THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AFRICAN HUNTING FORUM

Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Saeed

Closed Poll Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
"harvest" poll
 Login/Join
 
one of us
Picture of D99
posted
Harvest is the catch phrase of American hunting TV. I have never heard Craig Boddington say it, and I am 100% posative that Elmer Keith, Warren Page, and Jack O'Connor never used it either.

Results (139 votes counted so far):
How do you feel about the word "harvest" as concerned with hunting?
14 (10%)
  It's the right word from the dictionary.
(4%)
  I like it!
90 (65%)
  I think it is politically correct bullshit.
11 (8%)
  I think it is politically correct and I use it to keep drama down.
19 (14%)
  I think it removes 250,000 years of human evolution from the hunting equation.
See Poll Form
 
Posts: 4729 | Location: Australia | Registered: 06 February 2005
one of us
Picture of Bobby Tomek
posted Hide Post
harvest: a transitive verb to kill animals for food, sport, or to control their population

I have no problems with the word, and if anyone out there thinks using "harvest" is the "battle" we need to take to the antis, they are sadly mistaken.

There are more significant concerns with the antis out there on which our energies could (and should) be focused.


Bobby
Μολὼν λαβέ
The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri

 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Shiner TX USA | Registered: 19 March 2002
one of us
Picture of MacD37
posted Hide Post
Justifiable homiside is the killing of political correctness!
Just say it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may!

Words like "harvest" when we mean hunting,is simply cowing to the unjustified cinsorship of the leberal media, and animal rights freaks.

If this poll had been multiple choice, I would have added no 5 as well! Man has been hunting, by nature, as long as man has existed. Man is the only animal that constantly fights nature, with their so-called civilization. Today man has taken the easy way out, and pinned up animals for a more reliable source of food,and there is nothing wrong in that, but that has nothing to do with the hunting of animals, being somehow no longer viable as a source of food, hides for leather, or clothing, and bones and horns for the makeing of tools, and simply what we do by nature.

As far as trophies, man has always made trinkets from his kills, even from his enemies, like the Indian's habit of takeing scalps. I would say the decorateing of one home with mounted heads, and horns is a far nicer practice than the takeing of scalps! Big Grin


....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

 
Posts: 12373 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
one of us
Picture of Bobby Tomek
posted Hide Post
When I speak or write, I use "kill." I use "take." I use "bag."

And yes, I use "harvest."

There are no politically correct connotations or implications associated with the word except what we choose to conjure up in our own minds.


Bobby
Μολὼν λαβέ
The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri

 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Shiner TX USA | Registered: 19 March 2002
one of us
Picture of D99
posted Hide Post
Conjure up?

Your entitled to your own thoughts on this, but you are in the politically correct minority as a hunter.

Too bad your setting us back with this nonsense.
 
Posts: 4729 | Location: Australia | Registered: 06 February 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
D99,
From my 1962 Websters;
4. the outcome or consequences of any effort or series of events: as, death is the harvest of war.
--
To me, the guy in the abbatoir is the killer, I am the hunter, and I harvest game.
Harvest of game is not a new politically-correct trick--it has been around for for centuries.
If you want to use kill every time you are talking about taking game, you will find that that is a very sensitive word that immediately alienates most folks who would not be aggravated at the use of a more civilized description of the taking of game. Brutishness will not be welcome in most circles (and a brutish hunter will likely turn a non-hunter into an anti-hunter).
There is a major-league difference between not being brutish and "political-correctness".
 
Posts: 7901 | Location: NW Arkansas | Registered: 09 July 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
D99

Why bother asking a question if you have already decided what the correct answer is?

We all know how you feel, you tell us everyday.

While I no longer use the term that offends you, I might.

You will not likely change the direction of any "...fanatic" using any words, or by taking them head on.

I feel our words can have a more positive impact on those who do not feel one way or the other about hunting and do not care what happens to it.

