Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Matt Rinella and hunt quietly

I just listened to a video from Mr. Rinella and I like what he's saying. The organization he's formed (hunt quietly) has the following mission statement: " The grass roots traditions that have defined hunting in America are being displaced by hyper-commercialized pay to play. Our mission is to reverse this trend to restore our cherished pastime." If you doubt the hyper-commercialization part, take a look at the number of whitetail outfitters in the mid-west that advertise how many thousands of acres they have leased up. In fact, its hard to find one that hasn't. Then too, look at how many advertisers are on the big youtube hunting channels. Its all about money and is quickly eliminating the average guy.

Hats off to Mr. Rinella for taking a stand, especially with his brother (meateater) being one of the biggest commercialized and well funded channels. Before you rush to judgement, take a listen to this guy.

Sounds good but could be the old play both sides from the middle. I have felt both sides of an issue sit down in a room and game plan to bring in donations. In the end, both sides rake in the money and nothing gets done.

I like Matt Rinella's position, but his brother clearly got all of the social skills that went into the family. Those Hunt Quietly podcasts are a difficult listen.

He reminds me of a candidate who campaigns on term limits explaining why he’s running again every year. I don't trust him nor his brother.

The commercialization or Texification of our hunting will be what destroys hunting in America. Once hunting is all but gone watch them come after guns even harder since 75% of the population thinks that the 2A addresses keeping and bearing arms for hunting. The commercialization of hunting takes on many forms and isn’t just leasing out ground, landlocking public property is another big one that should NEVER be allowed! Hunting in America used to be a way to feed your family and yourself….it was always a way for the poor to eat, often the only way. When the liberals and their useful idiot-private property evangelists or the ANTI-public property charlatans get done destroying it hunting will be ONLY for the rich man or well connected.

I’ve always been a staunch believer in the free market but I was too naive to realize that the market AIN’T free…it’s bought and paid for with our tax dollars stolen from us and filtered through the political system to enrich the worst of the worst, the despots and evil scum that are quickly accumulated wealth beyond imagination. Look at Zelensky for just 1 example of who, what and HOW the oligarchs, theocrats and “democratically elected leaders” acquire steal their OUR money! There ain’t a working man on this board that can compete with that!

Our market IS NOT A FREE ONE it was bought out from underneath us a long time ago. The only question is are you wealthy enough to outbid the Bill Gates or Chinese or even the Zelenskys of the world for the right to hunt on American ground?

Rinella is spot on and I’ll have to look into his new organization since I like the sound of their mission statement and I’d support them if they are honest about their goals.

Funny, I didn't know rinella had a benevolent brother.... sad to say Steven hasn't even listed Matt on the website even though he's listed as a ME person.

https://www.themeateater.com/people

Most of the people in that group look like they came out of Austin or Portland, and while I'm not one to cast out exceptions... stereotypes exist for a reason. I don't need them or anything they sell, as hunting is pretty easy, but obviously corporate, state and national sponsorships make it easier, and the hardest part may be filling in the tag. That ain't the life for me and mine, and I want nothing to do with those types, our celebrity idolatry is F(_)CKING disgusting, and none of these modern 'celebs' are worth even knowing their names...as they are useless C(_)NTs too, even if they are 'hunters'.

I'd say check out Steve's platform. Hunting public land and promoting public land access is there (steve, meateater, and their cohorts) huckleberry. If you want to talk [bleep] about something, check out trump juniors group. As much as I'm a trump guy, the field ethos group are ass hurt and doing their best to replicate the meateater following. They make references regularly related to meateater in low key slight ways.

Matt Rinella and his Meateater brother Steven haven't spoken in several years over a disagreement of some sort about hunting public ground.

Obviously you have not met Danny R...

Bullshit!

