If I feel like elaborating, I just say, "I killed him and we ate him."

That way, I don't have to explain that no farm machinery was involved.

A couple of questions for those who prefer / insist on using the term "harvest:"

Why? What is your reason?

Do you use the term "harvest" in the presence of fellow hunters as well as non-hunters? Or do you use it only in conversations with non-hunters?

If you're an angler do you say you "harvest" fish as well?

I don't mean to beat on this dying horse, there's really nothing wrong with using "harvest" if you prefer to do so. It's certainly better than "whack," "thump," "blow away" etc.

I can't speak for how any one else uses the various terms listed here, only for myself. If I am speaking of a recent day in the field, I will use I got, took, bagged and sometimes killed but never shot. To me using "shot" denotes that the shooting was the main purpose of the hunt where in my case the main purpose of any day in the hunting field is the hunt. The number of birds etc. I take is always secondary to the enjoyment of the hunt. If I was after driven game in England then I would use the term shoot a there is no hunting involved. The success of a day afield with my pointing dogs is measured by the number of points I get not the number of birds taken. I use the term harvest primarally when dealing with the general non-hunting public. It is an educational tool to get the point across that I am taking a harvest able surplus. Using that term with rabid anti-hunters doesn't do much good as they know it means killed and that is what they object to.

465H&H

Don't know how many if any of you have ever heard a phrase, a couple of phrases actually, that I have had a lot of non-hunting individuals use.

When I would mention that I had been hunting they will/would ask either, "What did you catch" or "Did you catch anything", the same terminology they used when dicussing fishing.

Here is the key to the whole issue:

quote:

Using that term with rabid anti-hunters doesn't do much good as they know it means killed and that is what they object to.

It does not matter what we call it or why we call it that, they don't care if you say, " I was given divine guidance to help that individual go home to be with God"!

Bottom line they want it stopped and are doing everything they can to accomplish that goal. Hunters need to be concerned about the folks in the middle that don't have any problem with other folks hunting, they just don't do it themselves. Those are the folks we do not need to be alienating.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Don't know how many if any of you have ever heard a phrase, a couple of phrases actually, that I have had a lot of non-hunting individuals use.

When I would mention that I had been hunting they will/would ask either, "What did you catch" or "Did you catch anything", the same terminology they used when dicussing fishing.

In my limited exposure most of rural AK seems to be pretty pro hunting. I don't think the majority of residents hunt but most seem to accept as normal moose hunting, caribou, waterfowl and on.

The standard phrase used here is "catch". In a more rural village it'd be common in the late fall to be asked, "Did you catch?" asked with no other lead in and which was meant to mean a sucessful moose hunt. I just always think its funny to picture grabbing a big bull moose. Gotcha! What a ride that'd be shortly after the moose realized it'd been caught.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

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).

What you are talking about is something find repulsive.

I would rather shoot an animal (for instance a elk) at 14 or 15 years when he is going down hill than shoot him at 11 or 12 years when he is probably in that 340-410 type range and should be breeding.

I do not mind killing a younger bull when they aren't exactly perfect, or and shooting cows and calves needs to be done to keep populations in check. I never knowingly shoot a female with young, but I will shoot old barren females at the drop of a hat.

This concept of only shooting an animal when it is in it's prime is bad wildlife management.

It just depends with whom I'm discussing the results of my hunting trip. Game ranger, my administrative assistant, or someone unfamiliar with the sport of putting meat on the table; I "harvested" the animal. For everyone else, I put one in the boiler plate and killed it DRT.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
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.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
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 have enough respect as to not call someone an idiot for using a term they are comfortable with.

...

Civilizations have been harvesting[take,reap] from natures wild stocks[fish,game,crops] for thousands of years.
You can go out and hunt or harvest a wild boar from the forrest, or go harvest[gather] some wild or cultivated mushrooms... or go harvest]catch] naturally roaming [or farmed] fish.

I like to use the expressions; took a nice Kudu,picked or gathered some mushrooms,caught some fish.


Harvest[def.]
verb (used with object)
-to gather (a crop or the like); reap.
-to gather the crop from: to harvest the fields.
-to gain, win, acquire, or use (a prize, product, or result of any past act, process, plan, etc.).
-to catch, take, or remove for use: Fishermen harvested hundreds of salmon from the river.

then again, the way some people choose to supposedly hunt- is more like shooting fish in a barrel....

Now the term "hunt" can apply to more than killing of game.

'He hunted around in the closet for the flashlight"

" he was on the hunt for a new set of golf clubs"

" police hunted down the escaped convict" which can mean to capture, not necessarily kill.

" the undesirables were hunted out of town" [persued,chased out]

"The aircraft hunted on its flight path"[yawed back and forth]

Those who use "harvest" are either overly concerned with what others think OR don't know how to think for themselves OR work for fish and game departments and are therefore beyond help.

quote:

Originally posted by SG Olds:
Those who use "harvest" are either overly concerned with what others think OR don't know how to think for themselves OR work for fish and game departments and are therefore beyond help.

..and those who think that people use the term harvest only because of those reasons, probably have the narrower mind.

I took the time to try to overcome the disadvantage of a "public" education by studying the word "Harvest". I learned quite a bit.

It is believed to come from the old English word HAERFEST. Besides its common use in reference to gathering farm raised crops, it also could refer to the time period when it was done. Once it made it into modern English, it was expanded to other activities that were "like" gathering crops. So what activities are like gathering cut wheat? They list netting fish, commercially cutting timber etc.

So with that background it appears that the word is probably correctly used when applied to any hunting that is close to farming or lacks significant chance of failure. By way of example, the indians "harvest" salmon when they string nets across the Columbia River. This is an appropriate use of "harvest" since there is only a tiny fraction of a part of skill involved in whether you will catch any salmon. Therefore in any hunting that is closer to a sure thing than chance, could properly use the word "harvest". My opinion is that killing a deer in a high fence or under a feeder or off a food plot could all qualify as harvest since it is closer to a sure thing (like Indians netting salmon). I suppose how much skill it takes to be successful may also influence whether the term harvest is appropriate.

Are there any students of language out there that could add to this or correct any misunderstandings, I may have?

SG Olds wrote:

quote:

Those who use "harvest" are either overly concerned with what others think OR don't know how to think for themselves OR work for fish and game departments and are therefore beyond help.

---

What a narrow-minded OPINION you harbor there, Olds...

Just a question for Mr. Olds. Not trying or meaning to stir the pot, just laying some groundwork and would like just a little information.

What is your age, and how many years of hunting experience do you have?

I've used the term speaking to non-hunters in a public setting, but I don't know one single hunter who uses it in conversation with other hunters. Do you? Just my opinion, but when I use it I feel inside like I'm trying to justify something or make it sound PC (which I despise).

Technically, it is harvesting a renewable resource.......I just use different terms to describe it.

Crazy,

I don't mind. It's important to know the source to judge the opinion. I'm 47. I've been hunting since I was 12. Went along hunting with my Grandfather and Father from age 5. I've hunted in 12 states including Alaska 3 times. (only one hunt to your State) I've hunted in Ontario, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. On one of those trips I "harvested" seals for dog food of all things. I've hunted Africa 4 times and have 2 more trips planned before I feel I'm done with the Dark Continent. In fact I leave in 2 weeks for my second too last trip.

Don't even get me started on fishing or bird hunting. I work 2 jobs which means I work 8 of 10 weekends as well, if that makes any difference. Also I live in Idaho (24 years now). I've lived in Virginia and Minnesota when I was a child and North Dakota and Idaho as an adult.

I was just curious. Your responses, and I am not meaning this unkindly or deragatorily are those I would have expected from someone in the 25 to 35 year old age group, with about 20 years + or - hunting experience.

I don't neccessarily dispute some of your attitude toward the use of that word. I myself started hunting when I was around 12, that involved bb guns and english sparrows eating the feed for our chickens, but I felt like I was on safari.

I will be 62 in September of this year. I had the privledge of hunting in Idaho for the first time for my 60th. birthday for bear outside of Elk City.

I am not big on being apologetic for the fact that I am a hunter, and as such I do kill animals from time to time, but I have mellowed a lot since my 50th. birtrhday. People that actually know me would gag om that last statement, but I really have.

My point is, as I made in one of my earlier posts on this topic, why, purposely make an enemy, when using a different term would convey the same thing?

I have no trouble telling some folks that I have killed an animal, or taken an animal, or shot an animal, with harveting an animal being last on my list.

But I have no problem what-so-ever if another hunter chooses to use such terminology. Do I think less of them as a person or a hunter, No. I could care less if they called killing something, Fred, it is their choice. They are the one paying for the hunt, they can view it or call it whatever they choose and I am okay with that.

I prefer not to use the word, but will if the situation calls for something a little less brutal than killed/assassinated/murdered/slaughtered/exterminated add infinitum.

As a group however, hunters need to become aware when and who to use words like harvest and take around, just so we don't look like insensitive jerks that have no feelings of respect for the animals we kill.

Like many polls this one has a dumb ass choice of answers so the re is no adequate choice for an an answer

Lmao! It's a long off season isn't it? Bunch of grown ass man getting their panties in a wad over the word "harvest". Who gives a shit?

quote:

Lmao! It's a long off season isn't it? Bunch of grown ass man getting their panties in a wad over the word "harvest". Who gives a shit?

At 2 pages and with very little actual name calling and a fair amount of honest/open opinions, I think some people do care. What is wrong with that???

If folks can develope some dialog over something as trivial, and I don't mean that in a bad way, as this topic, then maybe in future conversations people will be better able to discuss an issue instead of turning it into a pissing contest.

At some point in time, hunter are going to have to join together and attempt to stop the anti-hunters goal to take our sport from us. if hunters can not put aside their individual prejudices, than we have already lost.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Lmao! It's a long off season isn't it? Bunch of grown ass man getting their panties in a wad over the word "harvest". Who gives a shit?

At 2 pages and with very little actual name calling and a fair amount of honest/open opinions, I think some people do care. What is wrong with that???

If folks can develope some dialog over something as trivial, and I don't mean that in a bad way, as this topic, then maybe in future conversations people will be better able to discuss an issue instead of turning it into a pissing contest.

At some point in time, hunter are going to have to join together and attempt to stop the anti-hunters goal to take our sport from us. if hunters can not put aside their individual prejudices, than we have already lost.

Crazy, dont lose any sleep tonight, the Antis's wont take our sport from us because I asked "who gives a poop" about how the word harvest is used.

There are a lot more pressing issues and this is why I brought it up. If this were hunting season and people were actually out hunting I doubt this thread would be multiple pages long hence the "its a long offseason" comment.

This is as informative and useful as the "Whats a Professional Hunter" thread. Again, who freaking cares?

I have an idea, lets debate if "irregardless" is a word

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
I have an idea, lets debate if "irregardless" is a word

Geez Drum, everybody know irregardless is NOT a word!!

quote:

There are a lot more pressing issues and this is why I brought it up. If this were hunting season and people were actually out hunting I doubt this thread would be multiple pages long hence the "its a long offseason" comment.

I really am not as stupid as you think, and yes there are more pressing issues concerning hunters, but, civil discussion and dialog has to begin somewhere.

If we can discuss something trivial in a reasonable/civil manner, maybe it will lay the ground work so the more pressing issues can be discussed rationally. What is evidently so wrong in trying to find some common ground so that we are not tearing each other apart? If we can act civilly on a non-important issue, maybe it will help us to stop acting uncivilly on the impportant stuff.

Regardless of the importance of this subject, we have to find a way to discuss issues without turning them into pissing contests or bashing contests.

If there is something fundamentally wrong with that line of thought, Please explain it to me.

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
I use take/took, hunted, or killed.

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

George

Agreed.

For me harvest refers to something I planted and nurtured specifically for the purpose of using it at food. Hence the veggie garden or fields of wheat, oats, table crops, etc. There are other uses such as timber for lumber or firewood. Timber is harvested as it is a managed crop.

It is not, however, a term I apply to wild game. Wild game is HUNTED.

Furbearers are TRAPPED.

Fish on a line are CAUGHT.

Plant life which isn't specifically planted by a human being as a crop such as WILD edible plants and wild mushrooms are FORAGED and thus not harvested.

Livestock are PASTURE RAISED or FEED LOT finished. They are SLAUGHTERED since they were raised specifically for the table.

Anyway, just MHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
I have an idea, lets debate if "irregardless" is a word

Geez Drum, everybody know irregardless is NOT a word!!

True. And as to the word harvest, well, I think I used to be a bit defensive when someone said that's what we hunters do, but I just ignore it anymore. If someone wants to use a term that is deemed appropriate for the action of collecting ripened crops then so be it. It's their misuse of the word harvest and it's their choice to do so if it makes them feel more PC. I do not harvest animals. I kill them. I gut them. I skin them, and I eat them. I do not drive out to their dead body in a John Deer and "harvest" them, months after I "planted" them.

In most every instance I can recall when I killed something and I was relaying the story to any listener, I used the phrase, "I got a deer." (or bear, or whatever).

I think the other responders have covered it all. I don't use "harvest," I say "kill," no matter who I'm speaking to. I don't think I have ever offended anyone, I'm a plain spoken guy, and people understand.

I harvest my garden crops. I kill and butcher hundreds of chickens, but I don't think I have ever used 'harvest' to refer to animals.

I know we have a lot of farmers here, does anyone 'Harvest' their domestic animals? Or do you process, slaughter, butcher...?

[QUOTE
For me harvest refers to something I planted and nurtured specifically for the purpose of using it at food. Hence the veggie garden or fields of wheat, oats, table crops, etc. There are other uses such as timber for lumber or firewood. Timber is harvested as it is a managed crop.

It is not, however, a term I apply to wild game. Wild game is HUNTED.

and wild game can also be a man managed natural resource....from which only a certain amount[quota] may be allowed to be taken/harvested/...hunted?

Furbearers are TRAPPED.

Fish on a line are CAUGHT.

and animals are technically caught by/in the trap or snare....and fish can be trapped in a net.

Plant life which isn't specifically planted by a human being as a crop such as WILD edible plants and wild mushrooms are FORAGED and thus not harvested.

it is often said that the oceans yield of wild seaweed is harvested , not foraged for.
Cultures have been gathering/harvesting wild seaweed for thousands of years.

One can take/harvest animal or plant life from natures stocks[managed or unmanaged]- purely for ones own subsistence needs or for commercial gain.

one can take/harvest such resources[animals] via different methods;...herding,trapping/hunting.

To say I harvested a wild roaming hog from the forrest[from natures stocks] for my needs, sounds completely normal to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
If someone wants to use a term that is deemed appropriate for the action of collecting ripened crops then so be it. It's their misuse of the word harvest and it's their choice to do so if it makes them feel more PC. I do not harvest animals. I kill them. I gut them. I skin them, and I eat them. I do not drive out to their dead body in a John Deer and "harvest" them, months after I "planted" them.

There is no misuse in the word "harvest" when referring to the taking of animals/fish.
Its use for such goes back a long way, and does not originate from the need to be PC.

HARVEST [def.]..to catch, take, or remove for use:..that includes any animal or plant life, whether it be wild or man breed/cultivated.- animals caught or killed for human use/consumption:
Fishermen harvested hundreds of salmon from the river.

whether you can accept the fact or not, when you hunt and kill an animal, you are taking/harvesting something from natures or mankind's stocks.

You know if we send them valintines, give them chocolates, hug them and just be a bit nicer.

All the anti's well see the light and become pro hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
You know if we send them valintines, give them chocolates, hug them and just be a bit nicer.

All the anti's well see the light and become pro hunting.

Best post ever!