Matt Rinella knocking it outta the park
- Thread starter The Hedgehog
- Start date
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,620
Both Matt Rinella and Cameron Hanes have their own unique approaches and messages when it comes to hunting. Matt Rinella focuses on the Hunt Quietly movement, emphasizing conservation and the future of hunting. On the other hand, Cameron Hanes promotes the Run, Lift, Shoot mantra, which is more about pushing physical limits and showcasing hunting as a challenging endeavor and putting himself on a pedestal as a ultra successful and supremely skilled assassin of animals while hunting on private land and often guided hunting exploits. If you are more concerned about the future of hunting and conservation, you may find Matt Rinella's message appealing. Supporting him would align with your values of sustainable hunting practices and preserving the environment for future generations.If you are interested in pushing your physical abilities, showcasing that to strangers, and enjoy the challenges of hunting as an intense activity, then Cameron Hanes' approach might resonate with you. Following his mantra could be inspiring if you are passionate about fitness and pushing your limits in hunting. Ultimately, the choice between supporting Matt Rinella or Cameron Hanes comes down to your personal values and what aspects of hunting resonate with you the most - conservation and sustainability, or physical fitness, attention and endurance.
The most common definition is:
the activity of trying to control who gets particular resources, power, or opportunities, and who does not:
We are seeing the decline of cultural gatekeeping— the control over what is deemed worthy exerted by critics, educators, and so forth.
Doctors who screen patients for clinical need provide a gatekeeping function for healthcare services.
In the hunting realm, it manifests itself in a lot of ways but primarily it's the way people interact with new hunters, people who don't fit the traditional mold, etc. People tend to put the aesthetic ahead of the individual. The example used at the plenary was when someone tells others that they have to get into hunting through traditional means only like family traditions, rather than picking up the sport later in life.
I've certainly seen that in 20 years of banquets, meetings, interactions with hunting public, etc. The idea that you have to be pure of heart and only fit in with one specific ethos has done more to drive new hunters away than a lack of success in the field.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Is Joe Rogan Good for Hunting?
Joe Rogan is the most popular podcaster in America and he often hosts personalities from the hunting space. So why do some hunters have a problem with his show?
www.outdoorlife.com
Jape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,724
Thanks for your explanation of what they discussed. It’s interesting. Some of the philosophical underpinnings of hunting are being discussed more regularly and I hope it leads to more informed, ethical hunters.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
My TLDR; hunting media thinks hunting media is good for hunting media.Is Joe Rogan Good for Hunting?
Joe Rogan is the most popular podcaster in America and he often hosts personalities from the hunting space. So why do some hunters have a problem with his show?
man, some of you guys need to gain colorado residency for a few years, watch a few commission meetings, hear about the inner political turmoil at DNR and CPW and you might just start to realize that hanes and hunting media are very much, very likely, the least of our concerns with the future of hunting.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
nailed it
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Yep. Rogan, Hanes, and Steve Rinella aren't the ones going after hunting... They're not the ones pushing a ballot to ban Mountain Lion hunting in CO, and they didn't stop it in CA either.
lastlight
Well-known member
It should be allowed for all of us to have multiple concerns. One doesnt negate the other. The saddest thing is the vast majority of DB's who follow hunting social media dont ever get involved in the issues. So their messaging doesnt work. Cam hanes isnt doing anyone of us a favor and their private hunting preserves arent going anywhere in their lifetimes.
All it takes is awareness and a vote. Rogan is doing us immense favors in that regard
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Maybe?
Where are the results then?
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I don't necessarily disagree, but horseshit is horseshit, just comes in different piles. Making a mockery of hunting right now and rogue politicians doing it for the future both stink.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Yeah right
There are quite a few folks who've said the same right here on HT. That being essentially, "if any of you had the money you'd be hunting giant bulls/bucks on private land too". Hell no I would not. I would definitely go on beach vacations and take more time off. We aren't all hunting for the same reasons, that I have learned.
