On tv shows and DVDs a lot of them are using the term harvest, and I read in a lot of magazines where they use the term harvest. I have seen in written by the Boone and Crockett Club in all their magazines.

Personally for me I am against it, and I don't know where we got this idea or who started the trend.

I think it denotes an agricultural or forestry connotation, and takes away from the fact that the kill is as Jose Ortega Gasset said "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job."

I would think that this concept of using the word "harvest" would have something to do with us being more politically correct. Which to put it bluntly I think is horse poop!

Question:
Do you use the term "harvest" to represent taking the life of an animal?

Choices:
No, never thought to.
No, I don't agree with that concept.
Yes, of course I think it is the right thing to do.
Yes, I do it because I have heard/seen others do it and I think we should follow the same trend.
Anyone who uses the term harvest, does so at great detrement to our passion, and is a full on idiot!

 

At the end of the day we aren't talking about grain, pumpkins, a stand of pine trees or a pile of corn.

We are talking about a living breathing animal, that deserves to be treated with respect.

I don't think the term harvest is respectful to what we do, I think it is political correctness run amock.

I agree....

I usually use one of the following: "shoot", "kill", or "take" (this word is about as politically correct as I get).

shoot, shot, kill....."take" it home after those three are done

quote:

Originally posted by Eland Slayer:
I agree....

I usually use one of the following: "shoot", "kill", or "take" (this word is about as politically correct as I get).

+1. I prefer shot/shoot or take myself. I despise the "harvest" term.

on the other side of the coin...
slayed,mashed,piled,blasted,crushed,tubed,crumpled,dusted,thumped...
Sure there are words that don't make people cringe when they hear them,like harvest,take...
Fine line we are forced to walk.
That said, I "shoot" and "kill" my game and try and respect other people feelings on the subject.
there is NOTHING to gain by purpusefully offending.

Well, I will go all the way back to the Pilgrims, that instituted Thanksgiving to give our Creator thanks for a boutiful harvest, and that included game. I don't get my panties in a wad over it either way, but I look at deer, elk, and all the other game as a renewable resource because of all the conservation work we do as outdoorsmen. In that context, I think the word "harvest" is every bit as justifiable as "killing". I often say "I shot", or "I took", but I don't really have an issue with use of the word.

But I am different from most, and admittedly so.

I agree with Doubtless. I'm sure not going to turn someway that may want to learn to hunt just because I just can't be flexible enough to adapt a word to something that might not be as potentially offensive. It just doesn't matter that much. Same reason I don't curse in front of women, there are just too many other appropriate words in either case for me to not respect what someone else might want. It doesn't diminish me in any way to respect someone else's feelings. On the contrary, I thinks it makes me better. There are way too many "my way or the highway" people on both sides.

My problem with the term "harvest" is that it is a cop out.

It seems like you are afraid to admit that yes, indeed, your quarry is dead.

I have never heard a livestock farmer or rancher use the term "harvest" with regards to his herd.

Having said that, I don't go around correcting folks who say it either. Shot, killed, bagged, and such are all fine. Take is actually the term used in the state regulations here, so that's fine too, obviously.

Slaughtered implys that the game was taken without regard to fair chase, and should IMO be used only with regards to domestic livestock.

The other less PC terms, well if I am around a group of hunters, typically after the hunt while imbibing a few adult beverages, I do hear them, and I am not offended; but I would certainly not use them preferentially or around mixed company.

Larry,

I would dissagree with your analogy, I don't think it is the same as not cussing.

Those that use harvest act like we have to take the political correct line. That unless we take the political correct line we will fall prey to the anti-hunting world.

The anti-hunters are not politically correct, they prey on peoples emotions.

I have about 30 photos of animals I have killed on the wall behind my desk. I work in a professional enviroment people do ask me if the animal in my photos is dead. I always say "yes, I hunted that animal in (insert name of country)".

Sometimes they say "wow that's cool", and sometimes they say "oh I didn't know that anyone could do that".

If they are a enemy of the hunting world, they usually say "I don't agree with that at all, then I explain the value of what we do and the concept that it gives the rancher, game deptarment, or whoever the financial incentive to ensure that wild places remain full of wildlife."

I know there are idiots that are beyond common sense. You really can't do much about those folks.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
My problem with the term "harvest" is that it is a cop out.

It seems like you are afraid to admit that yes, indeed, your quarry is dead.