Steven Rinella
STEVEN RINELLA
Mar 31, 2021
Irecently caused quite a stir among our audience with an op-ed published to our website. The piece, titled “The Case Against Hunter Recruitment,” was written by my brother Matt Rinella. It focuses on Matt’s distrust with what is known in the hunting industry as R3. While it sounds like a droid from Star Wars, R3 actually stands for a formal initiative to recruit new hunters, reactivate hunters who have quit, and retain hunters who are currently active. The movement has only been around in its current form since 2016, when advocates took a sort of industrialized approach to the task using marketing dollars and concerted efforts to grow hunter numbers. Matt argues that R3 may not be necessary, and that it’s not the best use for money that would otherwise go to wildlife conservation.

Over the years, Matt has become increasingly concerned about the impacts of hunting pressure on public land. In fact, he sees increased pressure as the primary threat against public land hunting. Most of us will agree that any given landscape has a carrying capacity for predators—be they human or animal. To put it bluntly, if every American killed a deer next year, we’d have a deficit of approximately 200 million deer. As we continue to lose wildlife habitat to development, and as the practice of leasing private property for hunting access continues to increase, hunters without the means to buy or lease land are increasingly squeezed onto fewer and fewer acres.

When I chose to publish the piece, I knew that Matt’s frustrations with R3 are not widely shared at MeatEater. We promote hunting tirelessly. We incentivise hunter mentorship within our ranks by rewarding mentor-employees with prizes such as new optics, free wild game processing, and a day of fishing in a drift boat rowed by a colleague. In addition, MeatEater recently bought a farm in Michigan, fixed it all up, and then donated it to the National Deer Association to support their Field to Fork mentorship program. Multiple members of our staff sit on the board of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which is an aggressive player in R3. Personally, I sit on the board of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, while not as aggressive around R3, is certainly supportive of that mission. Collectively, we have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for these organizations.

As an introduction to Matt’s piece, I wrote that I agreed with his perspective more and more all the time. What I didn’t do was specifically state what parts of his argument I agree with. In retrospect, this was a critical omission. To answer that question now, I’ll say this: We, the hunting industry, need to be cognizant of the fact that our actions impact the lives of the people whom we celebrate and defend. Even when we’re careful to hide the exact locations where we film, there’s still an undeniable uptick in visitation to those places. When we do a high-profile purchase of a property to support a hunting mentorship program, maybe we’re displacing a family who’s already been doing the quiet job of hunter recruitment on that place for generations. To sum it up, we can’t just embrace the job of hunter recruitment without addressing some of the broader consequences and acknowledging the give-and-take of it all.

The other problem is that I didn’t clearly state that my colleagues do not necessarily share my concerns. Or rather, that my concerns are outweighed by what my colleagues see as the benefits of R3. Many of them view hunter recruitment as the surest way to a stronger conservation movement and greater political sway when it comes to fighting the radical animal rights agenda. I do, too.

As with most provocative op-eds, the piece generated a lot of thoughtful feedback. One of the most valuable counterpoints to the op-ed came from Hunters of Color, which pointed out that Matt’s argument didn’t take into account groups of people that are currently underrepresented in the hunting community. Matt argues that hunter recruitment is best left to networks of friends and families, but what about those individuals who did not benefit from the generosity of those networks? I became a hunter because my father was a hunter. Everyone isn’t that lucky. Following the Civil War, we enacted aggressive legislation and policy that was deliberately intended to dissuade African Americans from hunting. If you want to pretend this can’t be true, go read “Hunting and Fishing In the New South: Black Labor and White Leisure after the Civil War” by Scott Giltner. With their personal hunting networks severed in the past, does that mean African Americans should be discouraged from taking a seat at the table now? And what about Native Americans, who were removed from their ancestral hunting grounds many generations ago? Do they need to refrain from establishing a renewed relationship to hunting due to our own perceived crowding issues? And what of women, who comprise only around 10% of hunters in the U.S.? Do those percentages need to stand in perpetuity? These are questions that, admittedly, weren’t adequately considered in Matt’s piece. The best explanation that I can give for our omission of thought is that we were never forced by personal circumstance to consider these things. It was a blind spot.

