Zimbabwe lion

[MikePal]

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...

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....

[flowerjohn]

We hunt them we kill them and we eat them. What could be more basic to human life? Simple.

[welsh]

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...

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.

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.

[ET1]

We hunt them we kill them and we eat them. What could be more basic to human life? Simple.

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

[flowerjohn]

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.

[welsh]

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.

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.

People are fully aware that hunting involves killing animals, and most people support it.

[MikePal]

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.

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.

..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.

[welsh]

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.

[MikePal]

The hunt is governed by rules and regulations that can be altered by an outcry from the public.

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.

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.

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.

[MikePal]

Last I checked, this is a free country, and I was allowed to express that opinion.

wow dropped it right down to the old standby...'I'm free to say what I want' come back...

I guess it's time to stop before we get nailed for bickering....LOL....