Les
 
Posts: 1208 | Location: Clearwater, FL and Union Pier, MI | Registered: 24 July 2003
one of us
posted Hide Post
I use the terms,'I kill my own food', 'tip one over', 'wack one'. It depends on the crowd I'm in, you definately don't want to turn a non-hunter into an anti but I am not going to appease someone with political correct language use, I can smell an anti-hunter coming down the road I will purposefully get his goat.

Dirk
 
Posts: 1750 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 01 February 2005
one of us
Picture of Bobby Tomek
posted Hide Post
D99 wrote: "Your (sic) entitled to your own thoughts on this, but you are in the politically correct minority as a hunter.

Too bad your (sic) setting us back with this nonsense."
--


D99-

You are obviously closer to the other side of the fence than you realize. If you are so adamant about the word harvest, push for it to be banned -- and chip away at another of our constitutional rights...just like the antis do on a daily basis.

Instead of nitpicking as this, why don't you concentrate your efforts where it matters, such as in stopping some of the anti-gun, anti-hunting propaganda that makes it into our schools and effectively brainwashes out youth?

I have checked the curriculum of many districts, and while it is less prominent in Texas, the anti stuff does make it through from time to time.


Bobby
Μολὼν λαβέ
The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri

 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Shiner TX USA | Registered: 19 March 2002
one of us
posted Hide Post
John Abbot used the term "harvest" to describe taking of game several times in his 1874 biography of Kit Carson.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14243

Do you think he was just being politically correct?

Not only are you wrong, you've got things bassackwards. Big Grin (you think you're being helpful/honest to hunters/hunting, when you're doing the opposite)
 
Posts: 7901 | Location: NW Arkansas | Registered: 09 July 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
When I write stories I use the word kill. If someone wants to use harvest by all means, although I think harvest is definitely PC.

I catch fish, harvest crops, and kill animals.


The only time I ever said no, is when they asked me if I had enough.
 
Posts: 560 | Location: Baltimore, MD | Registered: 22 July 2005
one of us
Picture of Heat
posted Hide Post
Mr. Graves. You've pretty well covered it. It has far less to do with harvest being a politically correct term or not. Kill on the other hand is a word that triggers certain emotions in most people. Therefore their minds close to the rest of the point or conversation.

Ken....


"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. " - Ronald Reagan
 
Posts: 5197 | Location: Phoenix Arizona | Registered: 16 May 2006
one of us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
Why stir up the bsflag when it isn't necessary???????

I voted that it is PCBS.

In conversations with folks however, I evalute what word will be best for the audience and use that one, regardless of what any of you educated types think, Kill/Harvest/Bag/Catch/Take/Shot, all mean the same thing to folks that know you are a hunter.

How many can remember when the first thing friends or even family said after your return from a hunting trip?

I bet in most cases it was what did you catch?

At least that is what I have been asked most often.

I don't think we should HAVE to apoloogize for enjoying hunting, but, common decency and manners should dictate that we don't openly alienate people that may not have a problem with a person that huntsm they just may not want the Kill word used in the conversation or see the really bloody pictures.

The thing we all need to remember, and we need to remember it this year in particular, our attitudes toward others and the image we project can make a big difference in the way those we come in contact with vote, especially on issues such as hunting.

Some folks have no problem with people wanting to hunt, they just don't want to see all the blood and gore or hear the details. JMO.


"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."

 
Posts: 11288 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006
one of us
Picture of Michael Robinson
posted Hide Post
I don't like the word "harvest" when used to refer to the killing of game animals.

To my way of thinking and speaking, "harvest" is a euphemism and is inapt besides. It's apologetic right out of the box. Its use assumes that harder and truer words are somehow too offensive and indelicate. So I am not comfortable using it.

When referring to a game animal I have successfully hunted, I say I "killed" or "took" or "shot" him.

Still, if anyone else wants to say he "harvested" a game animal, then I am not going to be the language police and read him the riot act.

