I think as hunters we should do a better job talking to society and clarifying what it is we do...and what we don't do...now that society's view about hunting is skewed...more than before.
Printable View
I think as hunters we should do a better job talking to society and clarifying what it is we do...and what we don't do...now that society's view about hunting is skewed...more than before.
Zim that is a great thought. I think if you join the ofah and your local rod and gun club It's a good way to be able to communicate with the government. I don't see the need to explain to people who don't know what we do but care about what they think we are doing.
You got me. You're absolutey right (my generation is screwed then)
No hunter your generation is not screwed I'm just saying do what you are doing and its legal what you're doing and work for what you're doing but don't explain to those who have no idea what you're doing.
With virtually all anti-hunting people,they're way beyond listening to reason and accurate scientific information. Haters are going to hate because they don't know any better. Sometimes,it's best to let them rant and say nothing because with those people ,the more you show them that they're wrong,the more entrenched they become to try to prove themselves right and that's usually what it comes down to,trying to defend an untenable position at all costs. Never argue with an idiot. They'll try to drag you down to their own level and then claim victory by default.
Its amazing how twisted the general population can get when something like this happens. Just two days ago I'm in Sail picking up ammo and a good friend of mine catches me. "What are you doing?", he asks. No sooner do I mention I'm getting ammo to do some practicing at the range in preparation for fall hunting he pipes up about Cecil the lion. To a lot of people hunters are still viewed as animals. I explain how a hunter is expected to use every portion of the animal. Thats what responsible hunting is. A friend has started to call himself a "wild game harvester" to those who asks what he enjoys doing. They seem to accept that expression more than being a "hunter."
Media is a powerful tool and presently the medias view on what happened in Zimbabwe has really tainted our passion for wild game harvesting. There are some really good programs on TV that promote responsible hunting and fishing. But even then we have seen some of these programs like "Canada in the Rough" taken off Canadian TV because of the media and CRTCs convoluted view of hunting and guns.
What we need is the Food Network to feature a show on the culinary arts of wild game. Gradually people will want to explore that avenue. They will slowly see that wild game hunting/harvesting is a good thing. Or not...
Please, no. That's an obnoxious euphemism and most of the general public views it as such. I do not harvest animals; I kill them. Using Orwellian euphemisms to hide the truth is tantamount to admitting that killing animals is wrong. I am frank with people: I kill animals for food. I don't get hassled about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Boiler
Not to take this off-topic, but the CRTC didn't take CITR off the air. The CRTC simply relaxed the CanCon rules and allowed market forces to dictate what would be on the air, as the federal government directed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Boiler
That may be true but some seem to accept the term. Personally, I say that I hunt and thats it. His circle of friends differ. If it softens it for them and they eventually accept what it really is then all the better for us as a group.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Regarding the comment of why CITR was taken off the air I blame both CRTC and the media in general. I do know that the bottom line is $$$. This puzzles me though considering that hunting is second only to personal fitness as the big money making industries in North America. So what was the real reason.
Anyways, sorry for hi-jacking this thread with a personal rant...
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Times two welshie boy.
Mr.Boiler
In this case I agree with you on your thoughts.
I don’t just kill animals for the sake of killing but to harvest their meat or for pest control.
I too use the term harvest that adds purpose to the killing of an animal. People around me also can more easily accept the killing of an animal for a purpose when the term harvesting is employed.
It’s a shame that we as hunters have to justify our actions of taking an animal’s life but if we can’t convince the public of our intentions of killing an animal for say meat then look at what happened to the Spring Bear Hunt.
Even though the public is not involved in hunting they seem to be getting a lot of say in what we do.
Ed
No..the annual hunts are called a 'Harvest' by the MNR...and the results of the hunt and are published as a Harvest Report..not a kill report. The word accurately describes what the group of hunters has accomplished during the annual Hunt to control the number of deer.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Nicely put Ed...you kill an animal as part of the annual Harvest. Either term is acceptable and I believe interchangeable dependent on the intended audience and situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ET1
As a farmer I kill/slaughter the animals I have raised as part of the annual Harvest here on the farm. However, I use the term 'harvest' when discussing my activities when I'm in a group setting with people who might be more sensitive to the harsher terms.
