I really like the Meateater stuff. The first positive hunting/fishing show I've seen in a long, long time that is real and isn't all about antlers and midwest foodplots and some big-bosomed blonde shooting huge tame bucks and squealing. The podcast family and Youtube series content are great, too. 
I also think Matt has a valid point. There is no way there is any shortage of hunters anywhere in this country. Every huntable piece of land in America has somebody hunting on it already. I don't think there's much of a feud, actually. Matt has been on the Meateater show and podcast several times.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 21, 2021)

I’m not convinced we need more hunters, y’all know that.

I have yet to hear a valid reason for why we should share dead animals with multitudes on social media, though. 
And I’m not buying the we’ve always had  cave paintings or sporting goods store bragging boards argument. You pretty much knew the people in the store and you definitely knew your fellow cavemen. 
Both Aron Snyder and steve basically said why they do it or why it’s done. Validity. Having dead animals helps sell backpacks and seeing dead animals is why Steve bought books.

So other than ego and selling stuff, why post pics?

I also think he’s right on “the industry” policing it’s own. It’s just not done. You can’t call anyone out, because “you’re dividing hunters”


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 21, 2021)

ddd-shooter said:


> I’m not convinced we need more hunters, y’all know that.
> 
> I have yet to hear a valid reason for why we should share dead animals with multitudes on social media, though.
> And I’m not buying the we’ve always had  cave paintings or sporting goods store bragging boards argument. You pretty much knew the people in the store and you definitely knew your fellow cavemen.
> ...


Also, Steve spends thousands of dollars producing shows where he hunts like hades for a week and doesn't kill a thing. And he shows that, too. That says something to me.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 21, 2021)

I can see both sides of the coin in this situation,  some are wanting more hunters for basically nothing more than political numbers. I get it, I certainly do, others don't want more hunters do to overcrowding,  again I get it.  I would like to see more land preserved for the future, instead of sold to some outfit that wants to build a subdivision or car plant, or whatever else is deemed profitable.  I am all for more lands being made part of the WMA system or national forests. 

As a public land hunter,  thinking unconventionally sometimes has benefited me. A little more boot leather, a little less sleep, a pack of peanut butter crackers for breakfast,  instead of eggs, sausage,  grits and coffee, and the realization that I have to drag whatever I kill to the truck, whether I use my game cart, drag it the old fashioned way, or decide to cut it up and pack it out. Part of what I like about all that, there is no driving the truck or atv to the spot that the deer is, there is a little more work involved,  and usually those that aren't willing to do that work go away. Just my honest opinions.


----------



## Buckman18 (Dec 21, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> Also, Steve spends thousands of dollars producing shows where he hunts like hades for a week and doesn't kill a thing. And he shows that, too. That says something to me.



If he hunted with me or you he wouldn't have that problem!


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 21, 2021)

As far as the social media, tv and internet content. As I stated in another thread earlier,  what I perceive as a bad thing is "antler worship " giving people unrealistic expectations as to what they might see when they venture out hunting for the first time.
I like the content of the meat eater shows and of the hunting public. They actually have episodes where they don't get anything or see anything,  hopefully sending a message that it isn't always easy. Although I have read articles that sponsors don't like that to much and would rather skip those episodes. I like the episodes that show the work, show the struggle. Encouraging patients, and learning from the next mistakes you make. Face it , we live in a world that instant gratification is expected these days, and it is only getting worse.


----------



## dang (Dec 21, 2021)

Buckman18 said:


> If he hunted with me or you he wouldn't have that problem!


On this episode of meateater, Steve shoots a 56lb doe fawn ???
Im steven rinella, I live to hunt and hunt to live…I AM A MEAT EATER *instrument sounds*


----------



## Buckman18 (Dec 21, 2021)

dang said:


> On this episode of meateater, Steve shoots a 56lb doe fawn ???
> Im steven rinella, I live to hunt and hunt to live…I AM A MEAT EATER *instrument sounds*



Ive been known to shoot them a lot smaller than that!


----------



## Mattval (Dec 21, 2021)

*I just finished the episode today.  Matt Rinella is a JERK.  He is upset that not everyone thinks like he does.  He totally disrespected his brother, everyone at the table and Meateater as a company.  He is a govt employee.  He does not have to get out there and hustle like entrepreneurs do. *
*As Outdoorsmen/people we have so many other things to worry about than what some dummy posts on their insta or their snatch-chat.   I could care less. *
*As a side note I do not have facebook or insta or snatch chat.  This forum is the most social I get.*

*I will read his article though.  I wonder was he paid for that piece?*

*link:  **Matt's Rinella Article*


----------



## jbogg (Dec 21, 2021)

If the governments numbers are to be believed, and these days I am suspect of anything that our government puts out, then we baby boomers who make up a significant portion of the overall hunter demographic are aging out of hunting at a rate faster than we are being replaced by the younger generation.  If these numbers are accurate it presents a real challenge for hunting in the future. 

For those that argue that since hunters will never make up more than 50% of the overall population then it’s worthless to worry about attracting more hunters, I say that is a strawman argument. We are never going to be a majority, but we can attempt to be a very vocal minority. Heck, I would bet that the majority of hunters fail to participate in any type of public input, or join any pro hunting organizations. The Foothills project in North Georgia is a prime example. The last time I checked the online comments, those comments that are in opposition to the Foothills project and the Timber harvest that would follow are 10 times the number of those comments in favor.  Until hunters learn to use their voice I fear that we will continue a slow death spiral until we have no voice at all.