It's just not my choice.


Mike

An ounce of experience is worth a pound of theory.
 
Posts: 9295 | Location: New England | Registered: 06 June 2003
one of us
posted Hide Post
The word harvest serves a very useful purpose in wildlife management. It denotes the taking of a harvestable surplus of the resource. It was the unregulated hunting/killing that eliminated the bison from the plains, elk from the eastern states and nearly eliminated the pronghorn, whiteail deer and wild turkey as well as all of the whole passenger pigeon populaton. Poachers hunt/kill in their illegal activities. The word harvest seperates what we do from the past excess of unregulated hunting/killing. To most people in the world the word means controlled hunting that can benefit wildlife populations. In my opinion it is more descriptive of what we as hunters believe in and what we hope to accomplish by hunting.

465H&H
 
Posts: 5433 | Location: Nampa, Idaho | Registered: 10 February 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
D99

I have more invested in hunting than most of the posters here. Its not my hobby it's my livelihood and my lifestyle revolves around it so I probably talk hunting more than the average guy. I don't use harvest but if a hunter wants to use it I think it is an excellent description of what hunting should be. Harvest makes me think of a natural and renewable resource and is that not a goal of hunting to keep the resource alive?

I probably use shot or killed more often than anyother terms but I use "we took" and "we got" also. I probably don't use killed or shot when talking to non hunters because I see no reason to rub something in anybody's face that they might find offensive. One thing to consider is most non hunters are not necessarily anti hunting so why paint some gruesome picture for them by our use of unecessarily graphic language.

I guess if I talk to a non hunter I'd rather leave them with the impression that Iam a responsible sportsman and not a blood thirsty redneck.

Mark




MARK H. YOUNG
MARK'S EXCLUSIVE ADVENTURES
P.O BOX 2105
Cody, WY 82414
Office 307-587-6372
Cell 307-250-1156
E-mail markttc@msn.com
Website: myexclusiveadventures.com
Skype: markhyhunter
Check us out on https://www.facebook.com/pages...ures/627027353990716
 
Posts: 8878 | Location: Cody, WY | Registered: 04 August 2002
one of us
Picture of Bobby Tomek
posted Hide Post
465H&H and Mark-

Both replies were very well stated. Thanks for posting.

Bobby


Bobby
Μολὼν λαβέ
The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri

 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Shiner TX USA | Registered: 19 March 2002
one of us
posted Hide Post
I think that a typical non-hunter does not even like

to think about the meat animals and the fowl that he/she

eats is killed. I believe they try to put that reality

completely out of their minds because to them it's sad

that one life has to end so their own can go on. Saying

the word "shot" is probably just as unpleasant to their

ears as "killed" is. I do hate "harvest" for our hunting

use even though it's really a very sound choice if we go

according to the official definition. The organization

called the Free and Accepted MASONS call some of their

officers "WORSHIPFUL". Per a good dictionary it is NOT

improper to use that word toward a person whom you wish

to show your great respect. I personally can't stomach the

idea of using the word WORSHIPFUL toward any entity/person,

etc., other than toward GOD ALMIGHTY. But again, the dictionary

clearly tells us that the word is NOT exclusively reserved

for GOD. For hunting I use the word BAG, and phrases like,

"I want to hunt elephant some day", or, "I know some guys who've

hunted elephant and one guy GOT one with each tusk weighing

over 70 pounds!" I think it's prudent to avoid "souring" a non-hunter

by sounding to him/her like I am a "thrill killer". And really,

isn't it true that it's actually the millisecond just before the

sear lets go that is the height of the hunt; that "snippet" in time

when you're still causing the sear to move by the pressure you're

applying on the trigger, knowing you're a fraction of a second away

from launching your bullet at your targeted animal that hunting is

all about? It is for me. That is what all the prior effort is

hopefully going to get me, a high percentage shooting opportunity.

