Harvest

[JonCagle]

The word harvest conveys that you are eating the deer that you kill. To us, it's a given that anything killed is eaten, but to a person unfamiliar with hunting doesn't know we know eating our kills. Most people are fine with the idea of hunting for meat but have a problem with "trophy hunters". I've had to make this distinction many times to non hunters in my few 22 years and I think the word harvest has more to the imagery put into the mind of non hunting types and less about yet another overreach of the PC movement

[rraming]

My mother in-law always asks if I “caught” anything, drives me nuts hahaha I don’t catch animal I kill them...

Yep, did you "catch" a deer, hear that a lot, strange. I also hear cull a deer, don't use that either.

[Tom]

I have yet to enjoy a fine deer backstrap without killing it first. Probably would clean my clock if i tried it on the hoof.

[David Mitchell]

The term really does rub me the wrong way.  I grew up in farming country where farmers raised their own beef and pork.  They harvested corn and beans but I never heard a farmer speak of "harvesting a beef".  They killed and butchered it--same with hogs.  We cannot make our activity so clean and neat that the antis will finally see the light.  However, in his drama Romeo and Juliet, the bard has Juliet saying to Romeo, "That which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."  So, I guess whatever floats your boat.

[Dave Lay]

You will never hear me using the term harvest when referring to a kill.harvest should be something you plant , cultivate then Harvest.  Honestly though the way some hunting operations raise deer and charge you to hunt them I can see where that could be a harvest. But not a term I will ever be associated with in hunting .

[Phillip Fields]

Using the term harvest in referring to the killing and the preparing an animal to be used doesn't bother me in the least. What I absolutely cannot stand is hearing someone say they "smoked" an animal.

[gregg dudley]

Using the term harvest in referring to the killing and the preparing an animal to be used doesn't bother me in the least. What I absolutely cannot stand is hearing someone say they "smoked" an animal.

Exactly. 

The word "harvest" implies a utilization that "kill" does not. 

The number one question that non-hunters ask me when I mention that I killed a deer is, "Do you eat it?"  I always reply that I do and that I do not know anyone that doesn't.  It is generally a surprise to them. 

[Orion]

I don't use the harvest term, but given the way that a lot of folks are growing their own critters -- planting food plots, putting out minerals, baiting, selective culling/trophy mgmt. etc., critters have pretty much become a crop, and one generally harvests crops.

Just thought I'd liven up the debate a little.   

[reddogge]

What's wrong with "I shot a deer"? I've used it for decades.

[David Mitchell]

What's wrong with "I shot a deer"? I've used it for decades.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That's what I say...at least when I have shot a deer.

[Wudstix]

Have to agree with the "catch" a deer phrase.  Always, thought it was a Spanish to English thing.  I really don't have a problem with the "harvest" term, crops and game are both renewable resources.   

[bunyan]

I tend to think of the deer "harvest" as a reference to the overall number of animals killed in a season. The same way we refer to the deer "herd" in our area. But I don't say that I harvested an individual animal. I typically shoot or kill or miss them! I agree I find harvest less offensive than guys who wack, smoke, or slam a buck.

[ThePushArchery]

I prefer the term Harvest personally. Not because its PC, or softer to the public. I just think it better describes what I am doing out in the field.

Killing the animal is the unavoidable truth about what we do as hunters. It should not be hidden, downplayed or discounted. We are absolutely out there trying to take the life of a creature.

However, all the 1,000's and 1,000's of hours spent practicing with my bow, building my equipment, researching tactics, preparing for the hunt, time spent in the field chasing game, field care after the kill, documentation of photographs after recovery, preparing the food for my table, sharing the nutrition with my family and friends... It just seems using the simple word "kill" to describe what I do is cheap.

Do I kill the animals I hunt? Absolutely. So do poachers / head hunters / ivory hunters.

I feel like I owe what we do as sportsman and bowhunters a better description, that encompasses killing the animal but also includes the other 98% of the process too.

My $0.02

[Wudstix]

Well stated Mr. Zirnsak   

[Duncan]

Probably going to step on some toes here but...."Harvest" is close kin with "cull buck". And then theres "meat" whatever like theres some embarassment about what you killed. All of these imply a Dominionist view of hunting instead of accepting that you are a part of nature and a part of the food chain.  I'm pretty certain that if an animal can eat you it will be a kill and not a harvest. 

[Tedd]

Harvest=plants
Kill=animals

Are you all referring to the term kill in the media?

I have never met a hunter in the woods use the word harvest. Actually no on even uses the word harvest when they are harvesting! The pick corn, cut hay, shell grain...etc.

 I have no input with the cultivation of deer on public land in PA. (if I did we would have more deer). So how can I be harvesting? I'm lucky to "Kill" one.

har·vest
/ˈhärvəst/Submit
noun
1.
the process or period of gathering in crops.
"helping with the harvest"
synonyms:   harvesting, reaping, picking, collecting
"we all helped with the harvest"

Those with a media position in the hunting world have no obligation to shield non hunters from the truth. We don't owe them anything. They only take from us. Did any one on here shield their own children from the word "kill"? Also non-hunters aren't watching a hunting show.
  I'm someday hoping to have a chunk of private land to hunt. But I still wouldn't use the word harvest. I think private land hunting the way some people do it with hundreds of acres and a thick deer density where they pick and choose what buck to shoot is closer to harvest but still I don't think "harvest" applies to animals.
 
Tedd

[Phillip Fields]

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

transitive verb


1a : to gather in (a crop) : reap
//harvesting corn
 
 
b : to gather, catch, hunt, or kill (salmon, oysters, deer, etc.) for human use, sport, or population control 
 

c : to remove or extract (something, such as living cells, tissues, or organs) from culture (see culture entry 1 sense 3) or from a living or recently deceased body especially for transplanting

[pdk25]

This same topic was posted a large social media forum.  I still feel the same way as I did when I saw that.  I usually say that I "shot" something, but I am sure that I occasionally say theat I 'killed' or 'harvested'  something.  I don't care who likes or doesn't like it, and I won't change to appease someone else.  Both terms are grammatically correct.  I will no sooner be pressured to say 'harvested' to appease an anti- or non-hunter, than I will be to say 'killed' to appease a hunter.  If you are truly bothered by either of these things, you might be, at least partially, influenced by your inner snowflake.

[reddogge]

I've never used the word "harvest" in 52 years of hunting. I kill my deer and pick my tomatoes and peppers. To me it's one of those feel good words people use on the internet now.

[Bowwild]

Like a bunch here, I'm pretty old school because.....well to my grandchildren at least....I'm going that direction very quickly.

As a retired wildlife biologist (11 years ago) I saw the term "harvest" become an alternative way to refer to filling a tag, bag, and yep, killed something. I agree that the term seemed to be born during the period of "Guns of Autumn" and other propaganda efforts by hunter-hater radicals. (BTW, they hate to be referred to as "radicals").

Sometimes I almost use the term harvest, but then stop short because I don't feel like I'm being "honest" enough. However, I can definitely support the use of the term "harvest" when it comes to hunting.  As sportsmen and women we (our ancestors actually) demanded the abolishment of marketing shooting (some call it market hunting but I don't). This move didn't happen in time for a few species (bison, eastern elk, passenger pigeon, etc.), but it was soon enough to save(in most places) pronghorn, elk, mules, whitetail, sheep, turkey, and a few others. 

Now, thank goodness,  we manage the "taking" (another alternate to saying kill) of game species to make sure we don't erode brood stock to the point their populations can't be sustained. To me this is akin to harvest, we harvest a portion of the annual surplus of game animals.  So, I don't think the folks who use the term "harvest" to describe the finality of their interaction with one of God's creatures, is a sissy, politically correct, or trying to hide from their act. I could argue they could possibly be deeper thinkers than some others.

I was also a forester. I have definitely killed some trees in my career. Some of those trees were harvested to be used by man. Some others weren't used. They were cut to make room for more preferred species or to release higher quality forest mates from competition.

Bottom line, no more than I will ever criticize a hunter for killing a 50 pound white-tail (if legal), would I think badly of them for their choice of words to describe their action.

Now, if I have a hot button, its the use of "stick or stuck one" by some who refer to a bowhunters attempt to kill an animal.  When I worked in Kansas, a boss, who I liked very much was an avid bird hunter. He knew I was an archery-nut. He made the mistake of asking if I had "stuck one" when asking about my bowhunting success. I asked him if he had perforated or blasted any quail lately. He revered the bobwhite and understood my analogy.