I have never heard a livestock farmer or rancher use the term "harvest" with regards to his herd.

Having said that, I don't go around correcting folks who say it either. Shot, killed, bagged, and such are all fine. Take is actually the term used in the state regulations here, so that's fine too, obviously.

Slaughtered implys that the game was taken without regard to fair chase, and should IMO be used only with regards to domestic livestock.

The other less PC terms, well if I am around a group of hunters, typically after the hunt while imbibing a few adult beverages, I do hear them, and I am not offended; but I would certainly not use them preferentially or around mixed company.

Very good post.

While I don't have anything against Ted Nugent, I think the whackem and stackem concept is closer to the curse word concep that Larry talked about before.

I have been guilty of asking someone who used harvest why they did. And I always ask them to choose another word that helps to insite that the animal died in the process of the hunt (Somewhere between the field and the taxidermist).

Saying that I don't feel that I am better than someone who does use harvest.

And I didn't want to insinuate that for this poll.

I have never heard Wayne Van Zwoll or Craig Boddington say harvest, not do I remember either one of them writing. But I didn't do a search on that, and could possibly be proven wrong.

I know Elmer Keith never used harvest.

quote:

On tv shows and DVDs a lot of them are using the term harvest

Yet another reason not watch the programing of infomercials or rent the videos .

[quote]That said, I "shoot" and "kill" my game and try and respect other people feelings on the subject. There is NOTHING to gain by purpusefully offending.[/B]quote]

There in, especially the last sentence lies the crux of the matter. Why go out of the way to offend someone when there is no reason? Why purposely make enemies?

I did not vote for a couple of reasons. One if I am in a picture with a rifle and something dead with me and someone is dim enough to ask if I killed it, I ignore them. Situations like that do not deserve an answer on the hunters part. It is preety obvious the animal wa not coerced in any manner to lay down and be still so pictures can be taken.

Second, people that are around me, regardless of the setting, figure out within just a couple of minutes of conversation, that I live to hunt, and by doing so, that requires things to die.

Thirdly, I judge my audience, if they all appear to be normal adults, I use the words kill or shoot. If they are people that I judge to not be normal adults, I chat politely and look around for normal people to talk with.

I rarely ever use harvest or take, but have no problem if others feel more comfortable using the terms, it is their businesss and they have their reasons for doing such, no big deal.

I am not a fan of Nugent or really any other hunters that use the "In Your Face" method of dealing with folks. If people are anti-hunters, you can not change their minds.

If someone however is just a non-hunter, there is a real possibility of turning them into an anti-hunter by being overly aggressive/rude.

I concur Crazyhorse,

Our job isn't to change the true-beleiver bunny huggers, it's to keep the normal non-hunting folks from becoming them.

Sorry I was so long winded with my response. I hate the whole Political Correctness concept, but our society has changed and not for the better.

This may sound stupid, but I have noticed over the past 20 years, that people on the whole do not view european mounts in the same way as they do actual "stuffed" mounts.

The animals died the same way, but without the eyes and the fur, it becomes a non-entity work de art.

Having worked at a major zoological park for almost 25 years, I have been around more than my share of anti-hunters, more so than most hunters encounter.

I can not say that I actually changed any of their minds totally, but I do know for a fact that several of them did modify their attitude and even some that claimed to be vegans would sneak up and grab chunks of the game meat my wife and I would cook and bring to parties.

I really do wish that things had not gotten so screwy with our society that hunters are almost expected to modify the manner in which they talk about their sport, that is why I am choosy about the people I tend to associate with.

I am lucky in that I am semi-retired and can pick and choose whom to deal with, other folks are not able to do that sometimes. JMO.

Ya'll are free do do as you please. You'll get no criticism from me either way.

However to my way of thinking, words mean things....

Deer hunting is a big thing in Texas hill country towns. Some towns have "hunters extravaganzas" the night before rifle season opens.

A couple of years back, two of my huntin' buds were at the opening night festivities in Uvalde Texas. They were cruisin' by diferent booths when they came upon a "gimme" cap that caught their interest.



They queried the vendor as to whether he had one that said "I kill everything". He said no, so they got me this one and presented it to me that night.

I harvest crops.

I kill deer.

There is a difference.

