Someone could have been hurt.
Better kill 'em.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Ah no need to bother with that. That’s a big game tactic. Wolves are small enough to just overpower and crush.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[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…
[/quote]
Hah! I can’t believe I actually agree with you.
[quote]pushharder 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]
The world of actual in-the-field hunting is far more fluid than the very manageable conditions at the range.
Were you a hunter I would not have had to relay this bit of wisdom to you.[/quote]
Varq and I have already covered conditions. In the video I posted, could you please go over the adverse conditions that would have made the shot difficult? Was it digestion issues from the bacon and egg breakfast the shooter references in the video? Was the dead moose used as bait not appetizing enough for the hungry wolf? Perhaps the heater or radio in the cabin she was shooting from briefly malfunctioned.
[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]
Adrenaline. Unless you are a psychopath, the human psyche does not easily allow a man to just kill a fellow being with no uptick.
[quote]Brother Chris 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]
Adrenaline. Unless you are a psychopath, the human psyche does not easily allow a man to just kill a fellow being with no uptick.[/quote]
Are you suggesting that deep down you know it’s wrong and that’s why you get the feeling that you do? Or is it that it’s exciting and you become overwhelmed (ie thrill killing)?
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
I didn’t find that to be very sporting but I’d still bang.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris 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]
Adrenaline. Unless you are a psychopath, the human psyche does not easily allow a man to just kill a fellow being with no uptick.[/quote]
Are you suggesting that deep down you know it’s wrong and that’s why you get the feeling that you do? Or is it that it’s exciting and you become overwhelmed (ie thrill killing)?
[/quote]
Go kill something.
Something big.
Then come back and tell us it didn’t excite you, just a little.
Go on. We’ll wait.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Go kill something.
Something big.
Then come back and tell us it didn’t excite you, just a little.
Go on. We’ll wait.[/quote]
If by excite you mean arouse an emotion, then sure.
If you mean I would take pleasure in it, then no. I don’t enjoy killing things.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]pushharder 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]
The world of actual in-the-field hunting is far more fluid than the very manageable conditions at the range.
Were you a hunter I would not have had to relay this bit of wisdom to you.[/quote]
Varq and I have already covered conditions. In the video I posted, could you please go over the adverse conditions that would have made the shot difficult? Was it digestion issues from the bacon and egg breakfast the shooter references in the video? Was the dead moose used as bait not appetizing enough for the hungry wolf? Perhaps the heater or radio in the cabin she was shooting from briefly malfunctioned.[/quote]
First, a question for you. Do you hunt? If so, how much and what game do you pursue? And for for how long have you been doing it?[/quote]
Pheasant a few times. I’m going for deer this year. Tried to make it out the last couple years, however due to scheduling during the very short season I was unable. I grew up around hunting, but never got around to it myself until recently.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]pushharder 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]
The world of actual in-the-field hunting is far more fluid than the very manageable conditions at the range.
Were you a hunter I would not have had to relay this bit of wisdom to you.[/quote]
Varq and I have already covered conditions. In the video I posted, could you please go over the adverse conditions that would have made the shot difficult? Was it digestion issues from the bacon and egg breakfast the shooter references in the video? Was the dead moose used as bait not appetizing enough for the hungry wolf? Perhaps the heater or radio in the cabin she was shooting from briefly malfunctioned.[/quote]
First, a question for you. Do you hunt? If so, how much and what game do you pursue? And for for how long have you been doing it?[/quote]
Pheasant a few times. I’m going for deer this year. Tried to make it out the last couple years, however due to scheduling during the very short season I was unable. I grew up around hunting, but never got around to it myself until recently. [/quote]
But yet…you speak as though you were an authority on the subject. Maybe you might see the disconnect. Others surely do.
[/quote]
I think others are a bit bias because I’ve pointed out that maybe, just maybe, shooting a baited wolf from 200 yards away from inside a cabin isn’t really sporting.
I don’t see the disconnect between the ability to hit a target or not. The standard I mentioned was 200 meters with iron sights. I’ve shot in poor conditions (wind, rain, snow, dust) while stressed, and could still hit the target. It reasons that if you had better equipment (optics, bipod or some other physical support, better rifle, etc) that you would do better.
No more ad hominem, attack the argument.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The argument has already been attacked. Successfully.
The ad hominem whining is unnecessary. To point out your inexperience is no ad hominem.
Go spend some time in the real world of hunting before you choose to expound on what it takes to successfully hunt – just like you need to spend some time in the gym under the bar before you try to coach others on how to squat, pull and press.
Savvy?[/quote]
I didn’t tell you how to hunt. I said hunting from within a building using high powered rifles and optics and baited animals isn’t sporting. At the end of the day, she shot a big hungry dog looking for some food from the comfort of her cabin. To call it a sport is laughable.
Ever hunt in the Alberta area? Maybe one day you can show me how it’s done.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris 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]
Adrenaline. Unless you are a psychopath, the human psyche does not easily allow a man to just kill a fellow being with no uptick.[/quote]
Are you suggesting that deep down you know it’s wrong and that’s why you get the feeling that you do? Or is it that it’s exciting and you become overwhelmed (ie thrill killing)?
[/quote]
Well, that is quite the false dichotomy. No, I do not believe killing animals is wrong (how am I supposed to live without meat and how are the animals not going to starve if they are not culled), and I don’t believe hunting is about thrill killing.
There is a seriousness about taking an animals life (to hit/not miss/to not wound it without killing it), to respect the animal no matter how fun it is to hunt.
[quote]on edge wrote:
I didn’t find that to be very sporting but I’d still bang.[/quote]
What do you consider sporting?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris 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]
Adrenaline. Unless you are a psychopath, the human psyche does not easily allow a man to just kill a fellow being with no uptick.[/quote]
Are you suggesting that deep down you know it’s wrong and that’s why you get the feeling that you do? Or is it that it’s exciting and you become overwhelmed (ie thrill killing)?
[/quote]
Well, that is quite the false dichotomy. No, I do not believe killing animals is wrong (how am I supposed to live without meat and how are the animals not going to starve if they are not culled), and I don’t believe hunting is about thrill killing.
There is a seriousness about taking an animals life (to hit/not miss/to not wound it without killing it), to respect the animal no matter how fun it is to hunt.
[/quote]
That is exactly how I feel. Although I see hunting more of a means to an end.
For me, the issue with killing the wolves is that the meat is not harvested. I understand why, but then why kill it? If there are reasons other than entertainment to kill it, I can agree with that.