----------



## splatek (Dec 22, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> I really like the Meateater stuff. The first positive hunting/fishing show I've seen in a long, long time that is real and isn't all about antlers and midwest foodplots and some big-bosomed blonde shooting huge tame bucks and squealing. The podcast family and Youtube series content are great, too.
> I also think Matt has a valid point. There is no way there is any shortage of hunters anywhere in this country. Every huntable piece of land in America has somebody hunting on it already. I don't think there's much of a feud, actually. Matt has been on the Meateater show and podcast several times.



Agreed, maybe feud was a wrong choice of words. My bad. Difference of opinion might have been better language.


----------



## splatek (Dec 22, 2021)

I really appreciate everybody's replies.

Like @jbogg I think one of the issues plaguing hunters is participation in things that effect the land they hunt. One thing I've learned from being on GON is that public input on such things as the Foothills Project is poor in comparison to the organized input from the folks that don't want the trees cut or whatever other environmental thing they think up. I felt the division in hunting when I started, between say bowhunting and rifle hunting; or trad bow hunting and wheelie bow hunting. And I've even poked fun at a few friends, all in good humor. One thing I've learned this season, relying more on the rifle, is that I just like hunting. If it's legal, I like it, and like @Buckman18 I like a small deer (or at least that's what I am telling myself until a big one steps out in front of me; and we all know He doesn't shoot small deer).

I will also say that when I first stared watching MeatEater, I was curious why there were shows where nothing was harvested. Where the hunters essentially walked around the woods and didn't kill anything. Then after actually starting to hunt, I found shows - e.g., MeatEater, hunting public - where they didn't kill anything almost more interesting to watch. Like a cliff hanger. It immediately seemed more honest to me. I often learned more from those shows than the ones where the hosts killed something. And, I found that experience to be true in the woods, as well.

I do find the position of "no more hunters, because my trailhead is too crowded" a whiny, immature position and think MeatEater has probably done more good for hunting than bad. But, I don't know the whole history of the organization.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Look up a podcast by Joe Rogan , I think it is called the Joe Rogan Experience. There are a couple of podcasts where he and Rinella discuss what Rinella finds important to him.  I do know that land access is a big issue that Rinella is fighting for.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

jbogg said:


> If the governments numbers are to be believed, and these days I am suspect of anything that our government puts out, then we baby boomers who make up a significant portion of the overall hunter demographic are aging out of hunting at a rate faster than we are being replaced by the younger generation.  If these numbers are accurate it presents a real challenge for hunting in the future.
> 
> For those that argue that since hunters will never make up more than 50% of the overall population then it’s worthless to worry about attracting more hunters, I say that is a strawman argument. We are never going to be a majority, but we can attempt to be a very vocal minority. Heck, I would bet that the majority of hunters fail to participate in any type of public input, or join any pro hunting organizations. The Foothills project in North Georgia is a prime example. The last time I checked the online comments, those comments that are in opposition to the Foothills project and the Timber harvest that would follow are 10 times the number of those comments in favor.  Until hunters learn to use their voice I fear that we will continue a slow death spiral until we have no voice at all.


But does the vocal minority need doofuses with duck bills in their mouths or "content creators" pushing products? 
That's the issue. Social media is good, and it's here to stay. I get many updates on conservation through social media. The point Matt makes is some people are using their platforms to sell product without regard to the consequences. 
Others need attention, so they post  the dumbest crap imaginable. It's a race to the bottom of the brainstem.


----------



## 1md2b (Dec 22, 2021)

I'm not worried about over crowding. We live in a society that expects immediate gratification. That typically isn't going to happen hunting public land. There will be several folks who give up on hunting for that alone. Once they realize they have to hike over more than one hill, and hunting in real life isn't what they witnessed on tv; they'll weed themselves out. I admit I didn't hunt much public land growing up in Georgia. Now that I've moved to Arizona, we have a tremendous amount of public land. In the 5 years I've been here I've been with bow in hand every year from December to the end of January chasing coues deer, bear, and mountain lion. In that time I've only seen one other hunter. And I know that my "data" is n=1, and I'm sure others have experienced different things.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 22, 2021)

Y’all wanting the government to buy more land for you to hunt on? Good lord.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 22, 2021)

@redlevel


----------



## Throwback (Dec 22, 2021)

If the government sold off all that land you might be able to buy your own land to hunt on


----------



## Throwback (Dec 22, 2021)

But the folks that say the gov should provide minimum housing are communists


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

Throwback said:


> But the folks that say the gov should provide minimum housing are communists


Free Healthcare.
Free College Tuition.
Free Land To Hunt.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Throwback said:


> If the government sold off all that land you might be able to buy your own land to hunt on



Yes "might be" however if the government sold off the national forest lands, you and me both know who will buy that land, and it won't be you or me.  It will be sold for commercial or residential occupation.  The national forests and WMA's are there for more than just hunting. It is providing a green space that hopefully will always be there, for my kids, my grandkids and so on.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> Free Healthcare.
> Free College Tuition.
> Free Land To Hunt.



Where and how is the land free? Please provide an explanation of your thinking? I pay taxes, I pay taxes when I buy a hunting license, I pay taxes when I purchase a firearm, portions of those taxes are going to pay for that so called free land to hunt.

I am in no favor or free college tuition , free health care or free housing.  I have a house, I pay for it.


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

rugerfan said:


> Where and how is the land free? Please provide an explanation of your thinking? I pay taxes, I pay taxes when I buy a hunting license, I pay taxes when I purchase a firearm, portions of those taxes are going to pay for that so called free land to hunt.
> 
> I am in no favor or free college tuition , free health care or free housing.  I have a house, I pay for it.


