🙀 Anti Talkies are here!!! 🙀

neffa3 said:
I edit my mistakes. As you said, the internet lives forever, I'd prefer to leave the best mark I can.
Click to expand...
Cool. Good for you.

With your bestowed intelligence, we, the internet users, are all better off.

You should make a book and sell it!
 
perma said:

Jim Shockey

My condolences to the Shockey family.
www.hunttalk.com www.hunttalk.com
Click to expand...
AI's Ode to DouglasR:

Self-employed trucker, rolling on the road,
A Jeep Gladiator, on a loan he strode.
Colorado Tinder tales, then an older flame,
In the game of life, he played his own name.

In cyberspace shadows, Douglas concealed,
Misogynistic comments, a distasteful deal
Losses piled, he couldn't sever the tether,
Everyone but him could forecast the weather.

He despised the privileged, the ones with wealth,
In a metaphorical hole, he dug himself.
The big cheese banished him, a lone exile,
Douglas on the road, mile by mile.

No one knew his face, a mystery untold,
Tarnished Shockey’s loss, the stories unfold.
He didn't know when to stop digging the hole,
A wandering soul, now paying the tolls.
 
Pucky Freak said:
Really? Reference?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Randy mentioned he banned him in that thread he went off the rails in regards to trashing a bunch of forum members. From what I remember Wllm was the target of most of DouglasR's comments. I couldn't find the thread. I believe Randy locked it.
 
Pucky Freak said:
@MtEngineer writes:

"Matt is EXTREMELY hypocritical. He is selling a podcast, shirts, and his own brand - just like Steve, Randy, and others. It's "not for profit" but I think we all know what that can and usually means in the American tax system."

Bold accusations. Podcast has no sponsors. He runs the platform out of his own funds. The shirts and other merch are at cost. He encourages others to make their own merch using his material. I'd love to see your proof of his financial gain from the HQ platform.

"He's literally using Cam Hanes name, image, and likeness to generate money."

Cam is welcome to sue and/or seek an injunction to get "Stop Hammering" off of merch. Might be a tall task since Matt isn't making any money off said merch.

"The fact is - no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for Steve, and his whole "hunt quietly" brand wouldnt even exist. So how is it fair to criticize someone who actually built their own brand, and is profiting off the same thing he is?"

Again, there is no proof Matt is turning a profit off of the HQ platform. Matt is Steve's older brother, and the two of them spent their young lives hunting, fishing, and exploring the outdoors together. Matt claims Steve wouldn't have MeatEater if it were not for their shared experiences, and there is some truth in this. If it were not for Steve, HQ might still exist, but it would not garner anywhere near the amount of attention without the celebrity name reference.

"Matt does criticize state agencies that aren't managing and/or protecting wildlife - but fails to understand that additional resources (hunter voices, dollars, and advocacy groups) are really all that we have to petition these trustees to do better. More or less, the political power we already have isnt enough. He seems to want to maintain the existing opportunity we have (extended and long seasons), but only to a select few who are "in it for the right reasons." A publicly managed good is only a "public" good if there are enough individuals interested to make it a priority."

Please point me to Matt's criticism of state agencies. I am not aware that he has taken issue with them. He takes issue with hunters, outdoor companies, and hunting nonprofits for how they work together to extract dollars from publicly-held natural resources. Matt would prefer to share the woods with everyone who is out there to enjoy the experience. He'd prefer not to share the woods with gear models, wannabe hunting influencers, and hunting celebrities, because their dollar-extraction of the public resource is seen as an unworthy endeavor.

"I sympathize and understand his thoughts on the "profit" of wildlife, in terms of private land guded hunts and leases. However, private land owners that WANT more wildlife in the respective area is one of the greatest assets we have. Believe me when I say I have felt the rage of watching nearly elk in the drainage sitting pivot in the breaks for "sale" or on KG ranch. If these wildlife were worth nothing to these landowners - how many elk would the land owners in the area push for when the state solicits their input for setting population objectives?"