The kill is just the natural aftermath, that which allows me to eat

of my animal and preserve some part of it as a tangible and visible

reminder of a happy occasion in my life. Remember, we usually wish

each other "Good hunting" when we learn of a guy's pending trip. Of

course that inherently includes the idea of hoping there's a clean kill

made, causing instant, painless death to the sought after beast, but
do we really say those words? I think rarely if ever... wave



Jack

OH GOD! {Seriously, we need the help.}

 
Posts: 2784 | Location: USA - East Coast | Registered: 10 December 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
Here's my 2 cents: I don't care for the use of the word harvest in describing killing wild animals. To me, it reduces the act to something akin to picking an ear of corn off the vine or an apple from the tree.

Killing a beautiful, sentient being is a solemn affair in my view. I take it seriously and frankly find it the least enjoyable part of hunting. But it is also necessary and I accept responsibility for it. My feeling about the word harvest as used in this context is held in the same regard as the knuckleheads on the hunting shows who hoot and holler and high five after they arrow or shoot something for the camera. It detracts from the sanctity of the moment and just shouldn't be done. All would be better served by emulating some aspects of our hunting brothers in other parts of the world who still accompany the hunt with ritual in recognition of the event's seriousness.
 
Posts: 2267 | Location: Maine | Registered: 03 May 2007
one of us
posted Hide Post
Personally I am a hunter. I go hunting. The animals I go after are then hunted. There is not often a real necessity to say shot or killed and as I am not a shooter or a killer describing what I do as having hunted is what I find to be most fitting with my own beliefs.
Each to his own, but putting our sport across as hunting allows me more opportunities to enter into a level headed conversation with a non or even anti hunter. I just try not give them the opportunity to take the sport from an honest pursuit to simply killing.
 
Posts: 423 | Location: Natal - South Africa | Registered: 23 September 2006
one of us
Picture of D99
posted Hide Post
jsl3170

Very nicely put!

When you take the life of an animal, there is something primeval about the whole affair. I remember being immensely proud after shooting my first big game animal when I turned 14 (Wyoming's legal hunting age for big game at the time).

"Nice shot, good job, proud of you, and more than anything waidmansheil" are the words I tell my friends and family after the shot. Hunting brings on an emotional response, it should it's a needed physiological vacation. Hunting is an act that fulfills an emotional need engrained in DNA, it is an instinctual program built into us after 250 million years of evolution.

When I am speaking to someone that isn't a hunter, I use the word shot and killed. They need to know that animals die in the pursuit of meat, trophies, or to control the population of field mice, coyotes, cats, or crows.

When you take the blood away from hunting by using harvest you are demeaning the act.

People understand passion, even radical people understand passion. It takes an eloquent approach to make them get it. You have to talk about starvation of overpopulated animals, you have to talk about complete lack of mercy in mother natures way.

I will continue to fight this concept, as it is something I am very passionate about.

Thank you for your post and your votes. I was very happy to see that I got such a large number of responses.
 
Posts: 4729 | Location: Australia | Registered: 06 February 2005
one of us
Picture of D99
posted Hide Post
As of 5 September at 1406 (02:06) eastern time 14 people voted for harvest and 66 people voted against using harvest.

Which is far from enough numbers to have an actual scientific poll, but it at least for now leads me to beleive that it's not a popular as the hunting TV show people would want you to think.

Of those 3 "liked it", 7 " said dictionary", and 5 "said it was pc but they used it anyway".

49 thought it was bullshit, and 12 thought it was against our DNA.

Thanks again.
 