I am lucky enough to own property on which to hunt. I and my family worked dog-bone hard to buy it and keep it through some rough times. I spend thousands of dollars per year maintaining it, not to mention taxes. Speaking of taxes, I pay them, just like you do. Why should I be taxed to provide you with a FREE place to hunt?


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> I am lucky enough to own property on which to hunt. I and my family worked dog-bone hard to buy it and keep it through some rough times. I spend thousands of dollars per year maintaining it, not to mention taxes. Speaking of taxes, I pay them, just like you do. Why should I’ve taxed to provide you with a FREE place to hunt?



Well unlike you, I was not lucky enough to come from a family that had property to hunt.  I am hoping that one day that I will be able to buy some for myself.  However until that time comes and the state of Georgia and the Federal Government tells me that I can continue to hunt the National Forest I will do so.  It is very unfortunate that your tax money goes to pay for a place for me and the others that hunt public land, but that is just part of life, now isn't it?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 22, 2021)

dang said:


> On this episode of meateater, Steve shoots a 56lb doe fawn ???
> Im steven rinella, I live to hunt and hunt to live…I AM A MEAT EATER *instrument sounds*


Yeah, a wild one. Which is more of an achievement than little miss blondie shooting a 140" buck on a high fence show and then talking for ten minutes about how her camo underdrawers and magic deer whistle were the key.


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

Freeloaders at every turn.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> Freeloaders at every turn.



So because I do not own land to hunt , I shouldn't have the opportunity to do so?  Is that what I am understanding from this comment?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> Freeloaders at every turn.


Hey, when you die and the subdivision or the strip mall moves in, I'll make sure they erect a plaque that describes how awesome and forward thinking you were.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> Freeloaders at every turn.


If I had to pick one thing for the government to spend my tax money on, it's hard to beat land compared to most the stuff they waste it on. You can feel however you want to, but I think public land is one of the few things the federal government has ever done right to make this country a good place to live, instead of another stuffy European-style joint where a few rich folks own all the land and game. And yes, I also own land that I bought and paid for.

When you need to go to town, do you buy a right-of-way and build your own road?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

I wonder if y'all fish on lakes, creeks, rivers or oceans? 
If so, why the hypocrisy?


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

ddd-shooter said:


> I wonder if y'all fish on lakes, creeks, rivers or oceans?
> If so, why the hypocrisy?



Or boat on public water?


----------



## Throwback (Dec 22, 2021)

rugerfan said:


> Yes "might be" however if the government sold off the national forest lands, you and me both know who will buy that land, and it won't be you or me.  It will be sold for commercial or residential occupation.  The national forests and WMA's are there for more than just hunting. It is providing a green space that hopefully will always be there, for my kids, my grandkids and so on.


Land lottery.


----------



## dang (Dec 22, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> Yeah, a wild one. Which is more of an achievement than little miss blondie shooting a 140" buck on a high fence show and then talking for ten minutes about how her camo underdrawers and magic deer whistle were the key.





NCHillbilly said:


> Yeah, a wild one. Which is more of an achievement than little miss blondie shooting a 140" buck on a high fence show and then talking for ten minutes about how her camo underdrawers and magic deer whistle were the key.


I’m Steven Rinella and this week on meateater, we’re ditching the high mountains for the suburbs of Atlanta in pursuit of americas most iconic game animal …


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

rugerfan said:


> So because I do not own land to hunt , I shouldn't have the opportunity to do so?  Is that what I am understanding from this comment?


You have the opportunity to lease hunting property. You have the opportunity to form a partnership with several other like-minded individuals and buy property.  But no. You would rather hunt on “public land” And pay nothing other than taxes that everyone is subject to.


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

ddd-shooter said:


> I wonder if y'all fish on lakes, creeks, rivers or oceans?
> If so, why the hypocrisy?


Have only fished on private lakes, creeks that bordered or ran through private property, and never on oceans.


----------



## turkeykirk (Dec 22, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> Yeah, a wild one. Which is more of an achievement than little miss blondie shooting a 140" buck on a high fence show and then talking for ten minutes about how her camo underdrawers and magic deer whistle were the key.



Dang! You mean me buying and wearing those women’s camo under-drawers ain’t gonna help me kill a big buck.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> You have the opportunity to lease hunting property. You have the opportunity to form a partnership with several other like-minded individuals and buy property.  But no. You would rather hunt on “public land” And pay nothing other than taxes that everyone is subject to.



Yes you are right I do, but have not chosen to do so at this point.  The federal government and this state have set aside lands for recreational use / greenspace. 

So you want to gripe about the money it costs you to maintain food plots? How much corn you are spreading weekly? How much fuel it is taking to run your tractor , side by side, and what ever other toys? Well sir, that is not my problem.  

So go ahead call me a free loader all you want, what I am doing is not against any law as of now, and I will gladly fill my freezer with the ""Kings" deer every year.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> Have only fished on private lakes, creeks that bordered or ran through private property, and never on oceans.


Yeah but you probably use federal highways, airports, and expect your goods to come through ports. 
Heck I bet you even expect PUBLIC police to answer your call. I'm sure your kids would never go to public schools. 

... How's that song go? "I bet he's even got a commie flag tacked up inside of his garage..."


Seriously, if you don't see public lands as the single best PERMANENT deterrent to development, then idk what to say.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Dec 22, 2021)

Uh-oh...
 I think I can understand both sides of the debate going on, but at least one of these posts in here sounds like "this is the way I do it, and if it's not done this way then it shouldn't be done".