In Montana, perhaps more than anywhere else, land owners continually advocate for additional hunting opportunity in order to push elk off of public and on to their ranches. So the argument about large private landowners valuing wildlife is lost in the reality where said landowners and their allies also prevent the public from accessing that resource.

In regards to Matt, the beef is not that elk have value, and value correlates to habitat and leasing, but rather than the R3 circle of death (influencers, hunting non-profits, and outdoor companies) has so greatly inflated the value of elk so as to decrease hunting opportunity among the masses. Industry fat cats reap massive profits off our shared resources at our expense.

"Matt chastises "trophy" hunting. The reality is - hunters who are unwilling to harvest an immature/young animal do a lot for conservation. I wish MORE people had the idea that shooting a young 3x3 isn't great for the quality/quantity of game that exists. Not saying "grip and grins" are always perfectly/tastefully done, but I would much prefer to see someone proud of harvesting a mature animal than another "filled my freezer, not my best" post. I personally try to harvest only animals I am 100 % happy with - and more people doing that would be better than someone "getting meat ethically" for conservation in my eyes."

Matt chastises trophy hunting? He's a trophy hunter. His house is full of hides, racks, and horns. He holds out on small animals in pursuit of big ones. Where are you getting your information?

"Matt blames people for harvesting excessive game (more than they can eat). Personally - I try to buy B tags every year - and never fill them. I look at it as a small tax to ensure that a few more live, but I don't appreciate the state having opportunities to kill 10+ animals a year. Neither should he, and influencers killing big bulls/bucks on private do a lot less damage to populations than that does."

Matt has stated many times that areas offering female tags to keep populations in check is not what he is taking aim at, and that he fully understands it is sometimes necessary to kill a lot of animals in order to accomplish that aim. The beef is killing for content. Your argument is a straw man.

"Criticizing main stream people like Bro Jogan who hunt isn't going to help anyone. I get that Joe professes a lot about hunting - and hunts managed private land - but anyone who is an advocate for hunting is someone I consider an ally. People who otherwise wouldn't hunt, appreciate hunting, or otherwise loathe it - have had their opinion changed, I have seen direct evidence of it. I don't care if Joe Rogan is a perfect ambassador for hunting (who is, by the way?) if he is advocating for more elk - what is the issue?"

The issue is that supply of elk to hunt is vastly outstripped by the demand of elk hunters, and Rogan has the largest platform to promote elk hunting. Sure, it's great that Rogan enjoys hunting, but Rogan will never feel the effects of over-promotion of the resource - he can just write a bigger check. Meanwhile, everyone else feels the pain of Rogan's promotion. Rogan's response: "Go find another trailhead." Rogan is completely out of touch of the realities of non-rich elk hunters, and his cluelessness is alarming due to the size of his audience.

"Point creep is an atrocious thing to blame on hunting advocates."

Matt does not blame point creep on hunting advocates. He does point to public natural resource profiteers as an undesirable contribution to point creep. In one of his episodes he claims demand for western big game hunting would not be so high if there was no promotion. His guest points out that the majority of demand exists because the resource exists and we have access to it, not because it was advertised. Matt does oversimplify a complicated market dynamic.

"All in all - I feel that Matt is a whiner. His complaints and frustrations need to be targeted at those managing the system - not those wanting to participate in it. I am certain that anyone who say a "Cam Hanes" or meateater hunt on youtube and is looking for the same experience will be really disappointed and won't be hunting for long anyway."

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Food for thought: is hunting better off without Matt for ringing the alarm bell regarding the current state of market dynamics in hunting? I, for one, appreciate the opportunity to reconsider many things I have taken for granted for decades in regard to my own interface with hunting companies, hunting media, and hunting nonprofits.

I don't think Matt is categorically confused. Misunderstands several things, sure. Either way, it is obvious you didn't do your homework prior to posting.
Click to expand...
Why am I so often reminded of this scene here on HT?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,145
Messages
1,948,669
Members
35,048
Latest member
Elkslayer38

Share this page

Back
Top