I'm sure with you on this one. Disingenuous "politically correct" terms are offensive to most. It makes us look like we're trying to hind something and immediately can be used to put us on the defensive which is a very bad position to be in. I never miss an opportunity to educate people,especially,those who deliberately attempt to take some perceived moral high ground with condescending comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Personally I'm ashamed of our society. Kids die each day of malnutrition all over the world. Yet our media ignore that. They are still talking about a lion that was supposedly taken illegally. One lion seems to be much more important than all these children. Our world is messed up!
The Term 'Harvest' is not politically correct...it is the correct word used to describe the activities of hunters.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
You will have a far more receptive audience, if you're trying to educate them, if you use a vocabulary that doesn't offend them. Sitting around the camp etc with the guys, 'kill' works fine but if your in mixed company there are better choice of words to help get your point across.
Most don't mind hunting at all but they just don't like someone going a cross the word to kill for a head, skin or a set of antlers. Can't really blame them, hard to understand the thrill for a non hunter, even me I don't.
In my office I'm pretty much the only hunter, they all know I kill because I like to eat good food. Everybody knows that the meat at the grocery store isn't that good so it doesn't take much for others to understand why I get my own meat.
Sounds like some of you are wasting to time talking about killing vs harvesting! It doesn't matter antis are just like us, not all that stupid, so all you are doing is trying to make like you are not ending the life of an animal. Kind of coward, no?
"Harvest" as used by MNR is a management term that denotes the collective take by hunters. When you apply it to an individual act, it is a euphemism.
People are not stupid. They understand that by using the word "harvest" you are being manipulative.
Terms like "wild game harvester" isn't a politically correct euphamism? I disagree,MikePal. Tell it the way it is. We're hunters,pure and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Yes it is a euphemism, but it's not 'obnoxious' and is perfectly acceptable to use when the situation warrants a little tact. It's not manipulative, it's being cognoscente of others sensibilities, it's what a gentleman does in mixed company.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Well if you want to "tell it like it is" ..then we're 'Killers' not Hunters...why elevate it higher than it needs to be right ..LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
It was my mother that explained the nuances of conversation to me way back when I was regaling her with the story of my first 'kill'. She said it was crude and she would like me to use different language...lesson learned.
It is not tactful to insult people's intelligence with Orwellian doublespeak borrowed from the mouths of bureaucrats.
So what is the Orwellian double speak....calling us 'Hunters' when we are really just 'killers' or calling it 'Harvesting' wild game when we are really just killing it....LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
and yes....I 'Harvest' a deer, singular, when I de-bone the meat off the deer and put it in the freezer I celebrate the Harvest not the kill....
We hunt them we kill them and we eat them. What could be more basic to human life? Simple.
Considering that the original question here was whether to call yourself a hunter or a "wild game harvester," I'd say it's pretty clear where the Orwellian doublespeak is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
It's not doublespeak to call yourself a hunter, since the word "hunt" includes in its meaning killing the hunted animal.
The ordinary meaning of "harvest," on the other hand, is to bring in a crop. In appropriating this word from its wildlife management context, we use that connotation to a political end: it asserts that wildlife is essentially a crop to be harvested, rather than having some value in its own right. Only humans harvest. Wolves kill moose and eat them; they do not "harvest" them, and the usage would be ridiculous if applied to wolves. To say you "harvested" a deer is not simply to say you killed a deer for the table; it is also to assert human dominion over wildlife and to suggest that hunting is the purpose for which deer exist.
We do not ordinarily apply "harvest" in this sense to any agricultural animal. We don't "harvest" cows for beef, or pigs for pork, or chickens for McNuggets. We slaughter them and butcher them -- two strong words with violent connotations that nevertheless do not deter people from going to the butcher's shop. By saying we "harvest" deer, we are essentially asserting that the lives of game animals are of no more intrinsic value than, say, the lives of wheat stalks. Even cows and pigs are slaughtered, a word that recognizes that ending a life is a bloody and painful process; deer, on the other hand, are simply picked like apples.