 Death and taxes… unfortunately, you don't get to choose your time or the way your tax money is spent.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 22, 2021)

ddd-shooter said:


> Yeah but you probably use federal highways, airports, and expect your goods to come through ports.
> Heck I bet you even expect PUBLIC police to answer your call. I'm sure your kids would never go to public schools.
> 
> ... How's that song go? "I bet he's even got a commie flag tacked up inside of his garage..."
> ...


Some folks just don't get it, and never will. I'm glad I don't live in that world.


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

ddd-shooter said:


> Yeah but you probably use federal highways, airports, and expect your goods to come through ports.
> Heck I bet you even expect PUBLIC police to answer your call. I'm sure your kids would never go to public schools.


In fact, both my wife and I taught in public schools.
However, comparing infrastructure and law enforcement to public lands is apples/oranges.
No, I don’t think public lands is the best deterrent to development.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> In fact, both my wife and I taught in public schools.
> However, comparing infrastructure and law enforcement to public lands is apples/oranges.
> No, I don’t think public lands is the best deterrent to development.


We disagree strongly on this. About half my county is private, the other half public. The public part is some of the most pristine land left in the eatern US, and much of it is listed as an international biosphere reserve. The private part right u-p to the public boundaries is overdeveloped and utterly ruined, and will never be fit for anything again. I hate and despise what has been done. And hate anyone who would rather see condos and pollution than woods and clean streams. Stay on your precious land, feel superior, and leave ours alone.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> We disagree strongly on this. About half my county is private, the other half public. The public part is some of the most pristine land left in the eatern US, and much of it is listed as an international biosphere reserve. The private part right u-p to the public boundaries is overdeveloped and utterly ruined, and will never be fit for anything again. I hate and despise what has been done. And hate anyone who would rather see condos and pollution than woods and clean streams. Stay on your precious land, feel superior, and leave ours alone.



AMEN TO THAT!


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> In fact, both my wife and I taught in public schools.
> However, comparing infrastructure and law enforcement to public lands is apples/oranges.
> No, I don’t think public lands is the best deterrent to development.


So you didn't want to spend your money on private schools? You expected ME to pay your salary, and provide an education for children I didn't rear? 

Boy you just can't make it up. That high horse is awfully shaky.

Infrastructure is what public lands are. We, as a country, decided that it was worth investing in. Recreational tax dollars flow from said infrastructure. Economies are created from public land recreational opportunities across the country.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> We disagree strongly on this. About half my county is private, the other half public. The public part is some of the most pristine land left in the eatern US, and much of it is listed as an international biosphere reserve. The private part right u-p to the public boundaries is overdeveloped and utterly ruined, and will never be fit for anything again. I hate and despise what has been done. And hate anyone who would rather see condos and pollution than woods and clean streams. Stay on your precious land, feel superior, and leave ours alone.


I think a lot of people who don't live in "beautiful" "retirement" or park like areas don't understand the dynamics at play. 


"They call it paradise....
I don't know why
Call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye..."


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 22, 2021)

ol' @Throwback and @redlevel are right. More public hunting opportunity would be the end of the world and if you hunt public land you are most likely a socialist... and also, your probably a terrible hunter.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Whit90 said:


> ol' @Throwback and @redlevel are right. More public hunting opportunity would be the end of the world and if you hunt public land you are most likely a socialist... and also, your probably a terrible hunter.



Well guess then I am a socialist and a terrible hunter,  oh look my freezer is full of the two of the "Kings" bucks this year.  Hmmmmmm. Was full of 1 of the "Kings" bucks last year, and 1 of the "Kings" bucks the year before, and don't let me forget the "Kings" doe the year before.   So yep, I am a terrible hunter that since I don't hunt over corn, food plots or managed land.   I won't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 22, 2021)

@rugerfan  If you don't hunt over corn, how are you going to kill deer?


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 22, 2021)

If only we could get the feds to give us free venison. Then we wouldn't have to go through the hassle of hunting it down ourselves!


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Whit90 said:


> @rugerfan  If you don't hunt over corn, how are you going to kill deer?



It is a secret!  I would tell you, but then you might become a freeloading socialist like I apparently am! So you decide if that is what you want to be, and I might clue you in, however I think you of all people already know.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Whit90 said:


> If only we could get the feds to give us free venison. Then we wouldn't have to go through the hassle of hunting it down ourselves!



LOL, I know right!


----------



## Heath (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> I am lucky enough to own property on which to hunt. I and my family worked dog-bone hard to buy it and keep it through some rough times. I spend thousands of dollars per year maintaining it, not to mention taxes. Speaking of taxes, I pay them, just like you do. Why should I be taxed to provide you with a FREE place to hunt?



I’m curious now how many acres you have and how 2 teachers could ever afford such a large tract of property.  Seeking financial advice!!!


----------



## ab30076 (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> You have the opportunity to lease hunting property. You have the opportunity to form a partnership with several other like-minded individuals and buy property.  But no. You would rather hunt on “public land” And pay nothing other than taxes that everyone is subject to.


So you’re saying that people shouldn’t have a fundamental right to access hunting and fishing?
Genuinely interested in hearing what alternative system you think would be better?


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

ab30076 said:


> So you’re saying that people shouldn’t have a fundamental right to access hunting and fishing?
> Genuinely interested in hearing what alternative system you think would be better?


A fundamental right?
A fundamental right is the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
Even those fundamental rights don’t include the government supplying a free bullhorn or a free shotgun in order to exercise them.


