January 15, 2015

F&S - The Outdoorsman's Guide To Social Media

Have you read the article in Field & Stream, The Outdoorsman's Guide To Social Media?

If not, take 5 minutes and read it, and come on back.
It's not that long.  I'll wait....


OK, are you back?  So what do you think about it?

The Flow Chart

The middle section of this article, "What Kind of Social Media Outdoorsman Are You?" was probably the article's highlight. I think the author nailed the four primary characterizations of a social media user...although there probably could have been one or two more added to the mix...such as the "Oblivious Narcissist"... Umm, guilty as charged.

The flow chart pointed out that I'm an "Addict," which probably isn't too far off. While I try to be a "Buddy," I definitely like technology and goofing around on social media. I don't think I'm guilty of Instagramming my entire day or speaking purely in Twitter hashtags, but I've been known to do both. It was my answer to the hashtag filled sentence that actually sealed my fate in this exercise.

Fortunately, when out on the water or walking a trail, my phone/camera largely goes unused, maybe only to snap a quick pic of caught fish or two. And liking, texting, or tweeting aren't even a thought.

Oh heck, who am I kidding. I'm an addict. The first step to recovery is admission...although I don't see it getting "better" anytime soon.  I'm too vain to not think that everyone wants to see the awesomeness that I'm up to...

I'd be curious to know what kind of social media outdoorsman you were identified as. If you're reading this, my guess is either an "Addict" or "Buddy," but I'm sure there are also some "High-Fence Hecklers" out there too.

My Two Cents

This article had good intentions but was damn tough on the eyes.  It had very little structure which made it a bit confusing and a choppy read. I thought the first 3 sections about Trolls, Causes, Poachers were somewhat on point, but they just didn't really transition well from the introductory paragraph.  I suppose they were examples of how social media can "promote and protect the outdoors."  By the way, I hope this critique doesn't make me a "High-Fence Heckler," because I really did enjoy the piece...wouldn't have written about it if I didn't.

I will say that I somewhat wonder the impact Social Media has from a cause standpoint. When a group like Trout Unlimited posts something on Facebook about Saving Bristol Bay or Stopping Fracking in the Northeast, do they get anything tangible out of it other than some Likes? I've always viewed Likes as a passive interaction...not even an indication of increased awareness. It'd be interesting to see some statistics relating "call to action" social posts back to actual monetary donations, or even better, man hours donated.

What say you?


  1. I fall into the "The Anti-socialist" group. You know I don't Facebook, Twitter, or Instasomething. I don't even have a cell phone. I take that back, I have a Tracfone from Walmart just in case I need to make a call while I'm out somewhere. I turn it on, call, and turn it off. I guess I'm just old. Geezers Unite.

  2. I'm a "high fence buddy." ( Sorry, there wasn't a definitive flow chart conclusion called "Makes his own Rules about Stereotypes. :) ) - as for monetary donations being worth more than likes, you're absolutely right - and the way Facebook is going now, a like means virtually nothing. All that said, ( and back to money) if you're using 50% of your donations to fund things other than what you're supposed to be funding, I'm not sure X organization should exist as a "non-profit." I think some organizations ( conservation or otherwise ) simply need to find more and more emotional givers as their memberships change faster than a summer work force at the local McDonalds. In that light - you are absolutely right that man-hours or some other form of donation probably goes alot further than sending in $25 or $30 a year.

    1. You are a high fence buddy... I definitely think not everyone will fit neatly in the 4 buckets of characterizations noted. There could probably be 8 or 10, but at some point that's overkill.

  3. Replies
    1. #WhoEvaShockey?

      I didn't even touch on her part of the article. I like her point of view on social though, especially when it comes to trolls.


  4. I'm sure I need to read that article...but honestly, it didn't have a picture of a fish on it...so I'll just have to take your word!!

  5. Meh. I've depended on F&S for years for high quality gear tips and amazing writing. I continue to find fewer of each. I've also been really disappointed recently in their failure to do background research on political/scientific issues instead of taking talking points from their favorite hook-and-bullet nonprofits (even when I agree with F&S and the non-profit....facts are important). This article didn't help me figure out anything new, didn't make me laugh, didn't challenge me. Oh well.