Posts: 4729 | Location: Australia | Registered: 06 February 2005
one of us
Picture of jorge
posted Hide Post
D99: Good for you. This "harvest" thing makes me nuts too. It's the same dorks who won't take a frontal shot on an animal because it's not "ethical". They always wait for a broadside shot and even then they just go for the lungs instead of the shoulder. jorge


USN (ret)
DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE
DSC Life Member
NRA Life Member

 
Posts: 6371 | Location: Orange Park, Florida. USA | Registered: 22 March 2001
one of us
posted Hide Post
D99 - I dont disagree with any of what you say. But I do think that it is prudent for any hunter who enters into a conversation where they intend to justify their actions by what you have said to be willing to see the discussion through to its successful conclusion. Unfortunately if a conversation stared along the lines of "I kill because" was not to be brought to the right conclusion it would only be misconstrued to the "hunters kills for fun" argument.
I dont make excuses for the weakness that our over censored society if breeding, but I do know how to pick my battles.
You seem like quite a well spoken bloke, so I am sure you could handle a confrontation with an anti and see it through, but then again not everyone who reads this has the same verbal ability and would be well cautioned to keep it in mind before engaging.
 
Posts: 423 | Location: Natal - South Africa | Registered: 23 September 2006
one of us
Picture of MacD37
posted Hide Post
Gentlemen, as I stated in my earlier post, I dislike the word harvest in regard to hunting, for the same reason as Mrlexma! I think it is an automatic appology, for hunting, to the person you are talking to ! I don't appologize to anyone for hunting!

I agree that one shouldn't use shock jock language when talking to anyone about hunting, especially some one you don't really know! That is not to say one should be PC about anything. What is wrong with just saying I HUNT, or I hunted, or hunted that animal on my wall! The only time that conversation would be is when you are asked about it, or when you are amoung those who hunt, along with those who are by-standers of that conversation.

In that case even an idiot realizes that if you hunt an animal, the result will be killing the animal, or as some say bagging it, or catching it! There is no need to say you killed it, because that is the obvious outcome of a HUNT. Nothing PC about that, and it is not appologetic, to anyone.

The comment about bloody pictures is well taken, you don't see a mount in a trophy room that has guts, or toungue hanging out,so why would you want pictures with those things. That offends me as well as it does the "on-the-fence" casual aquaitance who may be flipped over to the anti side.

If asked how I took the animal I will simply say I shot it, with a rifle, pistol, or bow!

Again I do not believe in the general PC crap that has become the bain of society today. If the public is offended by the fact that I hunt, then that is thier problem, but if they ask questions I answer them honestly, and thoroughly,and if that isn't enough I will, at least, try to explain the reason quotas are set for the takeing of the excess of that renewable recourse, to ballance the population of that species to the carrying capacity of the habitat. I see no need for PC crap on any subject, I simply state facts as well as I can, and the understanding is up to the person I'm talking to! If they don't get it, that is their problem. You can tell some people the truth, but not much is gained if they don't want to understand, but what I say to them will not be PC Bull shit! wave


....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

 
Posts: 12373 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
one of us
posted Hide Post
Oh F*ck, just wackem and stackem!


Good Hunting & Shoot Straight
DRSS
470NE
9.3X74R
BB
395 Family member
450/400 #1
416 Rigby #1
416 Taylor



 
Posts: 5298 | Location: Bedford, Pa. USA | Registered: 23 February 2002
one of us
posted Hide Post
jorge1

Forgive me for being a "dork" because I disagree with you on this one issue.

465H&H
 
Posts: 5433 | Location: Nampa, Idaho | Registered: 10 February 2005
one of us
Picture of D99
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 465H&H:
The word harvest serves a very useful purpose in wildlife management. It denotes the taking of a harvestable surplus of the resource. It was the unregulated hunting/killing that eliminated the bison from the plains, elk from the eastern states and nearly eliminated the pronghorn, whiteail deer and wild turkey as well as all of the whole passenger pigeon populaton. Poachers hunt/kill in their illegal activities. The word harvest seperates what we do from the past excess of unregulated hunting/killing. To most people in the world the word means controlled hunting that can benefit wildlife populations. In my opinion it is more descriptive of what we as hunters believe in and what we hope to accomplish by hunting.