----------



## KentuckyHeadhunter (Dec 22, 2021)

I don't wanna get into what the last 4 pages was about.  A blur mostly.  Steve Rinella is one of the best ambassadors we have in the hunting community along with Uncle Ted.  
Here's an oldie but goodie with Steve.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> A fundamental right?
> A fundamental right is the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
> Even those fundamental rights don’t include the government supplying a free bullhorn or a free shotgun in order to exercise them.


These peasants expect land! 
Don't they know that's for the gentry?!


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

Heath said:


> I’m curious now how many acres you have and how 2 teachers could ever afford such a large tract of property.  Seeking financial advice!!!


First, it isn’t “a large tract of property.”   My brother and I own about 275 acres. 
My wife inherited a 55 acre farm, and I bought an adjoining 20 acre tract.

Two teachers’ salaries go a lot further in rural Taylor County than in other parts of the state. 

My parents bought our land in the early 1940s.  After the big farm bust in the early 80s, it was highly leveraged, meaning we owed a ton of money on it. We had to sell off part of it. I went to work in the DFACS office in Sumter County, then started teaching. We had been in the fresh produce business, and continued to grow produce to try to pay down some debt. For the first 15 years I taught, I would get up at 4:30 two mornings per week to deliver produce to a couple of stores in Columbus, then be at school by 7:30.  I worked until dark every afternoon after school, getting a truck loaded, irrigating, or other necessaries.  My brother worked his regular job, along with the farm.  We got a break when a big peach grower offered us a great lease deal on the property. We were able to pay off the debt. Meanwhile, we had bought back the land we had sold off in the early 80s.

We own that property free and clear now. Only taxes. The peach grower renewed the lease, and we realize a little income.

My wife and I were able to live comfortably during this time. Neither of us spends a whole lot on extravagances. I don’t fish, don’t play golf, don’t smoke or dip, and drink very, very little. We drive our vehicles until they are worn out. I doubt we have had a vehicle payment for five years out of the last 20 years. We only had one child, so that makes a difference. When I bought the 20 acre tract in 2006, we used money from a HELOC on a house we own in Butler. It is debt free now. It is amazing how quickly you can pay for land when you don’t have car payments and don’t spend a couple hundred a month on beer, tobacco, movies, concert tickets, etc.


----------



## ab30076 (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> A fundamental right?
> A fundamental right is the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
> Even those fundamental rights don’t include the government supplying a free bullhorn or a free shotgun in order to exercise them.


Yes - I would have to believe most people would consider the ability to put food on the table and feed their families a fundamental right.
What is the better system?
Again, entirely entitled to your opinion and happy to disagree on this. This is just the first time I’ve heard someone oppose the public lands system so genuinely curious.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> First, it isn’t “a large tract of property.”   My brother and I own about 275 acres.
> My wife inherited a 55 acre farm, and I bought an adjoining 20 acre tract.
> 
> Two teachers’ salaries go a lot further in rural Taylor County than in other parts of the state.
> ...


And when you die, whoever inherits it will sell it, and it will be subdivided into half-acre tracts, covered with houses, and will be utterly and completely destroyed from now until the end of time. I've seen it happen time and time again.


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 22, 2021)

@KentuckyHeadhunter I’ve always liked this clip. I could never rebuttal, in person, the way that Steve does in this situation. Just show how well he knows his stuff. The fact that the guy in the audience isn’t ****ed off afterwards makes it even better. He communicates well, and with intent.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Hmmm, the cube steak I made tonight from the deer I killed from my "free place to hunt " didn't taste like anybody's tax dollars to me!


----------



## jbogg (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> You have the opportunity to lease hunting property. You have the opportunity to form a partnership with several other like-minded individuals and buy property.  But no. You would rather hunt on “public land” And pay nothing other than taxes that everyone is subject to.



I’m having trouble tracking this line of thinking.  Who should hunt public land if not the public?  Hunting and recreation were each one of the stated purposes of the Federal land purchases.


----------



## redlevel (Dec 22, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> And when you die, whoever inherits it will sell it, and it will be subdivided into half-acre tracts, covered with houses, and will be utterly and completely destroyed from now until the end of time. I've seen it happen time and time again.


You are allowing yourself to get overwrought. You need to calm down and think about some of the things you are saying.  First of all, you know nothing about me, my family, or our property. My daughter is committed to keeping the property for at least one more generation, and her toddler daughter is already displaying her love for the farm. Her husband comes from a line of property owners. Property ownership has been ingrained into the psyche of rural Southerners since the American Republic has existed, and in the old countries before that. 

You need to back off on your personal insults and ridiculous and unfounded statements such as this latest one. 

When you make statements like the one above, directed at me, I take it personally, and you need to shut the hxxl up.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> You are allowing yourself to get overwrought. You need to calm down and think about some of the things you are saying.  First of all, you know nothing about me, my family, or our property. My daughter is committed to keeping the property for at least one more generation, and her toddler daughter is already displaying her love for the farm. Her husband comes from a line of property owners. Property ownership has been ingrained into the psyche of rural Southerners since the American Republic has existed, and in the old countries before that.
> 
> You need to back off on your personal insults and ridiculous and unfounded statements such as this latest one.
> 
> When you make statements like the one above, directed at me, I take it personally, and you need to shut the hxxl up.


No, I'm just saying what the inevitable is, that I've seen play out, time and time and time again, until the area I live in is ruined. Except for the public land, which is still in great shape. When you say that the public land needs to be sold off into private ownership, I take it personally, and you need to shut that same thing up. As I have said, this is one of the issues I care about deeply enough to die for. To Hades with greedy developers and folks who think undeveloped public land is useless. I'll die on that hill, brother. The whole earth doesn't need to be covered with subdivisions and tshirt shops and theme restaurants.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Like your statements that people who hunt public land are freeloaders? Like that isn't a personal insult.  You can go pound sand up your self righteous backside!!!!


