Shiloh Rifle Forums

I know some won't like this but it bugs me. The last few years has seen the use of the word "harvest " to describe the killing of a game animal in a hunting scenario. Does anyone think this really fools anybody? Or do people feel better when they use the term thinking they didn't really kill an animal they "harvested" it? To me it's denying the truth. I hunt but have never "harvested" anything. I killed them.. they're dead now because of me.... and I accept that. I think about it more and sometimes saddens me but accept it.
These animals aren't standing around thinking that since they were planted in the spring and had reached maturity that the inevitable fall "harvest" season was approaching. They were looking out literally for their lives. The other day the local news station ran a story about how the hunting season wasn't a great success because of the dry and warm conditions. The news anchor started saying "harvest" and then said something to the effect of "That's what it's called now." Whether he was anti hunting or not I don't know but the fact is it doesn't fool anybody. I just watched a hunting show where the guy shot a wolf and the guide told him that there are alot of wolves around and they kill alot of big game and some wolves need to be "harvested'. I see now... The wolves "kill" and we "harvest". I'm sure the caribou etc appreciate that.
I've used terms like "I got" or "I took" a doe or a 4 point sometimes when asked if I killed something but the "harvest" term seems real p.c. to me.

Pete, your exactly correct. The word Harvest or the new meaning I believe was brought about out of "PC" for those that just can't stand the word hunting or I killed or shot my animal. I noticed this turn around years ago when I was teaching hunters safety.

With the use of, "Hunting is the activity" and "Harvesting the animal is the bonus, if you do harvest one" etc.... etc.... etc.

I aint no farmer, I don't harvest anything!

Pete,

You have written a well thought out analysis.

Yeah, the use of the term in the current day may very well relate to people finding it difficult to state the truth.

Reminds me of when my family members die and people come up to me and say they "passed on". I always look back at them and say my family member "died".

Thanks for the post.

Hal

Pete, you might enjoy reading Ted Nugent's book "Kill it and Grill It". Besides some great recipes Ted espouses a lot of his own thoughts about the watering down of our society. Basically we don't celebrate the kill as much as we should. Kind of a way to better appreciate the resource. People have become too distanced from the fact that something has to be killed to end up in the meat market. A lot of folks that are quick to criticize hunters seemingly have no problem going to McDonalds or buying meat at the supermarket. I think it was a lot different when a lot of folks used to live on farms and were used to killing and butchering livestock for food. Even folks that eat only vegetables forget that an entire ecosystem of mice, rabbits and insects have to die so somebody can plow land to raise soybeans for tofu. People can't seem to deal with the reality of life anymore. If we aren't careful the whole concept of the hunt will die off. Preserve our heritage, take a kid hunting. Merry Christmas - Mike

Hey Hal

I hope when I DIE at least they can say, "He died with a smile bigger than Montana on his face!"

There is nothing new about the term "harvest" being used as a euphamism to describe the killing of wild game. The state fish and game departments started using "harvest" back in the 1960's.

As a hunter I find the use of "harvest" to be an insult to my intelligence. Typical modern day P.C. nonsense. At the very least it sounds silly and strangely inappropriate. I didn't plant the animals. I didn't fertilize or cultivate them.

As hunters we deal with game animals on a very personal basis. We seek them out and kill them one on one. Their death - at our hands - is very real. "Harvest" might be a little more understandable of a concept if you look at it from the game department's point of view. It is their job to look after the game animals not as individuals but as a herd. Much like a farmer or rancher looks after their crops or herds.

The rancher doesn't concern himself with the gory details once his livestock goes to the slaughterhouse. If he raised a robust, healthy animal - one that sells at a good price - he's done his job well. The farm/ranch analogy fits pretty well with what the state game departments are trying to do. And the analogy goes beyond harvest. Here in my home state the WI DNR speaks of a fawn "crop" in the spring. Come to think about it that's even more weird than 'harvest.' I mean do the wildlife biologists go about personally planting the seeds? Never mind...

Gentlemen,

Perhaps I can shed a little light on this subject. I was a professional biologist with North Dakota Game and Fish for 33 years before I retired in Mar, 2000.

With that introduction I can assure you all that the terms "harvest" and others are not really politically correct terms at least not by professional biologists. These terms have been used by the professional biologists since the early 1930's at least. One area of wildlife management that biologists study in all species is the broad area of population mortality. Within this arena is harvest or hunting mortality and non-hunting mortality (e.g. poaching mortality, winter loss mortality, predation mortality, etc.). I agree that the term hunting or harvest mortality could easily be called killing mortality, but predation mortality, winter mortality or road mortality is also killing mortality in a but by a different means. Thus, professional biologists solve this problem by breaking down the killing to be more specific as to the method; thus, we have harvest/hunting mortality, road, predation mortality, winter mortality, etc.

I do agree that the use of these terms by some people would definitely have a politically correct interpretation, but it certainly isn't the professional biologists and these are the people who originally assigned these words to the topics. As a group I can also assure you that professional biologists are one of the most politically incorrect, independent thinking group of pure blood renegades that I know, myself notwithstanding.

Regards

I apologize for the very last word I used in the previous post. I should have said myself included, not myself notwithstanding. Fortunately, Webster's 3rd International was available to clarify the error of my ways. Must have been too early in the morning or not enough coffee of something like that.

I think I need to go out and try to kill something again; that would certainly clear the cobs out. Sounds like a good thing to do 2 days before Christmas, doesn't it?

Thanks guys. I thought I'd take alot of flak since hunters are the ones I hear mostly using the term.

ironramrod; I can see your point about the Wildlife Divisions using it. It's a clinical term that fits with the job. I just have a problem with the way the hunting industry uses it.

Canoe112; I tend to do the same thing.

Many times people I work with when they know I went hunting will ask if I "caught" something. I tell them that you don't catch anything when you go hunting, it's not like fishing.

Like I said earlier I might sometimes say I "got" something or "Did you get a deer" or whatever because it doesn't try to cover up something.

pete,

I'll tell you one usage of "Harvest" I do like. I wouldn't mind "Havesting" a few PETAs! Well, maybe best with a net rather than a rifle, but those people throw the word "harvest" around like it was the"F" word. I'll bet they are just rolling in the isles in ecstacy over this darned Canadian cow that got brought into the US. OK, I'll quit before I get up on a well worn soap box.

ironramrod

A bit of a tangent....Interesting how hunting and predation are seperated. Do you happen to know why they are?

(Good topic.)

I've seen the term "human predation" used in "The Elk of North America." I like that one a lot better than "harvest."

As for "hunting" and "predation" being seperated in the game biologist's usage, it may have to do with the degree of control that can be exercized.

Hunting, by humans, is a pretty well known variable. The game depts. know about how many hunters go afield, what percentage of them are successful etc. Fairly accurate estimates can be made for game lost to poachers and unrecovered kills. License sales can be controlled through drawings or bonus tags in response to game population fluctuations.

Predation losses, by animals, are not as well known. Estimates can be made of how many wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, etc are in an area but in many cases they are little more than guesses. It's difficult to know just how many of what species these predators are eating. And there is no real way to control it.

P = People
E = Eating
T = Tasty
A = Animals

H = Hunters
A = Always
R = Really
V = Visualizing
E = Every
S = Savery
T = Taste

Works for me

Amen!! I started using the "harvest" word several years ago, but it just never felt good in my mouth, so in a couple of months I went back to "killing". I still like the cartoon of the two buzzards on a dead tree, one of them was trying to get the other one to "be patient, something will die soon". The other one said, "patience my ass, I'm gonna KILL something now!!".

Pete,

An interesting topic; I spent an entire career working on red fox and coyotes. Smart predators are a fascinating group of animals.

The main reason that hunting and predation are seperated are so they can be examined independently and estimates for each can then be added together. I agree that the only difference between the 2 is who is doing the killing, and when. Further, the prey is dead no matter who or which animal(s) kill it.

Hidehunter correctly said that legal hunter caused mortality can be estimated fairly accurately, but that predation mortality can be really iffy. Illegal hunter harvest (poaching) can be significant in some areas, too, and can also be hard to estimate. The reason for the subjectivity in determining predation rates is that most of the predators (at least the mammals) are nocturnal; thus, they are doing their work when nobody can see what is going on. If the predation is occuring in forested areas, it is even tougher to determine what is going on. Further, it can be difficult enough to find and count live prey species let alone the dead ones. Ugh. Thus, biologists are often forced to guesstimate predation rates, and in my experience they often guess too low.

Predation goes on all year long at variable rates depending on the season. However, data we gathered showed for the northern plains is that most of the really serious predation occurs in the spring and summer, and mostly on young animals (e.g. fawns, ducks on the nest, etc.). In some areas I suspect (e.g. based on doe/fawn ratios) that predation may be the most significant mortality factor affecting population size of the prey (e.g. deer or antelope, mallards and pintails).

Most game departments are really scared to address predation, because of all the bad politics in the past over the subject (e.g. bounties on predators). Thus, they tend to downplay the impact of predation, and assign the missing animals to some other mortality agent in the hopes that the whole issue will go away. Sometimes it does go away, but sometimes it becomes a train wreck looking for a place to occur.

Trust me; predation wars in state legislatures are an event to behold. Interesting newspaper headlines, too.

Regards,