Idaho Woman Attacked by Wolf

Off Topic
321

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[/quote]

I can understand people killing the wolves if their population is out of control or they are ranchers suffering losses. I get that. What I don’t get is how shooting a wolf from distance with a high-powered rifle and optics is considered sporting.

[/quote]

I don’t get that either. I’m not a hunter but I get the challenge involved. What challenge is there in laying down a half mile from a wolf with a high powered rifle, a finely tuned scope and one of those mount thingies to steady it? I gotta say, I’m rooting for the wolf (to get the [so called] hunter in that scenario). If someone goes out wolf hunting with a bow they have my respect.

322

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[/quote]

I can understand people killing the wolves if their population is out of control or they are ranchers suffering losses. I get that. What I don’t get is how shooting a wolf from distance with a high-powered rifle and optics is considered sporting.

[/quote]

I don’t get that either. I’m not a hunter but I get the challenge involved. What challenge is there in laying down a half mile from a wolf with a high powered rifle, a finely tuned scope and one of those mount thingies to steady it? I gotta say, I’m rooting for the wolf (to get the [so called] hunter in that scenario). If someone goes out wolf hunting with a bow they have my respect.[/quote]

Rarely are hunters proficient to even take that kind of shot, even if they tried. If I hear someone claim anything 300 or over, I will want them to prove it to me because unless they are military, ex-military, or police sniper I don’t believe they have the ability to do that. Heck, say 200 yards and I’ll still probably ask them to prove it at a shooting range (most hunters set their scopes for 100 and 200, but the 200 grouping is pretty large and I don’t suppose that a hunter will attempt to shoot that far when they are not comfortable to do it at a shooting range).

And, most hunters are shooting off a dipod (sticks) or a tripod, possibly laying prone on their backpack.

Why do I know this, because 1) I am a hunter who hunts year round from dove, phesant, duck, goose, deer, elk, bear, antelope, and fish (yes I bow fish and I always gig frogs when I get the chance), and 2) I guided four years in college and 2 years on weekends in Missouri and Illinois at a hunting camp/duck camp.

324

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[/quote]

I can understand people killing the wolves if their population is out of control or they are ranchers suffering losses. I get that. What I don’t get is how shooting a wolf from distance with a high-powered rifle and optics is considered sporting.

[/quote]

I don’t get that either. I’m not a hunter but I get the challenge involved. What challenge is there in laying down a half mile from a wolf with a high powered rifle, a finely tuned scope and one of those mount thingies to steady it? I gotta say, I’m rooting for the wolf (to get the [so called] hunter in that scenario). If someone goes out wolf hunting with a bow they have my respect.[/quote]

Rarely are hunters proficient to even take that kind of shot, even if they tried. If I hear someone claim anything 300 or over, I will want them to prove it to me because unless they are military, ex-military, or police sniper I don’t believe they have the ability to do that. Heck, say 200 yards and I’ll still probably ask them to prove it at a shooting range (most hunters set their scopes for 100 and 200, but the 200 grouping is pretty large and I don’t suppose that a hunter will attempt to shoot that far when they are not comfortable to do it at a shooting range).

And, most hunters are shooting off a dipod (sticks) or a tripod, possibly laying prone on their backpack.

Why do I know this, because 1) I am a hunter who hunts year round from dove, phesant, duck, goose, deer, elk, bear, antelope, and fish (yes I bow fish and I always gig frogs when I get the chance), and 2) I guided four years in college and 2 years on weekends in Missouri and Illinois at a hunting camp/duck camp.[/quote]

You should be proficient in your marksmanship if you are set out to kill something in a humane manner.

I can do 200 meters on a man sized target, center mass, no problem with iron sights with a carbine. This isn’t difficult.

Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy.

325

[quote]Will207 wrote:
.[/quote]

The story behind that GIF is pretty interesting.

327

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[/quote]

I can understand people killing the wolves if their population is out of control or they are ranchers suffering losses. I get that. What I don’t get is how shooting a wolf from distance with a high-powered rifle and optics is considered sporting.

[/quote]

I don’t get that either. I’m not a hunter but I get the challenge involved. What challenge is there in laying down a half mile from a wolf with a high powered rifle, a finely tuned scope and one of those mount thingies to steady it? I gotta say, I’m rooting for the wolf (to get the [so called] hunter in that scenario). If someone goes out wolf hunting with a bow they have my respect.[/quote]

Rarely are hunters proficient to even take that kind of shot, even if they tried. If I hear someone claim anything 300 or over, I will want them to prove it to me because unless they are military, ex-military, or police sniper I don’t believe they have the ability to do that. Heck, say 200 yards and I’ll still probably ask them to prove it at a shooting range (most hunters set their scopes for 100 and 200, but the 200 grouping is pretty large and I don’t suppose that a hunter will attempt to shoot that far when they are not comfortable to do it at a shooting range).

And, most hunters are shooting off a dipod (sticks) or a tripod, possibly laying prone on their backpack.