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> First, it isn’t “a large tract of property.”   My brother and I own about 275 acres.
> My wife inherited a 55 acre farm, and I bought an adjoining 20 acre tract.
> 
> Two teachers’ salaries go a lot further in rural Taylor County than in other parts of the state.
> ...



It sounds like you have work very hard in your day to have what you have, and that is very respectful! I hope to have a large chunk (yes, to me 275 acres is a large chunk, especially in todays market) at some point in my life. That being said, there’s no reason to put down other hard working folks for enjoying their time on our public lands. There is endless adventure to be had on said land. A lot of folks cherish these lands as much, or more, as you do your own. Not because it’s handed to us or because we don’t have to pay dues to hunt it, but because of the fellowship we share there. Because some of us have grown up hunting there. Because of the memories we have made, and the ones we will make. Public land is a blessing to us all! 

…. now imma go get my EBT card and free cell phone. Still waiting on that unemployment check to come in… I guess if I was smart I would have quit working when covid started.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Whit90 said:


> It sounds like you have work very hard in your day to have what you have, and that is very respectful! I hope to have a large chunk (yes, to me 275 acres is a large chunk, especially in todays market) at some point in my life. That being said, there’s no reason to put down other hard working folks for enjoying their time on our public lands. There is endless adventure to be had on said land. A lot of folks cherish these lands as much, or more, as you do your own. Not because it’s handed to us or because we don’t have to pay dues to hunt it, but because of the fellowship we share there. Because some of us have grown up hunting there. Because of the memories we have made, and the ones we will make. Public land is a blessing to us all!
> 
> …. now imma go get my EBT card and free cell phone. Still waiting on that unemployment check to come in… I guess if I was smart I would have quit working when covid started.



Dude, did you pick up those spinners from rent a center today?


----------



## Whit90 (Dec 22, 2021)

rugerfan said:


> Dude, did you pick up those spinners from rent a center today?



Yes, yes I did.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 22, 2021)

Whit90 said:


> Yes, yes I did.



Good deal, those are gonna look dope on that lifted truck, they will compliment the 35's nicely!


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 22, 2021)

redlevel said:


> You are allowing yourself to get overwrought. You need to calm down and think about some of the things you are saying.  First of all, you know nothing about me, my family, or our property. My daughter is committed to keeping the property for at least one more generation, and her toddler daughter is already displaying her love for the farm. Her husband comes from a line of property owners. Property ownership has been ingrained into the psyche of rural Southerners since the American Republic has existed, and in the old countries before that.
> 
> You need to back off on your personal insults and ridiculous and unfounded statements such as this latest one.
> 
> When you make statements like the one above, directed at me, I take it personally, and you need to shut the hxxl up.


You make it sound like people who hunt public land don't "come from a line of property owners"
Which sounds very condescending, even if not intended. I think I'll try to get back on topic before I say something about a guy with a govt job hating on people using public lands, lol


----------



## splatek (Dec 23, 2021)

The division between hunters, or hunting mindset astounds me from a psychological standpoint. The in group versus out group science seems to simply not apply to hunting, at least on a macro level.  Naively, I thought we were all supposed to be on the same side so that we can keep this outdoor activity we all love for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. I don’t know much about history, but I do know that the way to conquer is to divide. 

I started this post to get a feel for how folks felt about the often pitched mantra, “we need more hunters” versus the “there are too many hunters in the woods” juxtaposition as discussed on a very popular podcast (and other media lately). The former is targeted toward making sure the hunting heritage and all that goes with it, including public land is preserved. The latter is targeted at what seems like a(relatively) selfish want for land to themself (no other hunters around)  or increased game animals or, actually I’m not so sure. More hunters may or may not be the way to accomplish the preservation goal. A unified, motivated front is and whether that comes from simply more hunters or less hunters that are actively engaged and vocal is, in my opinion, an open empirical question. 
But, I’m glad it spurred a little conversation.


----------



## menhadenman (Dec 23, 2021)




----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

splatek said:


> The division between hunters, or hunting mindset astounds me from a psychological standpoint. The in group versus out group science seems to simply not apply to hunting, at least on a macro level.  Naively, I thought we were all supposed to be on the same side so that we can keep this outdoor activity we all love for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. I don’t know much about history, but I do know that the way to conquer is to divide.
> 
> I started this post to get a feel for how folks felt about the often pitched mantra, “we need more hunters” versus the “there are too many hunters in the woods” juxtaposition as discussed on a very popular podcast (and other media lately). The former is targeted toward making sure the hunting heritage and all that goes with it, including public land is preserved. The latter is targeted at what seems like a(relatively) selfish want for land to themself (no other hunters around)  or increased game animals or, actually I’m not so sure. More hunters may or may not be the way to accomplish the preservation goal. A unified, motivated front is and whether that comes from simply more hunters or less hunters that are actively engaged and vocal is, in my opinion, an open empirical question.
> But, I’m glad it spurred a little conversation.


How many more hunters do we need? We're currently only 5% of the population. Do you want twice as many people in the woods? Still only 10% and super crowded. 10% not exactly gonna change ballot box results. 

My issue is that most people have been fed a narrative that says hunter numbers are dangerously low and we need more. The people using that narrative all have a vested interest in making more consumers for their products.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Dec 23, 2021)

turkeykirk said:


> Dang! You mean me buying and wearing those women’s camo under-drawers ain’t gonna help me kill a big buck.