This is perfect doublespeak, as Orwell described it: it's bureaucratic, it serves political ends, and it asserts that a thing is something that it is not. It is little different from Hervieux-Payette's ridiculous Senate gun control bill, which claims, in its title, to strengthen hunting and sport shooting, when in fact it intends the opposite.
FlowerjohnQuote:
Originally Posted by flowerjohn
That simplistic view doesn’t cut it with the public.
The hunt is governed by rules and regulations that can be altered by an outcry from the public. I could say I slaughter animals instead of killing for meat which means the same thing. How long do you think before hunting would be attacked by the public by using the term slaughter?
The perception of the public for hunting IMO is shallow because one word can totally alter their viewpoint.
Your statement is absolutely correct in the hunting community but doesn’t any way support the activity in the public’s eyes.
Ed
Thanks for your insight Ed. I just don't see the need for public support for hunting in Ontario anyway. I can't speak for other regions. I don't think that the public is very well organized to stop say the fall deer hunt season or any other hunting season in Ontario. Hunters on the other hand are able to be organized through membership in various organizations including their local rod and gun club and the OFAH which all aid in keeping good communication between hunters and law makers. It's none of the public's concern. I think we all agree on that. What I seem to feel from hunters is that they almost want public approval or a pat on the back saying " we support your hunting". Well that is never going to happen so my post simply stated that we don't we don't need words like harvest or slaughter. Hunt kill eat. Those are the only words that we as hunters need to stand up with. Just my two cents. Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ET1
It's true that the general public has the power to end hunting or regulate it into obscurity, but only a small proportion of the public actually opposes hunting. See my post in the hunter recruitment thread: 79% support legal, regulated hunting, as of 2013, and only 12% oppose. The outcry over Cecil the lion makes it look like everyone's an anti, but many of those people are just fine with hunting deer and so on for food. It's trophy hunting for African wildlife they object to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ET1
People are fully aware that hunting involves killing animals, and most people support it.
Well since our Hunting Heritage in Canada is based on the traditions handed down from the earliest settlers and the Indians (Natives) who used to include the hunting of deer (meat) as part of the annual 'Harvest' in their celebrations, I think that is more likely where the terminology has it's history.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
..especially since bureaucrats didn't exist till a few thousand years later.
The long and the short of it, there is nothing wrong with using the word 'Harvest' as an euphemism for killing a deer....perfectly acceptable....so there was no need to correct a guy for using it.
That's a matter of opinion. Mine happens to differ: "Harvest" is an obnoxious euphemism that insults everyone's intelligence. Last I checked, this is a free country, and I was allowed to express that opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET1
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerjohn
The loss of the Spring Beer Hunt always rests heavily on these discussions....the right voice from the 'public' is powerful and we saw what can happen when we are not vigilant as a Hunting community.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
wow dropped it right down to the old standby...'I'm free to say what I want' come back...Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I guess it's time to stop before we get nailed for bickering....LOL....
And I guess when I go hunting in Pennsylvania then I will become an international harvester. Lol.
Flowerjohn
You are absolutely correct that we don’t need or ask the public for their support with our hunting activity. All we need to do is provide a cleaner image so that their focus is not on us and directed elsewhere. If the usage of one word politically correct or incorrect helps I will most definitely use it.
Never under estimate the influence the public can have on our hunting activity. The cancellation of the Spring Bear Hunt taught us that lesson. If they can have an impact in one area they most definitely can have affect in another area.
Welsh
You are entitled to your opinion that I won’t dispute.
Doesn’t mean that I agree with it but am willing to listen to what you have to say. :)
Ed
I like to think of myself as a licensed "wildlife game manager" given the task of managing our wildlife resources for the government and the good of the herd... :)
I think it's a pretty cool job that comes with some great responsibilities....
Yes you are fratri and be proud of that responsibility that you have on your own shoulders and you take great care in that. It comes with tremendous effort and common sense. Those are all qualities that we strive for.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri