The .600 Overkill

or you could just not go anywhere near where bears live................

Is it true that the US is bringing I a law that hunters can shoot hibernating bears? It's been on the news here but it sounds ridiculous so we assume it's not true.
Good gawd, I hope not!!! I've not heard of it.
 
I like that the rifle maker was self aware and called this the "overkill." :)
 
If the grizzly came into his home he'd be entitled to shoot it to defend him and his family, if he goes into the grizzly's home the bear should be entitled to defend himself without being shot surely.


what constitutes "his den?"

Is he paying property tax on said den? Claiming squatters rights? lol


And why is it so immoral to kill a bear that is a dangerous predator and whose species have killed many of people over centuries...but perfectly ok to kill an innocent lamb because the lamb is tastes delicious.

Seems awful judgemental to characterize someone as immoral just because your opinion of hunting differs from theirs.

I have no problem with sport hunting as long as sound management and conservation practices are being utilized.
 
If the grizzly came into his home he'd be entitled to shoot it to defend him and his family, if he goes into the grizzly's home the bear should be entitled to defend himself without being shot surely.

He was not looking to shoot a Grizzly, he was looking to protect himself should one decide to attack him while he was in the woods.

Like I said, he saw grizzlies, but they left him alone so he did not bother them either. To be honest, cougars are much more dangerous and those were there too. But he did not see any, but that does not mean the did not see him.
 
Sounds about as moronic as you can get, but as the saying go is... Only in America...

Donald Trump makes it legal to shoot hibernating bears

Oh Goodness.

They repealed a law that Obama passed in 2016 that took away the state of Alaska's ability to manage its own wildlife and put the federal gov't in charge of it.

The shooting of hibernating bears is media BS. The law just put management of regulations back into the hands of the state of Alaska.
 
Many years ago my cousin lived in Colorado and his next door neighbor was John Denver, but he never saw him, they lived on different mountains. My cousin had a .460 Weatherby Magnum he carried when he went out on his property, not with the intent to kill something, although he did hunt deer for the meat, just not with the .460 Weatherby Magnum. He carried the .460 Weatherby Magnum just in case he ever ran into a Grizzly bear that was not all to happy with his presence. While he lived there he did come across a Grizzly but luckily he never had to use the Weatherby.

There can be other reasons to own these guns than what they were intended for. However I do not think I would go get me a .460 Weatherby Magnum for target practice.
Sure. But I'll propose that a .600 is a poor choice for defense against a charging grizzly. It's both way too much, and not enough, at the same time.

It's a pretty poor choice of gun to just..."have".
 
Oh of course I am aware of this. What is touched upon in the article, but barely discussed, is that the need to take such action is caused by encroaching human activity creating a loss of habitat. Humans created the problem, and then are forced to look for a solution. Unfortunately culling may be part of that solution. That doesn't negate the heniousness of getting ones rocks off by killing an animal for something as shallow as a trophy. And it ignores the root of the problem.
 
Personally I just hate all guns, I've seen to many lives ruined because of them any coward can pull a trigger. I know some carry for self defence and that's fine I can agree with that as long as the person has self control and doesn't just shoot some guy he's having words with,

Personally I'm not into weapon training at all. I like the empty hand aspect and training your body. I just don't see any value to me for weapon training but that's just me I've seen amazing weapons guys who I have a lot of respect for but it's just not my thing.
 
That doesn't negate the heniousness of getting ones rocks off by killing an animal for something as shallow as a trophy.

You believe it to be heinous because you don't understand it.

You make broad assumptions about people you don't know based on something you don't understand and then try to act like you have taken some kind of moral high ground.

Hunters do more for conservation than most people who are anti-hunting.
 
You believe it to be heinous because you don't understand it.

You make broad assumptions about people you don't know based on something you don't understand and then try to act like you have taken some kind of moral high ground.

Hunters do more for conservation than most people who are anti-hunting.
Oh I understand it. I grew up hunting, I am a gun owner, I get it. But there is a huge huge difference between hunting to eat something, and hunting to just sever the head and nail it up on the wall of your mancave, and spread its skin over your floor. If that is how one gets ones rocks off, well...
 
Oh I understand it. I grew up hunting, I am a gun owner, I get it. But there is a huge huge difference between hunting to eat something, and hunting to just sever the head and nail it up on the wall of your mancave, and spread its skin over your floor. If that is how one gets ones rocks off, well...


Again....Thats more sit on a moral high horse and judge other peoples motives that you are just making assumptions about bull****

The idea that you are morally superior because you ate what you killed is non-sense.
 
You believe it to be heinous because you don't understand it.

You make broad assumptions about people you don't know based on something you don't understand and then try to act like you have taken some kind of moral high ground.

Hunters do more for conservation than most people who are anti-hunting.
Hunters also do more to cause extinction in animals than people who are anti hunting
 
Back
Top