Are there a bunch of influencers making a living off pimping hunting showing up and testifying at the commission meetings or are they too busy promoting themselves and sponsors?
that's a nearly impossible question to answer.
would things be worse politically for hunters if rinella hadn't drawn so many new hunters to the landscape? hard to say, if not impossible to say, you just can't know.
but when things come down to voting, and many things will, there is no argument against the idea that more hunters and more non hunters that better understand hunting is a bad thing. at the least you'll never convince me otherwise.
hanes and matt rinella are just white noise to me at this point - both blowhards of a different variety.
lastlight
Well-known member
I love Rogan.
With that said he and Rinella failed miserably, and I mean miserably, during the Colorado wolf ballot initiative. Not one fking peep from them. Had they done one podcast about it it may have swayed that very close margin the other way. Too late, it’s only going to amount to the loss of opportunity to 10s of thousands of hunters in the long run. Pile those numbers up with promoting western hunting and it’s a never ending point creep pit.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Very interesting article, but it makes a great mistake by not recognizing the regionality of these issues.
"The first perspective is that hunting’s greatest threats are internal: commercialization of wildlife, overcrowding and impossible draw odds thanks to too many new hunters and not enough habitat, and a misrepresentation of hunting to the general public through social media. If you share these opinions, it’s hard to see Rogan’s hunting episode as anything more than part of the problem."
The first perspective is the privilege that people who live in MT, WY, ID, and AK get to hold. We aren't going to lose our hunting to the antis anytime soon. We get to have these arguments, and I acknowledge that it comes from a position of great privilege. We're more likely to lose our hunting to the wealthy and the almighty dollar before we actually lose "hunting" as a whole.
"The second perspective is that hunting’s biggest threats are external. Folks in this camp believe that we should be most concerned about ballot initiatives driven by anti-hunting groups, plus the growing effort to redefine how states manage wildlife and habitat — in which hunting is no longer a priority, or even necessary as a management tool. From this perspective more new hunters and the more folks who have a positive view of hunting are net positives. In his own way, Rogan is an evangelist for hunting, even if a lot of hunters like to talk shit about him. "
The second perspective is probably more applicable in WA, CO, CA, NM hunters in the NE, etc. And because this covers a greater geographical area, it is probably more valid. As more hunters abandon advocating in their home states to move to hunting-friendly states, the states they leave behind will fall to the antis. Eventually, this will encroach into the states that are not under threat right now.
"The first perspective is that hunting’s greatest threats are internal: commercialization of wildlife, overcrowding and impossible draw odds thanks to too many new hunters and not enough habitat, and a misrepresentation of hunting to the general public through social media. If you share these opinions, it’s hard to see Rogan’s hunting episode as anything more than part of the problem."
The first perspective is the privilege that people who live in MT, WY, ID, and AK get to hold. We aren't going to lose our hunting to the antis anytime soon. We get to have these arguments, and I acknowledge that it comes from a position of great privilege. We're more likely to lose our hunting to the wealthy and the almighty dollar before we actually lose "hunting" as a whole.
"The second perspective is that hunting’s biggest threats are external. Folks in this camp believe that we should be most concerned about ballot initiatives driven by anti-hunting groups, plus the growing effort to redefine how states manage wildlife and habitat — in which hunting is no longer a priority, or even necessary as a management tool. From this perspective more new hunters and the more folks who have a positive view of hunting are net positives. In his own way, Rogan is an evangelist for hunting, even if a lot of hunters like to talk shit about him. "
The second perspective is probably more applicable in WA, CO, CA, NM hunters in the NE, etc. And because this covers a greater geographical area, it is probably more valid. As more hunters abandon advocating in their home states to move to hunting-friendly states, the states they leave behind will fall to the antis. Eventually, this will encroach into the states that are not under threat right now.
atlas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Messages
- 337
Similar threads