Between my son and I we can legally "kill" 10 whitetail deer each season. I give away quite a bit of jerky, deer burger, pan sausage, smoked link sausage, summer sausage, pork hinds, pork ribs etc. So far, not one person in my "sphere" has upbraided me for using the word "Kill". In fact several have asked, "when are you gonna kill another__________, that sure was good_________.



Best

GWB

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
My problem with the term "harvest" is that it is a cop out.

I agree that most of those who use "harvest" are doing so as a cop-out, but my problem with the term is due to the fact that it does not honor the fact that the animal was a living creature until the moment the hunter took its life.

In my mind it is disrespectful to use a term that does lowers a "noble beast" to the level of an ear of corn.

Ear of corn, great response!

Asked and answered.

Same question; same answer.

Don,t recall ever using the term harvest in reference to hunting. Grew up on a farm, never occurs to me to use that term in connection with hunting. Nor will I be shamed into it. On the other side of the coin, by the old definition of vegetarian ( poor hunter)...
I enjoy hunting. I appreciate wild critters. Hunting, watching some of the goofy things they do, roasted, barbecued, whatnot, all seems part and parcel.
At Christmas time, I say Merry Christmas. Don,t normally go out of my way to offend people, but don,t have the time to be consistently politically correct.

Just don,t feel a need to be apologetic about who I am, or what I do.

The term "harvest' actually came about as an educational term initially used by game dept's. The object was to educate the non-hunting public, not the anti-hunters. The term "harvest" was used to equate it as the taking of a harvest able surplus of game animals. By educating the public that we were taking a harvest able surplus similar to the harvest of timber or crops was to let them know that sport hunting was aimed at taking the excess animals in a herd and that such harvest was not going to eliminate a species and that it meant the use of that surplus as food. From that perspective its use was quite successful as the general public as shown in survey after survey that they support such sport hunting. The term was coined long before there was any measurable anti-hunting efforts or a term such as politically correct.

465H&H

MOA, I think Crazyhorse and 465H&H did a good job of the description of my feelings. Notice in my first post, I said nothing about the anti-hunting crowd. I could not care less about the anti crowd, nor their opinions of what we do or how. I was talking simply about someone that may want to hunt and not running them off with a word. Once they are in the fold, I know it will be a regular part of the conversation. I use it regularly. We need all of the hunters we can get since our numbers are dwindling, so if I can get one more by using harvest for a while, fine, I'm not against it. When I'm hunting with the family or buds, kill is just as good, samey same. It's just a word, I don't get too hung up on it or when someone else uses it.

I use take/took, hunted, or killed.

It is what it is, and I don't apologize for it.

George

I don't use the term "harvest." It's not appropriate for a hunter to use that term for many reasons. Most of them have been mentioned in previous posts so I won't repeat them.

The use of a euphemism like "harvest" implies a sense of discomfort or even guilt and shame. It's as if we're trying to sanitize a dirty deed with a pleasant sounding word. I'm a hunter and I kill animals. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I feel no guilt or shame about killing game. Do you?

"Harvest" is also an insult to ones' intelligence. It's as if the non-hunting public is going to be fooled. Guess what, non-hunters and anti-hunters get it. They know that we actually kill the animals that we "harvest."

With that said maybe "harvest" is an appropriate term when used by state agencies like the DNR. Their job is to manage wildlife in much the same way a farmer tends his fields. The DNR speaks of a "fawn crop" so maybe a "harvest" is just the natural progression of the idea.

But in my opinion "harvest" reeks of the same PC stench as "undocumented immigrant" and its use speaks volumes about the thinking of the person using it.

I think if everyone will take jut a minute and do some checking with the Game & Fish departments in their home state, they were the first thru the hunter Education Program to encourage/recommend the more "PC" use of harvest and take.

Personally I'm not sure why "harvest" is PC. A lot of posters assumed that some words had connotations that are perhaps not universally shared. The online Merriam-Webster had this: "the quantity of a natural product gathered in a single season <deer harvest> <ice harvest>" but the preponderance of the definitions of "harvest" had to do with plant crops.

It seems hardly worth getting exercised over - if someone wants to use the word, why not? I happen not to but I don't care if someone does. It simply doesn't threaten me.

Wack em and Stack em!!!!

While I am far from one who is a big proponent of being politically correct and my wife is always reminding me of that, I do find the above terms objectionable. They reek of a complete lack of respect for the animals we hunt.

465H&H

"Blown away" works for me. Other winners are "mystery meat", "slow dog" and "road pizza".

Oops, I'm in the wrong forum.

Well, on a more serious note, "shoot and kill" are about right. I always advocate using clear language with a correct description of the event.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

They reek of a complete lack of respect for the animals we hunt.

Exellent analogy. Too many folks, either in the magazine area or on forums and to some extent the video realm, really do not have the ability to understand that hunting is not a Right, but a Privledge, and that we need to show a modicum amount of respect for the animals we kill.

Some folks seem to feel that doing such is a sign of weakness or is a questionable aspect opf our manhood.

I think a little European reverence for the animals we shoot would help.

I have quite a few Euro hunting DVD (from when I lived there), and they never ever show a animal when it's not at it's best. No tongues hanging out!

They do their little horns and oak leaves bit (last bite), and they show a little more reverence.

I concur, it's a right we have to protect above all else.

If I was sitting in a blind down a shooting lane I cut out, over a timed feeder, that I had trained deer to come to whenever that feeder goes off, and I have tons of game cam pics of the deer I specifically want to shoot...yes, it is a harvest, not hunting. Sorry, but that is my opinion. By all means do so, but don't call it hunting if those deer have the Pavlovian response to the feeder.

quote:

If I was sitting in a blind down a shooting lane I cut out, over a timed feeder, that I had trained deer to come to whenever that feeder goes off, and I have tons of game cam pics of the deer I specifically want to shoot...yes, it is a harvest, not hunting. Sorry, but that is my opinion. By all means do so, but don't call it hunting if those deer have the Pavlovian response to the feeder.

Shooting, yes. Killing, yes. Harvesting, yes. Taking, yes. Hunting,in reality, No. Pavlov's Dog is correct. But, if a person/hunter is open and honest, they can refer to it however they choose.

The issue has nothing to do with whether it is proper to call it "Hunting" or not, it has to do with how we refer to the actual kill of the game.

I prefer to say I shot it or I killed it. Differentiating between hunting/shooting is NOT part of the equation, as the results are the same, regardless of the method employed.

There is nothing wrong with using the word "harvest" in regards to killing an animal. As to being politically correct, that is nonsense. The word was used LONG before ANYONE had ANY need to be politically correct.

My thought on the matter: Use whatever wording you want and don't fret over what someone else uses. Life is short, and too much time is wasted on trivialities when it could be applied to much worthier purposes.
---
One more thing: "killed" has a distinct finality in this equation, and I don't mean because the animal is dead. "Harvest," on the other hand, envelopes a wider act: the animal was killed, the animal was butchered and the end-result was enjoyed as a bounty on the family table (or a table somewhere).
---
I did not vote in the poll. I can't read sideways, and it seems to be quite slanted.

I use terms such as kill, shoot, take or harvest almost interchangeably and -- unlike some here -- have enough respect as to not call someone an idiot for using a term they are comfortable with.

OK so lets do a little "play" on words.
Take this last hunting season for me as an example.

So I say to someone:

I killed 4 pigs, 3 deer and a turkey...
Most would assume since I killed them, I butchered them and put them in the freezer...
Well maybe except for the pigs because a lot of people "kill" pigs but do not put them in thhe freezer...

I shot 4 pigs, 3 deer, and a turkey...

So I shot them, but did I kill them??? How many died, how many ran away, and were not found???

I "harvested" 4 pigs, 3 deer, and a turkey...
I think with this statement, most every one would know or assume that all the animals were put in the freezeer...

Bottom line is, you have to SHOOT them to KILL them, and you have to KILL them to HARVEST them.

So I remind pollitically correct people, that the chickens, pork, beef, hot dogs,hamburgers, fish, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, and bologna that they buy in the store was KILLED... Then "harvested"...

I have great respect for the animals I wack.Specially at Dinner time!!

I don't and wont use "harvest", but I would recomend to use what you feel comfortable with.

.

Sure. It's a legit term that has been part of the hunter/conservationist lexicon for decades.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:

I "harvested" 4 pigs, 3 deer, and a turkey...
I think with this statement, most every one would know or assume that all the animals were put in the freezeer...

I disagree. When I hear the term on hunting shows it has nothing to do with killing for food. It is used as more in the sense of: "I decided to harvest him now because I could see that he was at his peak and I knew that he would not get any better if I left him until next year...."

I have no problem with harvest if it is used when talking about annual take in an area, but when used to refer to an individual animal it is disrespectful(IMO).