Never let it be said TK isn’t open to innovation.


----------



## splatek (Dec 23, 2021)

ddd-shooter said:


> How many more hunters do we need? We're currently only 5% of the population. Do you want twice as many people in the woods? Still only 10% and super crowded. 10% not exactly gonna change ballot box results.
> 
> My issue is that most people have been fed a narrative that says hunter numbers are dangerously low and we need more. The people using that narrative all have a vested interest in making more consumers for their products.



Hard to argue with that. I get that for sure. money driving everything. I hope I didn’t come across as wanting more hunters. I’m undecided, except for my sons. I want them to hunt if they want to. I also have seen the immense amount of marketing around the topic and honestly I think new hunters fall prey to the “you must have” <enter camo, high end gear, scent product, attractant, etc > to be successful. I know I fell victim to that early on, but now I don’t even shower before going to the woods and use some of the cheapest gear around. I mean shoot I build my bows out of a piece of hickory and purchase on sale budget guns. Mind you I’m not the killer some of y’all are, but I’m learning. Can’t buy success, but the companies profiting sure are good at trying to convince you otherwise.


----------



## Raylander (Dec 23, 2021)

Folks that make money off it want more hunters. The .gov wants more hunters so they can sell more licenses. Advertisers want more hunters so they can sell more gear.. It would be better to encourage active hunters to be more vocal in the political arena. Most hunters do not even vote.. I understand this is because the government is not the best listeners. So many have probably given up.. The government is smarter than everyone else. You don’t even have to ask them, they’ll tell you

The tradition will continue just as it always has - through family and friends. We do not need more hunters, we need better hunters..


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 23, 2021)

splatek said:


> Hard to argue with that. I get that for sure. money driving everything. I hope I didn’t come across as wanting more hunters. I’m undecided, except for my sons. I want them to hunt if they want to. I also have seen the immense amount of marketing around the topic and honestly I think new hunters fall prey to the “you must have” <enter camo, high end gear, scent product, attractant, etc > to be successful. I know I fell victim to that early on, but now I don’t even shower before going to the woods and use some of the cheapest gear around. I mean shoot I build my bows out of a piece of hickory and purchase on sale budget guns. Mind you I’m not the killer some of y’all are, but I’m learning. Can’t buy success, but the companies profiting sure are good at trying to convince you otherwise.




Had a friend years ago that had to buy anything that was being thrown out there to try and be successful at killing big bucks.  He was that with fishing lures as well.  It was just crazy to me all the money he spent and it never got him anything bigger than what I was killing or catching.


----------



## jbogg (Dec 23, 2021)

If the numbers on this graph are  to be believed then this is a serious concern.  To those that say that there is no need for R3 or other hunter recruitment promotions so be it, but this graph tells a different story.  

It’s not a perfect analogy, but our situation is not all that the dissimilar from the commercial airlines pilot shortage. The overall pilot demographic is very top-heavy with older pilots who will be forced to retire in the near future. As a result, all of the airlines from the majors down to the regionals are all scrambling to find new pilots. 

The numbers on the graph indicate that 55%  of current hunters are over the age of 45. The age demographics for hunters has never been so top-heavy with an older hunter population since they started keeping records. It’s just math, if we don’t replace us old farts like me who will be retiring from hunting in mass over the next 15 to 20 years you end up with a net loss over time.  Given enough time and you lose what little voice you had, until finally you lose your opportunities.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 23, 2021)

jbogg said:


> View attachment 1124066
> 
> If the numbers on this graph are  to be believed then this is a serious concern.  To those that say that there is no need for R3 or other hunter recruitment promotions so be it, but this graph tells a different story.
> 
> ...


I've introduced a fair number of hunters to the sport over the years. I think that's a worthwhile effort. I'd be interested to see that graph since more mainstream hunters have been vocal, duck dynasty, meateater, Joe Rogan, etc. Not to mention covid. 2011 was ten years ago. 
Most new adult hunters will fit that younger demo. 
I can certainly say that most of what I see on social media is absolutely not what I want to use as a recruitment tool.


----------



## Heath (Dec 23, 2021)

By your logic,  everyone should have had a forefather that left them land.  That isn’t reality for the majority of Americans today.  People can’t control what happened before their time.  I was in my early 20’s before I ever hunted or fished on a private property.  Now, I own a nice piece of property.  You are right, it takes a lot of money, time, and work to maintain it.  However, I did none of this alone.  God blessed my Wife and I in more ways than we deserve and my children could just as easily been raised like myself and had to rely on public lands for recreational use.  We didn’t have a relative or co-signing partner to make it happen. We had God alone to open the doors and pave a path for us to live how we had hoped to live.  We lived in a barn loft for our first 8 years of marriage.  I don’t feel the government should buy more land because they are not good stewards of the land we already have.  But nobody, and I mean nobody is a free loader for using the land set aside for what it was intended.  Most are just playing the hand they were dealt.  It is absurd that someone would say they inherited land and worked hard for it all in the same sentence.


----------



## Resica (Dec 23, 2021)

Raylander said:


> Folks that make money off it want more hunters. The .gov wants more hunters so they can sell more licenses. Advertisers want more hunters so they can sell more gear.. It would be better to encourage active hunters to be more vocal in the political arena. Most hunters do not even vote.. I understand this is because the government is not the best listeners. So many have probably given up.. The government is smarter than everyone else. You don’t even have to ask them, they’ll tell you
> 
> The tradition will continue just as it always has - through family and friends. We do not need more hunters, we need better hunters..


