Is It Killed or Harvested - Terminology Questioned

It seems that in the modern time in which we live, everyone is trying to change our vocabulary to some degree. Just listen to the way youngsters respond to words they hear in music and on television. Is there a language barrier between our older generation and those of the next? You bet. And, it has nothing to do with the fact that perhaps one generation came to America from elsewhere. 

We are continually bombarded with words that never existed a few years ago; words that our forefathers never dreamed of, for things that they could not possibly have imagined existing. As far thinking and inventive as he was, Benjamin Franklin never did conjure up the computers that electricity now produces.

A man of detailed words, Thomas Jefferson wrote the specific Declaration of Independence, allowing some changes in wording to pacify a few resistors. But, he did not allow them to change the meaning of a document which stands above all others in the world to this very day. Every generation has added to the English language. We have assimilated many words from other languages and created words for new ideas and things. But, someone once said, “If it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.” I don’t remember who said it first, but I wholeheartedly agree with the premise. 

People are, with good intentions I am certain, now trying to change the language of hunting. Perhaps I am making a big thing out of a word change, but I do not see this particular language change as necessary , as simple or as right. I am not ashamed or offended to tell someone that I hunt and, when lucky, kill game. Reports issued by our Fish and Game Department on the taking of game animals, such as deer, bear, moose, etc., are entitled, “Wildlife Harvest Summary”. These reports tally up game that was legally killed during the hunting season by legally licensed hunters, using various weapons and methods of hunting. Fish and Game apparently prefers to see the reference of game taken listed as “harvest” and not as “killed”. 

According to Webster’s dictionary, there are eight definitions for the proper use of the word “harvest”:

1. (noun) the time of year when mature grain, fruit, vegetables, etc., are reaped and gathered in.

2. (noun) a season’s yield of grain, fruit, vegetables, etc. when gathered in or ready to be gathered in; to crop.

3. (noun) the gathering in of a crop.

4. the outcome/consequence of any effort/series of events.

5. (verb) to gather in (a crop, etc.)

6. (verb) to gather a crop from the field.

7. (verb) to catch, shoot, trap, etc. (fish and game), often for commercial purposes.

8. (verb) to get something as the result of an action or effort.

Yes, only one of the eight definitions refers specifically to hunting, trapping and fishing. But, let’s be realistic. Harvest is a word that is essentially associated with crops, like apples, oranges, pumpkins, and grains. Why should we want to label hunted game under the harvest banner? Is it perhaps an attempt to pacify the anti-hunting or animal rights groups? Will they think of hunters as kindly people out in the woods “harvesting”? I think not! If this is an attempt at some new “politically correct” terminology, I vote no. 

Is there no difference between a game animal and a vegetable? Is the term “harvested” truly interchangeable with “killed”? “Killed” is correct. They were not plucked from the ground by a combine, like wheat for market. When unseasonable weather conditions cause some crops to die, headlines read, “Crops killed by severe weather.” Not one says: “Severe rainstorm harvests corn.” 

So, should a fish and game department change its vocabulary and use the word “harvest” in its “kill” reports? I say no. How about you? 

Bob Harris can be reached via e-mail at: outwriter2@aol.com

Past Columns by Bob Harris  >>>

About Bob Harris  >>>