MeatEater Rebuttal

(Originally posted March 26th, 2021, updated May 3, 2021)

“Don’t be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today.” - El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X)

If you mention the name, “MeatEater,” to a hunter, they’ll know exactly who you’re talking about. If you’re familiar with the podcasts or Netflix show, you might even read, “Hi, I’m Steven Rinella,” in his unique, recognizable, Northern accent. As one of the largest hunting conglomerates in the United States, many look to MeatEater as the staple of hunting media content. I'm sure there are folks reading this who listened to episode 275 of the Wired To Hunt podcast when Mark Kenyon interviewed Hank Forester and Charles Evans about “Solving the hunter recruitment crisis.” You’ve seen Ryan Callaghan and Steven Rinella himself taking out new hunters in plenty of videos. Many of you tuned in to The Hunting Collective when Ben O'Brien talked with HOC’s founders about our mentorship program, and their support in this “Year of the New Hunter.”

So when we looked at our notifications this morning and saw an article titled “The Case Against Hunter Recruitment,” written by none other than Matt Rinella, Steven’s brother, it came as a bit of a shock.

While we realize that this one article doesn't define MeatEater’s stance as a whole, we are disappointed to see them platform such blatant disregard for necessary strides toward diversity in the hunting community by calling for the end of R3.

That said, we have a few thoughts. Please keep in mind, this rebuttal isn’t an indictment, but an invite from Hunters of Color to MeatEater to start thinking critically about diversity and inclusion.

Diversity is not an issue that is completely foreign to MeatEater. (No adult person or organization in 2021 should be able to claim ignorance of such an important topic). MeatEater has at times platformed folks like Charles Rodney, “The Rabbit Hunter,” or Rue Mapp, founder of Outdoor Afro. As recently as last month, HOC founders Jimmy and Lydia talked with Ben O’Brien about the importance of diversifying the outdoors. We were grateful for Patrick Durkin’s conscientious work on the article, “Is Hunting Too White?” from May, 2019, where in essence Durkin answered a resounding, “Yes,” by relaying data that demonstrate that 96% of hunters are white. So while it is clear that MeatEater has been presented with information on hunting demographics, it is unclear what they have done, or are doing, to promote diversity at a systemic level. This article clearly isn’t it.

What we see in this article is a major lack of understanding of the barriers that many BIPOC face while trying to get into hunting. It was written by a person who is already a hunter, not on the outside looking in, and who is part of the 96% and therefore has no reason to want to change the status quo. That is, besides one potential thing: empathy. Ben O’Brien said it best, “If someone comes to you with an issue, asking for empathy, and you deny them that, you are cruel.” We hope that throughout this article, the reader takes in our rebuttal from the standpoint of empathy.

Now, we are sure that Matt didn’t have bad intentions in writing this article. We’re sure he is a nice guy, who probably considers himself “colorblind,” (which is clearly part of the issue at hand). Steven didn’t have bad intentions when he okayed this article. And MeatEater didn’t have bad intentions when they posted it. However, there are certainly people with bad intentions reading these articles, and the last thing they need is MeatEater telling them they should be mad at new hunters. (Pssst, MeatEater— they’re already mad at us, plus a lot of them don’t like our skin tones either).

The fact is, if you are one of the hunters who is already out in the woods, chances are you’ve had some sort of privilege, such as people in your family who hunted and who taught you how. And whenever humans have privilege, we aren’t naturally inclined to think about people with less privilege— so the fact that Matt wasn’t thinking about diversity and the BIPOC experience doesn’t surprise us. As a white man who did have the privilege of the ‘paternalistic hunting lineage’ so often referenced at MeatEater, he hasn’t necessarily had to consider that others’ experiences might be different from his own— but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t.

The privilege that one is born into is never that person’s “fault.” Matt and Steven, for example, didn’t choose the color of their skin, or to be born into a hunting family. However, it is their “fault” if they decide to be complacent in the face of inequality instead of educating themselves and using their own privilege to help negate the barriers that less-privileged groups face.

We are certain that Matt wasn’t considering such barriers when he wrote this article. That said, Matt, if you’re reading this, we have a couple questions:

1. You mention the pressure of new hunters pushing you out of your hunting spots. Do those new hunters happen to look like you? We’d put money on the fact that they do.

2. Where are the demographics in the studies you reference? You briefly mention age, saying something like, “We don’t know the age of all these new hunters that came out during coronavirus… So let’s just see how it plays out.” But if we had to guess, the demographics of these new hunters are probably the same as most hunters— older white men. If, for some reason, you believe otherwise:

3. What do you think has happened to make hunting any more accessible to BIPOC since 2016? We are unaware of any major systemic changes, and Hunters of Color wasn’t founded until August of 2020, so we have no reason to believe that there is going to be a massive uptick in diversity between 2016-2020. (This, in particular, is why articles like these that dissuade people from supporting recruitment/mentorship programs are so problematic. More importantly, this is why being colorblind is problematic: we need you to see the barriers BIPOC face).