Some have taken this blind spot in the argument to mean that Matt must be some selfish [bleep] who hates other hunters. This is flat out wrong. Matt takes scores of friends and colleagues out hunting and fishing every year. Many of them are new hunters from non-traditional backgrounds. If someone doesn’t know where to go hunting or fishing, Matt tells them where to go. If they need gear, he gives it to them. Matt lets hunters he has never met stay in his house free of charge while they hunt his local area, often while he’s not even home. In front of his own property is a sign that says “Trespassers Welcome.” Not surprisingly, he had to custom order the sign. It seems there’s pretty low demand for a product like that.

As close as we are, Matt is seriously uneasy with many of the things that I’m involved with. He’s suspicious of social media and hates the hunting-based bragging and fame seeking that takes place there. Personally, I like social media and think it’s immensely useful and fun. Matt’s uneasy with the hunting industry, in part because many operators in that space value profits over the actual experience of the outdoors—hence their eagerness to bolster hunter numbers and, therefore, revenue. I’m a proud member of the hunting industry who believes in creating sustainable jobs for people who want to work in the space where they’re most passionate. Matt doesn’t care for hunting TV, but working on a hunting show with colleagues that I admire is one of my greatest sources of joy. As you can imagine, we get into some nasty fights about this [bleep].

However, I do recognize that our disagreements are based on a mutual love for the outdoors. Matt loves them so much that he wants to see them handled gently, quietly, and privately. No doubt this is informed by his profession as an ecologist. I love them so much that I want to shout it from the rooftops and show them off to the world. When we debate these approaches, we constantly inform and guide one another’s perspectives. I like to think that I change his mind about some things. Likewise, his opinions have informed my own. Such was the case around our arguments about R3.

Hopefully you will consider my explanation here in the broader context of what I’ve always tried to do with MeatEater, which is to expand and inform our conversations around hunting, fishing, conservation, and wild foods. Doing so is a great privilege. It’s also a messy job that’s bound to piss people off. Despite the risks, we’ll continue to share challenging opinions that inspire tough conversations—all for the betterment of the outdoors and the people who go there to work and play.

https://www.themeateater.com/conser...ounder-steven-rinella-addresses-r3-op-ed

Link to above

He's not wrong.

Road Kill

he is also anti 2A and puts his money supporting groups (BHA) that actively seek gun control

Matt is a disgruntled and jealous jerk who can't even live up to his own standards for everyone else.

He wants to be the only one hunting and quit recruiting new hunters, because it lessens the amount of opportunities he himself has, in his own words.

He might have a point here and there but he would have to, to warrant any air time at all.

He is merely calling out the wildlife Pimps. All these wildlife Pimps pitch the r3 b.s. because THEY need more hunters. Because more hunters means more views and more products sold by them and their sponsors.

Wildlife Pimps like to claim they only have a positive effect on wildlife conservation. All while hotspotting the hell out of areas, hunting several states per year, etc. But they don't make a buck!....says one extra sleazy wildlife Pimp.

I have issue with Matt Rinella.

Maybe. But no one would know his name without his brother doing all the work to begin with.

He waited until his name was famous and then started running his mouth.

The problem is that state game laws did not anticipate this sort of commercialization of hunting as monitized YouTube accounts haven’t been around too long.

For example, a hunting guide sets up a business guiding hunters and makes 90k a year. He is absolutely regulated to death and makes a rather small impact.


An “influencer” comes up, films and hunt. Makes a video and with proceeds from a monitized YouTube account and endorsement deals makes 100k from one hunt. In the process he “influenced” another 25 guys to do a similar hunt in the same area. Big impact, almost zero regulations.



Look for states to start regulating this new industry.

So, if I draw a tag. Scout. Film it all and put it online.

You want to regulate that?