Why do I know this, because 1) I am a hunter who hunts year round from dove, phesant, duck, goose, deer, elk, bear, antelope, and fish (yes I bow fish and I always gig frogs when I get the chance), and 2) I guided four years in college and 2 years on weekends in Missouri and Illinois at a hunting camp/duck camp.[/quote]

You should be proficient in your marksmanship if you are set out to kill something in a humane manner.

I can do 200 meters on a man sized target, center mass, no problem with iron sights with a carbine. This isn’t difficult.

Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy.
[/quote]

There is a difference between shooting a paper target and an animal (or human if you are a military sniper/rifleman).

That is the fun part about hunting, the excitement of taking down a live creature and putting it to death safely for both yourself and the animal. People call it buck fever, but on almost every hunt I have been on this adrenal rush can take the most proficient marksman and make it rather difficult to kill the animal in the scope (remembering where to adjust your scope based on the distance, remembering how to breath, and in my case not fogging up the lends on the scope right before you squeeze the trigger on a giant bull elk).

Especially when you are not set up on a bench made for accuracy and you have a boulder/sticks/tripod to rest your rifle on.

I can reach quite the distance with my 7mm magnum with my 10x scope, but it took me about 30 seconds to calm down enough to kill my first cow elk while resting my rifle on a stick (yes one stick, who in the world invented a one stick rifle rest I don’t know, but that is what was provided for me on my first big game hunt).

328

Not really on topic, but this cougar was caught across the street from where I work.

329

[quote]dcb wrote:
Not really on topic, but this cougar was caught across the street from where I work.

[/quote]

refreshing to see a humane approach to dealing with wildlife despite the end result, although im sure people here are glad the animal is dead.

330

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
.[/quote]

The story behind that GIF is pretty interesting.[/quote]

That’s about the closest thing to a modern-day velosiraptor attack we are going to see that isn’t CGI. Those tigers are both magnificent and terrifying. I sure hope they don’t go extinct.

331

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

I can do 200 meters on a man sized target, center mass, no problem with iron sights with a carbine. This isn’t difficult.

Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy.
[/quote]

I’d bet a fair sum you’d miss nine out of ten shots at a wolf with your iron sighted carbine from 200 meters. A fair substantial sum.

Your haughty attitude betrays your credibility on this topic.

Since you’ve boldly claimed, “Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy,” why don’t you grace us with photos of your wolf kills and the mounts. Put up or shut up.[/quote]

I’ve had to qualify at 200 with iron sights from both the prone and kneeling position at a man-sized target. If you rotate the target 90 degrees, it’s pretty similar to the size of a broadside, full grown wolf. 1 out of 10 is not a pass, and I have never failed to qualify.

I’ve already taken the position of being opposed to so called trophy hunting, so it follows that I would not have photos or a mount.

Can you explain why shooting a stationary, live target is any different than shooting a stationary, non-living target as it applies to marksmanship?

332

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
.[/quote]

The story behind that GIF is pretty interesting.[/quote]

That’s about the closest thing to a modern-day velosiraptor attack we are going to see that isn’t CGI. Those tigers are both magnificent and terrifying. I sure hope they don’t go extinct. [/quote]

Nope, better kill 'em all.

333

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
.[/quote]

The story behind that GIF is pretty interesting.[/quote]

That’s about the closest thing to a modern-day velosiraptor attack we are going to see that isn’t CGI. Those tigers are both magnificent and terrifying. I sure hope they don’t go extinct. [/quote]

Nope, better kill 'em all. [/quote]

X2 in fact we better kill every predatory animal on the planet so has nobody has their daughter mauled and eaten.

I know some people are allergic to bee stings, so we better get rid all those.

Might have peanut allergy, so we should stop growing peanuts.

In fact, im going to city hall tomorrow and im going to start a petition to arrest everyone in high crime neighborhoods so that way they cant harm anyone…

334

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the USMC qualify at 500 yards with iron sights on a 40"Hx20" wide target?

335

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

I can do 200 meters on a man sized target, center mass, no problem with iron sights with a carbine. This isn’t difficult.

Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy.
[/quote]

I’d bet a fair sum you’d miss nine out of ten shots at a wolf with your iron sighted carbine from 200 meters. A fair substantial sum.

Your haughty attitude betrays your credibility on this topic.

Since you’ve boldly claimed, “Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy,” why don’t you grace us with photos of your wolf kills and the mounts. Put up or shut up.[/quote]

I’ve had to qualify at 200 with iron sights from both the prone and kneeling position at a man-sized target. If you rotate the target 90 degrees, it’s pretty similar to the size of a broadside, full grown wolf. 1 out of 10 is not a pass, and I have never failed to qualify.

I’ve already taken the position of being opposed to so called trophy hunting, so it follows that I would not have photos or a mount.

Can you explain why shooting a stationary, live target is any different than shooting a stationary, non-living target as it applies to marksmanship?

[/quote]

Brother Chris did a great job explaining the phenomenon of “buck fever”.

Shooting at something alive is different from shooting at paper. It just is, even if the conditions are identical, which they will not be.