Barriers to Access

The barriers to hunting in particular are evident, and not hard to understand with even the most basic level of historical literacy. For example, the forced removal of indigenous peoples from ancestral hunting lands onto barren tracts of reservation land, redlining of POC (especially Black Americans) into undesirable, crammed ‘ghettos,’ migration of BIPOC from rural communities that have often espoused antiquated ideas about race, and a general aversion to the outdoors where centuries of atrocities against BIPOC have been committed, leading to untold generational trauma. Today, due to privilege and systemic oppression, white people own 98% of private land in the US. Many BIPOC are uncomfortable owning or transporting firearms because we’ve seen what can happen when people in power see brown people with a gun (see Philando Castile, NRA supported gun control in CA in the 60s, just to name a few) and many worry that our brown skin will be seen as a weapon, even when unarmed. Further, many BIPOC simply do not feel comfortable in the woods with a bunch of armed white men. Lastly, we have been fed the lie that hunting is a “white person sport” because of lack of representation. Why should we believe that hunting is for us when we pick up any hunting magazine or turn on MeatEater on Netflix and see people who don’t look like us?

Matt’s ignorance of barriers for BIPOC is especially evident in his call for people to just learn how to hunt from their friends and family. Many people (especially people of color) do not have families that hunt, and rely solely on mentorships. Only one person on our entire staff at HOC learned to hunt from their family. If America didn’t have systems in place that lead to disparities in hunting diversity, and relying on friends and family worked for everyone, hunting demographics would *at least* match our country’s demographics.

With these barriers considered, it is no surprise that 96% of hunters are white. But it’s not that people of color don’t want to hunt. Statistics from the MeatEater article by Patrick Durkin clearly state otherwise: “Of Native Americans, nearly one-third said they’d like to try hunting… interest in hunting among Blacks was 18%; Hispanics, 16%; whites, 15%; and Asians, 11%.”

We just named a few of the more obvious barriers that have specifically prevented BIPOC from hunting, and we are more than willing to continue this conversation if MeatEater (or any readers) are willing to seek further education. That is one reason why HOC exists. (Please keep in mind, when we say to seek education, we’re not telling you to go ask all of your brown and Black friends to explain their world to you— but listen if they choose to do so on their own!)

The stats are there and the evidence is clear. What MeatEater needs to ask itself in this moment is, “Are we going to be a gatekeeper that stops people of color from getting into hunting by not supporting specific R3 missions such as Hunters of Color that exist to create a more diverse hunting community?”

Other Arguments

It seems like Matt didn’t take a few key factors into account, and frankly, swung and missed at a couple other topics.

Matt basically discredits any personal gain from hunting. But in reality, it is good for people to hunt. It is good for people to know where their food comes from. It is good for people to eat natural meat. It is good for people to connect to their ancestral traditions. It is good for people to be outdoors.

And while Matt’s argument ignores benefits such as individual well-being, he simultaneously brushes off the power of the hunting community as a group in important matters such as voting. It seems counterproductive for MeatEater as an organization to post something that devalues the power of “The Hunting Collective” as a whole. Instead of discrediting the hunting population’s ability to come together to protect our natural resources, we invite the MeatEater to consider what a more diverse hunting community might be able to do as a voting bloc.

We at HOC believe that we need to rid ourselves of this cancerous individualism that only cares about our own hunting season. For the sake of community, diversity, and our voting power, we need to be recruiting BIPOC and all other underrepresented communities.

We want to make something clear: there is no such thing as benign acceptance of the status quo. Either you are for progress and racial equity in the hunting community, or you are not.

And it's not as though MeatEater can simply brush off our rebuttal to Matt’s article, claim ignorance and assume that this anti-R3 sentiment won't affect the recruitment of BIPOC. Because until they make a statement or add an addendum to Matt’s article, the damage will be done.

The less-empathetic people who read MeatEater articles- those who can only think about themselves and their personal hunting experience being less crowded- will be led to believe that any and all hunter recruitment needs to stop. We already have a hard enough time with convincing many of these folks that HOC is important and that systemic barriers are real. We already know of too many examples of BIPOC experiencing all manner of racism simply because they were in a white person’s “hunting spot.” By implying that you’re fine with the status quo and that you don’t want any new hunters in “your” woods, you are not a neutral actor. Quite the contrary: you are gatekeeping racial equity in the hunting community, intentionally or not.

We are in the process of building our mentorship program. We currently have mentors in 30 states, and almost 50 mentees. The last thing we need as BIPOC are more white gatekeepers telling us where we can/can’t be and what we can/can’t do.