465H&H


I agree with you that "harvest" is the termed used by some in wildlife management. We need to get out of this mindset where we are asking permission to do what we do. We should never appologize for being hunters, it's a passion that doesn't take a back seat to anything else.

Poachers poach, and the market hunting of the 1800's is a tragic example of what happens when a mechanical idea is put into place above the kind of passion that Teddy Roosevelt, Capstick, Jose Ortega, Keith, O'Connor, Paige, and Mellon enjoyed.
 
Posts: 4729 | Location: Australia | Registered: 06 February 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
D99,

I don'r see anyone using the term "Harvest" as seeking permission from anyone. I never thought of it that way. I see it as a term we use to educate others about what we are doing when we hunt. It tells them that our hunting/killing of game is for the public good. To clarify my statement above further, I also use the terms hunt/kill. It depends on the context of what I am trying to say and to whom I am speaking. I see absolutely nothing wrong with those terms.
I don't use the terms wackum, stackum, blast 'em or murder them. I really hate to see them used on the Saturday morning hunting shows. To me, those terms show a huge disrespect for the animals we hunt.

465H&H
 
Posts: 5433 | Location: Nampa, Idaho | Registered: 10 February 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
I think you can use whatever term you want. Its the act of hunting that joins us all.


The best part of hunting and fishing was the thinking about going and the talking about it after you got back - Robert Ruark
 
Posts: 944 | Location: Northwest Iowa | Registered: 10 June 2008
one of us
Picture of jorge
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 465H&H:
jorge1

Forgive me for being a "dork" because I disagree with you on this one issue.

465H&H


On what, frontal chest shots or the harvest issue?
jorge


USN (ret)
DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE
DSC Life Member
NRA Life Member

 
Posts: 6371 | Location: Orange Park, Florida. USA | Registered: 22 March 2001
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jorge:
quote:
Originally posted by 465H&H:
jorge1

Forgive me for being a "dork" because I disagree with you on this one issue.

465H&H


On what, frontal chest shots or the harvest issue?
jorge


The thread is about the term "harvest". Although it's off thread, I have no problem with frontal chest shots.

465H&H
 
Posts: 5433 | Location: Nampa, Idaho | Registered: 10 February 2005
one of us
Picture of Skinner.
posted Hide Post
A quote from Newsweek,

“We hunt as much as we can, and I’m proud to say our freezer is full of wild game we harvested here in Alaska.â€

Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), GOP V.P. nominee.

So go right ahead and use the term 'harvest' patriot
 
Posts: 4516 | Registered: 14 January 2005
one of us
Picture of jorge
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 465H&H:
quote:
Originally posted by jorge:
quote:
Originally posted by 465H&H:
jorge1

Forgive me for being a "dork" because I disagree with you on this one issue.

465H&H


On what, frontal chest shots or the harvest issue?
jorge


The thread is about the term "harvest". Although it's off thread, I have no problem with frontal chest shots.

465H&H

That's what I was referring to, although I also don't care for the word "harvest" when describing killing something. No biggie. jorge


USN (ret)
DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE
DSC Life Member
NRA Life Member

 
Posts: 6371 | Location: Orange Park, Florida. USA | Registered: 22 March 2001
one of us
Picture of Hog Killer
posted Hide Post
quote:
I think that a typical non-hunter does not even like to think about the meat animals and the fowl that he/she eats is killed. I believe they try to put that reality completely out of their minds because to them it's sad that one life has to end so their own can go on.


I personaly think, no one should be allowed to eat meat, fish or fowl. Unless they have killed it, cleaned it, prepared it, and cooked it first. Not ever meal but at least offen enough to squarely face the fact that some animal has died so that they can enjoy the stuff next to teh potatos. Where do the PC crowd think those BILLIONS of big mac burgers came from, tons of chicken nuggets or wings, etc.....

People need to grow up and face the true facts of LIFE.