You say you had to “qualify” on a man-sized target. I assume this means on a military qualification course for Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Only 200 meters? At Benning the BRM qualification range went out to 300. Ah, well. No need to qualify at ranges that the M4 can’t effectively hit at, I guess.

Anyway, the conditions at which you might have the opportunity to shoot a wolf at 200 meters are not the same as a qualification range. Your view may be obscured by heavy timber or tall grass. The wind may be blowing sand or snow into your eyes. You may not have time to get into a stable position, and the wolf is not going to just stand there motionless on a ridge for you to get a perfect sight picture.

Plus, if you’re any kind of sportsman at all you don’t just “aim for center mass”’ squeeze the trigger and call it good. You have to know enough canine anatomy so that your bullet will take out, ideally, the heart, lungs, or shoulder joints, and preferably all three. The target will be moving, probably swiftly, possibly toward you. If you can clearly see him, he can probably see you. He has in any case already smelled you long before you became aware of his presence. You probably smell delicious.

So yes, firing a killing shot at a moving target, under extreme time pressure, in field conditions, with a major caliber, is a completely different proposition than firing at silhouettes from a stable position in a hole.

337

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

I can do 200 meters on a man sized target, center mass, no problem with iron sights with a carbine. This isn’t difficult.

Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy.
[/quote]

I’d bet a fair sum you’d miss nine out of ten shots at a wolf with your iron sighted carbine from 200 meters. A fair substantial sum.

Your haughty attitude betrays your credibility on this topic.

Since you’ve boldly claimed, “Shooting a wolf, or any predatory animal from over 100 with high quality optics and a decent rifle isn’t difficult on the grounds that shooting a piece of paper from the same distance with the same equipment is relatively easy,” why don’t you grace us with photos of your wolf kills and the mounts. Put up or shut up.[/quote]

I’ve had to qualify at 200 with iron sights from both the prone and kneeling position at a man-sized target. If you rotate the target 90 degrees, it’s pretty similar to the size of a broadside, full grown wolf. 1 out of 10 is not a pass, and I have never failed to qualify.

I’ve already taken the position of being opposed to so called trophy hunting, so it follows that I would not have photos or a mount.

Can you explain why shooting a stationary, live target is any different than shooting a stationary, non-living target as it applies to marksmanship?

[/quote]

Brother Chris did a great job explaining the phenomenon of “buck fever”.

Shooting at something alive is different from shooting at paper. It just is, even if the conditions are identical, which they will not be.

You say you had to “qualify” on a man-sized target. I assume this means on a military qualification course for Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Only 200 meters? At Benning the BRM qualification range went out to 300. Ah, well. No need to qualify at ranges that the M4 can’t effectively hit at, I guess.

Anyway, the conditions at which you might have the opportunity to shoot a wolf at 200 meters are not the same as a qualification range. Your view may be obscured by heavy timber or tall grass. The wind may be blowing sand or snow into your eyes. You may not have time to get into a stable position, and the wolf is not going to just stand there motionless on aridge for you to get a perfect sight picture.

Plus, if you’re any kind of sportsman at all you don’t just “aim for center mass”’ squeeze the trigger and call it good. You have to know enough canine anatomy so that your bullet will take out, ideally, the heart, lungs, or shoulder joints, and preferably all three. The target will be moving, probably swiftly, possibly toward you. If you can clearly see him, he can probably see you. He has in any case already smelled you long before you became aware of his presence. You probably smell delicious.

So yes, firing a killing shot at a moving target, under ectreme time pressure, in field conditions, with a major caliber, is a completely different proposition than firing at silhouettes from a stable position in a hole.

[/quote]

Well done!

338

If the big bad wolf is coming to eat you, just wait for it to get close and shoot it with a shotgun.

339

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

You say you had to “qualify” on a man-sized target. I assume this means on a military qualification course for Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Only 200 meters? At Benning the BRM qualification range went out to 300. Ah, well. No need to qualify at ranges that the M4 can’t effectively hit at, I guess.[/quote]

Yea, the C8 qualification I had to do was out to 200. There is another qualification we have that uses the C7 and that shoot is done from the 300 with a run down.

I’ve qualified in the rain, snow, wind, etc. Our shoots are timed, and after the 300 mark, we run 100 meters in full gear to our next shooting position. In regards to sight picture… you should have a perfect sight picture to make sure you are shooting at your target.

I don’t think a lot of the people who hunt wolves are too concerned if they pull off a gut-shot. With vanity plates like “DIE WLF” “SMOK M” “NO WOLFS” and “WLF KLR”, I’ve concluded humane killing of the animal isn’t a priority.

I also don’t buy into the danger aspect of hunting wolves. You are more likely to be injured by another hunter than a wolf, so I suppose there is an element of danger.

(go to 3:00)

Yea, that looked real difficult.

Edit: You’ll have to open the link in a new window. The uploader has disabled playback on other websites.

340

[quote]Aggv wrote:
If the big bad wolf is coming to eat you, just wait for it to get close and shoot it with a shotgun. [/quote]

Or if you’re csulli, wait until it gets really close, then jab a finger in its eye and scramble its brains.