What Comes Next

We are often asked what de-centering whiteness looks like in the hunting community. Here is an opportunity for MeatEater to do just that, and say, “Yeah, we did miss this key demographic issue and we are not okay with the status quo.” Because contrary to what Matt’s article states, we do need to be recruiting… people of color. Especially considering that by the year 2044, the US Census tells us that people of color will be the majority in the US. Even if Matt’s other arguments held strong, this prediction still remains and creates a need for diverse recruitment. Because if the trend of only 4% of BIPOC hunters continues, the North American Conservation model is bound to fail. And as long as MeatEater and other orgs are putting out content that says “There’s too many hunters in my woods,” they’re telling people of color that we don’t belong there anyways.

It is frustrating, to say the least, to even have to type this, but here goes: Hunting belongs to no one demographic. The land you are gatekeeping is often public land, and it is always indigenous land. How can you be entitled to something you don’t own? Maybe no one is asking Matt, or other current hunters if they are okay with sharing. But did you ask indigenous Americans how we felt about not only our hunting spots, but all of our land being taken? I would like to remind you that whenever you’re hunting in the US, you are hunting on indigenous land. Your gatekeeping of public land is anti-indigenous and the last thing we need in the hunting community.

As a person of color, this article felt like a big “STAY OUT” sign... on public land. And isn’t MeatEater supposedly all about public land? Isn’t it something you promote and push, that we are all “Public Land Owners”? Isn’t that why hunters’ votes are so important? But if MeatEater is going to gatekeep public land, are you asking us to vote to only protect your right to access it?

The entitlement in this article exemplifies the magnitude of the problem that Hunters of Color is trying to tackle. If you think of hunting as a table that was built by white people for white people, you’ll have a pretty good idea of what the hunting community is going to look like.
Hunters of Color is not begging for a chair at that table. We know that outdoor systems in this country (hunting included) were not created with people of color in mind. And there is a difference between telling BIPOC “Yeah, I guess you’re welcome here” vs. “Come. This was created for you.” That’s why we’re creating our own table.

Matt also seems a bit conflicted in his arguments about BHA. On one hand, he says “Backcountry Hunters & Anglers supports R3,” in a negative context, then finishes the article by saying, “If you are not a member of a group like BHA… I urge you to join, contribute, and help shape the priorities.”

So while Matt offered his suggestion to his readers, we’d like to offer our suggestion to our readers (and more specifically, to MeatEater):

We urge you to “Listen, reflect, and change,” to quote co-founder of Inclusive Journeys, Crystal Egli. Hunters of Color was founded on the concept of MLK's “Beloved Community,” based in justice, love for all humanity, and equal opportunity. We are creating this space and building our own table, and we’d like to invite organizations like MeatEater to take a seat at that table, if you are willing to listen, reflect, and change your priorities to include BIPOC.

The way we see it, MeatEater has three possible responses to our rebuttal:

1. They could ignore our article completely because they really don’t give a damn about diversity or diverse voices and don’t care what we have to say. Or maybe they truly don’t want us in “their” woods. We hope (and truly believe) this is not the case, but if so, that is fine; we don’t need their approval. We will still be out here recruiting BIPOC. But we hope MeatEater realizes that if they choose to not address the problems that BIPOC face, that limits them to tokenizing us. And we don't think that they want to be known for that. Which is why we’d love to tackle these barriers together. We can't put a Band-Aid (like tokenism) on systemic issues (like oppression).

2. They could say “The original article was about general R3 groups and we weren’t thinking about Hunters of Color or diversity when we wrote it.” (Well, then start thinking about us.)

3. They could say, “Shoot, we are sorry for this massive oversight and we will do better in the future starting now to consider diversity and support organizations like Hunters of Color who are doing a very important thing. (Hell, they might even add an addendum to the article stating that MeatEater supports diversity and this anti-R3 sentiment does not include groups like HOC).

   We implore MeatEater to remember that however they choose to respond, they are not simply responding as Matt, or Steven, or Cal, or Ben, or even as “MeatEater.” They are responding as the leader in hunting communication in the United States. And for that reason, what they communicate to the hunting community at large is far more important than what they communicate with us. We hope that whatever they do communicate is an understanding that they mess up whenever they leave BIPOC out of these conversations, and that they are committed to HOC’s continued recruitment of a diverse hunting community. “

So here’s an open invite to Matt, and all the folks at MeatEater: Come take a seat at the table we’re building. And don’t forget, the Outdoors are for Everyone.

*Update 04/01/21: Steven Rinella called Lydia and thanked her for bringing this conversation to light. He wrote another piece titled, "MeatEater Founder Steven Rinella Addresses R3 Op-Ed" in which he addresses some of the oversights in the first article. We believe this door has been opened for discussion and we are excited for the future of diversity in R3. We are hopeful that organizations like MeatEater will work with us, and not against us.