Hunters have more appreciation for what they eat than the PC crowd who have the head stuck(somewhre)

rant off

Keith


IGNORE YOUR RIGHTS AND THEY'LL GO AWAY!!!
------------------------------------
We Band of Bubbas & STC Hunting Club, The Whomper Club
 
Posts: 4520 | Location: Walker Co.,Texas | Registered: 05 September 2003
one of us
Picture of Mary Hilliard-Krueger
posted Hide Post
Here's my take on this discussion.

I have seen nothing but positive results to the term "harvest" in the arena I use it. I have never viewed it as a matter of caving into the anti's by using the term "harvest", which has been used long before the anti movement.

I feel our youth is the answer to securing our right to hunt in the future and our best cultivated defense against the negative effects of the anti's in the years to come. A very small percent of todays youth are growing up in hunting families. Our school systems have been sucked into the anti mentality. I have been fortunate to have been in a position for the past 15 years to put on wildlife programs, give taxidermy demonstrations, and outdoorsmanship classes (hunting, fishing and archery included) in my children's school systems and in scouting. 98% of the children I have taught, over those years, were from non-hunting families. "Kill" can be a frightening term to a child and even more frightening repeated at the dinner table that evening to non-hunting parents. Harvest, gets the point across in a less aggressive way to child and adult alike. I have seen far more families become active in hunting and fishing due to this approach, than I am sure I would have if I had used the term "kill".

To me the bottom line is the preservation of my right to hunt through education.

I have young adults, whom I have introduced to hunting and fishing as children, who keep in contact to relay their harvest reports. The positive impact I have had on them, their families and their friends far outweighs whether anyone feels I caved into a so called PC term, for I feel I have done far more for all of our rights, as sportsmen and sportswomen, by giving our youth the voice to speak for us when we are no longer here to speak.

Do I get a primal thrill when I kill an animal...sure I do, but I get a greater spiritual connection to the earth and my place here without giving a doodely-dang about some "word"!


Taxidermist/Rugmaker
 
Posts: 904 | Location: Phoenix, Arizona | Registered: 12 April 2007
one of us
Picture of Wooly ESS
posted Hide Post
My preferred words are, I "took", "got" or "bagged" a ____. Althought "harvested" may be correct usage, it somehow seems like an attempt to sugar coat what we do.

Proof of this, to me, comes on the occasions when a non-hunting acquaintance, in an attempt to get my goat, uses the word "harvest", with sarcasm dripping off it, to describe what I do. My response is to reply that harvest is not a word I use to describe my hunting. I prefer to use the words, "kill", "brutally slaughter", "butcher" or "murder". A few moments of uncomfortable throat clearing generally follows and discussion moves to a different topic.


The truth will set you free,
but first it's gonna piss you off!
www.ceandersonart.com
 
Posts: 574 | Location: The great plains of southern Alberta | Registered: 11 March 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
1) it's in the dictionary--even old dictionaries, and the use is appropriate for taking game
2)it has been used for centuries, and hence is not something made up by PC folks of today
3)Nothing here has been said do deny either of the above statements. Word use preference is a damned silly thing to have a crusade over.
 
Posts: 7901 | Location: NW Arkansas | Registered: 09 July 2005
one of us
posted Hide Post
I harvest form my gardens and fields.

I hunt and kill game.

One should see the looks on peoples faces when they asked me what I do for intertainment. I tell them I kill things. Big Grin

F the anti's I get right into their faces.

They don't like me I don't like them.

Now I don't take the hard line if there is a chance to convert them I go eaiser.
 
Posts: 9619 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001
one of us
Picture of talentrec
posted Hide Post
I always find it very amusing when non-hunting friends ask me if I "caught" anything while I was hunting. My typical answer is "No, but I killed a lot of stuff!" Hunting is killing. Harvesting is something I do to the meat of an animal after I kill it.
 
Posts: 654 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: 26 July 2004
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  

Closed Poll Closed


Copyright December 1997-2013 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia