There is a newspaper outdoor writer in New Jersey who writes weekly hunting and fishing reports. He continues to use the word “k

[Gary Devine]

There is a newspaper outdoor writer in New Jersey who writes weekly hunting and fishing reports. He continues to use the word “kill” or “killed” in his column. Example “This hunter killed this and this hunter killed that“. I wrote him a letter and asked him to use more sensitive words like “bagged“, “harvest” or even “took” a buck. My letter fell on deaf ears. The newspaper goes out to the entire public to read. Am I correct or do you think the outdoor writer should keep using the words like “kill or killed“? It drives me crazy. Are there any suggestions on how to get him to stop using those offensive words to the non hunting public?

[Drover1]

Personally, I don’t see any advantage in using deceptive or misleading language. Hunters kill game animals. Non-hunters know that hunters kill game animals. Using terms like “harvest” just makes it sound like we’re trying to sugar-coat or disguise the truth. I have no problem with writers or anyone else using the term “kill” in reference to hunting. But, we also should take every opportunity to include language referring to killing in a humane, sporting manner in compliance with laws and ethical standards.

[jcarlin]

I'm of two minds on this. I've been trained by the hunting media to say harvest. Yes, it's more PC and maybe it's less offensive. I think in conversation I tend to say "took" more often.
Is using more "acceptable" language what we're going for?
Killing is an undisputed part of our activity and we all take the death of our quarry seriously, I hope. Why talk around it when that killing to eat spirit without the hypocrisy of crying 'shame' on others while going to the butcher is such a large part of what we do? That direct connection is what we should emphasize, not semantics.

If there was even a point in using the softer language I'd agree with you. I don't think anyone of any intellectual honesty, which admittedly isn't always the audience, stops and thinks, "oh.. harvest. I thought you killed them." If you're dealing with that person, all conversation is a waste of your time anyway.

[Treestand]

JMO~SORRY Gary I find (kill or Killed) not offensive may be "Dispatch" would be a better word. In my neck of the Woods,Were the Black Top Ends, dam near every buddy hunts,fish,trap,shoots. Hell some still carry rifles/shotguns in the back window of there trucks with the key in it when parked.And the non Hunting Public, I run in to ask "When y'all goen to cook it up"???I can under stand were your coming from!

[DakotaMan]

"Harvest" is certainly a gentler word and I would agree that a writer should be diplomatic as well as entertaining if they want to survive as a writer. The core issue here seems to be hypocrisy though.

"hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense".

Our current society seems to be caught up in hypocrisy (i.e. politically correct) to avoid contention from those who don't agree with our moral standards. We would be better served by acknowledging our beliefs openly; in helping people understand that most of the carnivores at the top of the food chain survive by EATING lower level members of the chain.

Our society needs to understand that Kentucky Fried chicken serves food items consisting of birds that were KILLED. Same with McDonald's and your neighborhood grocery. When I was young, I had to KILL a chicken or a pheasant and dress it for dinner. That is part of life at the top of the food chain. To not acknowledge that would be hypocritical.

Most of our opponents in this philosophical debate are intelligent enough to recognize our hypocrisy but are hypocrites themselves. They eat meat daily as they point their finger at hunters and fishermen. Some of them are illiterate enough to believe their chicken was manufactured and originated in Saran Wrap; but they are a minority.

Only the vegetarians have a right to complain. They have put their money where their mouth is and abstained from killing any animal lower in the food chain. It is their job and their right to convince us all to share their beliefs. Let the debate go on!

As for those who hunt/fish for the pure enjoyment of killing and do not eat their kill, they are worthy of society's distain and need to own up to it. Neither the anti's nor the sportsmen share their values.

[MattM37]

I agree that it just sounds like sugar-coating, which does us no good at all. I also think that "harvesting" can convey a disrespect for the animals, which is certainly not what we're all about, in the sense that they're not just a crop being grown for our use. Of course they're managed, but they're still wild, free, sentient creatures. If I'm talking to a non-hunter about taking an animal, I often mention how it didn't get raised in a pen; it didn't subsist on whatever kind of food humans decided to feed it; it lived the way nature intended it to live right up to the split-second when I killed it cleanly and humanely. All of those points don't quite mesh with using the word "harvest," in my opinion.

[Old 300]

Using the word "harvested" will not make the anti hunters any less anti hunting or hate hunting any less. They will be just as anti hunting whether we use the word "harvested" or "killed."

[jhjimbo]

I took a quick look through the Ohio regulations and they use bag, take and least frequently, kill.
I did not see harvest mentioned.

[bigblackdawgz]

Yeah, evvabuddy nose we wear camo panties, so why not?

Butt ye misspelled "kilt."

[laker]

"Harvest" always sounds ridiculous to me. These are not cucumbers we're hunting.

~Laker

[CJ]

Bagged is what they do with your groceries at Albertson's and harvest is what they do with wheat and corn. Tell it like it is.

[Gary Devine]

Jhjimbo, I checked NJ Fish and Wildlife and that never use kill either. I wonder why? Does any state fish and game Department use the word kill?

Another soft word example is "tagged" a nine point buck.

Treestand, when I am around my hunting friends or at the gun club "kill" is OK to use.
The facts are Peta and the Humane Society hates us. Why should we upset the public who sit on the fence of the hunting vs. non hunting beliefs?

[ALJoe]

Harvest, bag, taken, tagged, killed all = dead

[Gary Devine]

Oxfort Dictionary link below.
Harvest can be used on the taking of animals or to gather up crops.


www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/harvest

[Old 300]

I doubt PETA will any less mad at us for hunting if we say that we "harvested" the animal instead of "killed" the animal.