Where can we find this?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 25, 2021)

Update: saw this posted on another forum. From Matt rinella.


"Im thinking about restarting the Depublicize, Deglorify, Demonitize social media campaign I suspended a year ago. It’d be devoted to many of the themes touched on in this thread and my Free Range American article. If some of you are concerned about loud-mouths on the web that hunt for (poor, didn't realize this profanity was here) reasons, corporations trying to turn people into hunter-customers despite public lands already being severely over hunted, and hunting nonprofits caring more about using R3 to generate dues and satisfy corporate sponsors than serve the existing hunting community, then maybe we could team up and work on it together. I’m pretty run down from all the negative publicity and family problems speaking out has caused me, so I need some support and help if I’m going to keep going with this stuff.

I have some ideas on where to go next. Here are a few of them.

-A letter signed by thousands of hunters sent to all the hunting shows and major influencers asking them to stop filming on overrun federal land. It could say something like “We love that you hunt here, but we want to reserve precious hunting opportunity for those that hunt for the right reasons, so please leave your camera home.”

-Pressure on nonprofits to abandon R3.

-Satirical videos and/or awareness campaigns to discourage people that use dead animals to make statements about themselves to strangers on the internet.

-Track how much hunting companies spend in support of access and habitat and encourage people to buy from those that spend the most.

Please feel free to email me at mrinellabow@gmail.comif you want to kick around ideas and be involved."


----------



## splatek (Dec 26, 2021)

I saw Montana BHA came out and said he was dead wrong about them abandoning R3. 

There have also been a few good retort podcasts. 

I think he’s fighting an uphill battle. I would have to read what his D3 program really entails. I bet he picks up some donors and sponsors in the next year, which would be a hilarious hypocrisy (if it happened).


----------



## Bigearl68 (Dec 26, 2021)

There are just to many things to unpack from that podcast, but I’ll touch on a few. Matt’s grip seems to be with crowding of public lands. Ok, fine! He’s probably right that over the past decade public land hunters out west have grown significantly. Were as those increases coincide with the rising empires of social media, the fact is we have less hunters now than we did 35 years ago. 
 I would argue that the increase he and others are seeing on public lands in the western states, are due to overall lack of access to private lands across the country. This simply forces hunters on to public land and if big game animals are there target then of course they’re going to hit the western states. 
 His true problem seems to be an access one, not a total number of hunters one.


----------



## UGAGUY75 (Apr 1, 2022)

New member here, so I don't have any preconceived opinions about any of you on these forums. Just finished reading through this thread and obviously some nerves have been touched! Not sure the public vs. private debate will be solved here or anytime for that matter but if anyone cares, I will throw in my 2 cents. 
Regarding MeatEater:
I am a fan of the concept. Steve Rinella has done a good job of bringing a whole new and refreshing concept to the industry and to the social media aspect of hunting/fishing. I have no issue with him monetizing it. Capitalism at work.  I have no problems with big antlers, long beards, etc. I have them hanging on my walls. But social media and media in general has put a label on it that has made so much about the trophy and less about the experience, the adventure, and the whole reason God gave us dominion over the animals in the first place- for FOOD!. This negative label has fueled the voice of anti-hunters.  Our ancestors would surely agree I am sure. Do I agree with Rinella on everything- no. On a side note,  I really enjoy Clay Newcomb and his content. Good alternative for a more clean family friendly podcast. 
Regarding Private Land:
I grew up hunting private land in Georgia, mostly leased. We hunted public land some, mostly for Turkeys. My dream has always been, and still is, to own my own large tract one day. To cultivate, manage it, so it can produce recreation and substance for me and my family. I do not fault others that do the same. However that dream seems to be slowly fading. I will never inherit any land, and the with land costs and taxes rising out of control, it just seems farther out of reach. I make my living from construction and development, so I am not against it, but  there has to be a balance. Overdevelopment and habitat loss will ruin what we all hold dear as outdoorsmen if left unchecked. I live on 15 acres that is slowly being surrounded by new development. I do not want this where I live, but there is nothing I can do about it except buy up all of the land around me which I cannot afford. Or move somewhere else where the same will eventually happen.
Regarding Public Land:
I am thankful for the one thing that the Govt. got right. Setting aside large, wild spaces for public use. I think about the quote by Teddy Roosevelt on the Arch at Yellowstone National Park -"For The Benefit and Enjoyment of the People" ,and Thank God that I live on a country that at least for now, provides this for me. If you are fortunate enough to ever get a chance to go see a place like Yellowstone, do it. It will change your life and redefine your definition of 'Wilderness'. I am also all for the public land system for hunting and fishing and will support anyone or any organization that supports it. The anti-hunters will attack this system first, they already have in fact. I can go 100 yards behind my house, sit on a corn pile and kill all the deer I want, and be back in the house drinking coffee and in my PJ's by 9:00 AM. If it came to feeding my family out of neccessity, I would do this in a heartbeat. Would I rather have that deer in my freezer, killed by my hand vs. my wife's car? Absolutely. The older I get though, the more I crave the challenge, the adventure. For me, in this state, the only way to really get is to hunt public land. I can take $50 worth of licenses, my tent , and go have thousands upon thousands of acres at my disposal in the North GA mountains. And have a heck of an adventure doing it. If I am so skilled enough and fortunate enough to take that deer there, it will mean far more to me than that one taken from behind my house, even though it will taste the same! 
We as outdoorsmen need to fight the fights that matter! If the antis win, we all lose!!


----------

