Bowsite.com
The Nation's Leading Bowhunting Website
Why we hunt is a tough question to answer and even harder to convey to our non-hunting friends. Above anything else, this simple, yet complicated question may determine the future of our beloved sport. Fred Bear said, “I hunt because I love the entire process: the preparation, the excitement, and the sustained suspense of trying to match my woodlore against the finely honed creatures. On most days spent in the woods, I come home with an honestly earned feeling that something good has taken place. It makes no difference whether I got anything: it has to do with how the day was spent.” Although most of us can understand what Bear was saying, “Do you think a non-hunter or anti-hunter would understand?” Probably not. In an attempt to answer this question I went onto the Internet and asked hunters and professional wildlife biologists their opinions. The question generated an enormous amount of responses and proved the importance to both groups. All their answers spurred another question in our conversations about hunting, “Should we use the term kill or harvest?” The purpose of this article will be to try to explain the answers both hunters and biologists gave and their role in the future of hunting. Before we get into the reasons why we hunt, a classic paper by Dr. Robert Jackson described hunter satisfactions and expectations. He believed that hunters go through five stages: Jackson listed specific reasons why we hunt as seeing deer, utilizing hunting skills, nature appreciation, exercise, escape from routine, solitude and companionship with family and friends. His research found 81 percent of all bowhunters interviewed said they would miss bowhunting more than all other hunting activities. Whereas, 61 percent of gun hunters said they would miss gun hunting more than most or all other interests. Additionally, only 8 percent of bowhunters classified their hunting experience with taking game or competing against other hunters bagging deer. When I was in graduate school at West Virginia University, Dr. Dave Samuel (author of " Know Hunting", and Bowhunter Magazine’s, Conservation Editor) presented Jackson’s paper to us in a course entitled Managing Upland Wildlife. During one of his classes the topic of hunting came up and he directed a pointed question to me, “Why do you hunt?” My answer was quick and simple, “Because I like to kill animals.” With that answer, Dr. Dave was all over me and asked, “If you hunted the best ranch in the world and shot a B&C buck every single time, would you still hunt?” My answer was yes, no doubt about it! I challenged him by saying, if killing wasn’t a major reason why you hunt, why don’t you go and hunt with a camera or binoculars? Dr. Dave was pretty hot with my comments and explained to me that killing is simply a by-product of why he hunts, it is NOT a priority! Our conversation basically deteriorated from that point, but he planted a question in me that I think about it a lot when I’m hunting and I’m sure other hunters also ponder. Back then, being young and naive my answer was the honest truth and I just couldn’t understand why he didn’t understand what I was saying. Since then, I have taken many critters with my bow and now believe I know where he was coming from, and must humble myself and admit he was absolutely right! Let me explain, I like to describe why we hunt in terms of a hunting triangle. Each point of my triangle is made up of three independent variables. The first point of my hunting triangle is the Harvest (or kill), the other points are the Challenge and Experience. If you remember, when we first start to hunt the taking of an animal is of utmost importance. To proudly say that we finally harvested a game animal is a goal that’s very important to a young hunter. After taking a number of critters, many hunters advance to the archery or muzzleloading ranks. Thus, after a few years the challenge becomes important and in many cases overrides the actual harvest. Later in life, the experience becomes the most important factor. As the old saying goes; been their, done that. In this stage, we now hunt to see the gleam in a young hunter’s eyes. Hunters in this category easily give up a good deer stand, just so a “green-horn” will be able to experience what they have done so many times and for so many years. Granted, many other variables may be included in my example, but most fit under these three categories of my hunting triangle. Take for granted the beginning of the archery season, although we may now mainly hunt for the experience or the challenge, we just have to shoot a deer for freezer meat or to get one under our belt. Thus, throughout our lives and season there is a struggle between the three variables. Some hunters are content with being in the middle, while others switch to points of the hunting triangle on a daily basis. Although each variable is not equally important throughout our lives they are all part of why we hunt. Many hunters never advance past the harvest stage. Is that wrong? Absolutely NOT! To say that we do not hunt to take an animal’s life would be naive of me. But, many times greed and the “numbers game” enters the picture. Thus, many friendships have been destroyed due to self-serving hunters only thinking about themselves and not the resource or their fellow hunters. In an attempt to answer, “Why hunters hunt”, I posted this question to my Internet buddies on www.bowsite.com. Their answers were varied between the three variables of harvest, challenge and experience. “Jersey Bob” states, “I live my life as a manager in a very large corporation in a very large city, surrounded by people who can’t deal with an out-of-service elevator. When I kill a deer I have accomplished something that I consider challenging, by myself. I have the gratification of 100% self, sufficiency.” “Seapig” wrote, “The kill is not important. It’s like any sport, watching is OK for a while, but the real rewards come when you participate. Sure we can go into the woods and be a spectator, or we can go to hunt and be part of the circle of life”. Many argued that hunting is almost a religious experience for them. I agree. There isn’t a hunt that goes by where I don’t say a prayer or whenever I harvest an animal. Harvest versus KillIf you haven’t already noticed, I purposely haven’t said the “kill” word. Why? Well, I guess it’s my wildlife biology background. Sure, many biologists use the kill when we’re in the presence of hunters or other professionals. But, many are very careful not to say it in the presence of a non-hunter. Some may say, that biologists are being pretentious and have something to hide or that it’s a question of semantics. Some folks argue that harvest is an euphemism for the word kill. Listen to what some wildlife biologists say. Dr. Ben Payton from Michigan State University states, “Harvest reflects the role hunting in wildlife management and suggests a larger context than one person killing one animal. Biologists are not hiding or being defensive when we avoid terms such as kill that elicit undesirable images, perceptions and reactions among some of the audience…We are being sensitive.” Stan Gehrt from the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation states, “If an animal is harvested, you can assume it was killed by a certain method (bow, firearm), the appropriate time of the killing, that the killer/hunter followed certain constraints to provide fair chase for the animal, and that the sportsperson was following certain ethical guidelines that are not necessarily mandated.” Social scientist, Deborah Green wrote, “I am well aware of the power of language and the importance of word choice. Harvest reflects the role of hunting in wildlife management and suggests a larger context than one person killing one animal.” I agree with all these points because wildlife biologists deal with populations, not individuals. The term harvest deals with a population, not an individual one. In other words, we kill wildlife to obtain a harvest. In my opinion, harvest more precisely describes the process by which I kill animals, which elicits broader, more honest and positive connotation. In my opinion, the word kill should be used whenever an incidental or accidental removal of an animal occurs such as a nuisance or highway statistic. When we use the word kill, it implies there was no point behind it, whereas harvest has a goal or management premise behind it. Overall, most the biologists who responded agreed that the correct word to use is harvest. Of course, everyone should first get a feel for your audience and then make the appropriate decision on which terminology to use. Dr. Robert Schmidt from Utah State University says, “Society is concerned about how animals are killed. This is true for pet animals, food animals, research animals, performing animals and yes, wildlife.” Thus, by educating the non-hunting public to the values of the word, “harvest”, maybe we wouldn’t be having so much trouble with these words. Biologist, Roger Barr probably says is best, “If we have opinions we believe are correct because of our training and expertise, it is up to us to inform members of the media so they don’t pass off distortions of the truth in the name of fact.” An interesting point came up in using the word, “harvest” for crops. A few biologists mentioned that when we harvest corn or wheat, the plants are already dead. Thus, we do not “kill” the plant because they are already dead. Of course, exceptions do occur like in the case of silage or putting up hay, in which case the alfalfa or grass is in full bloom. Thus, technically we kill these plants. Hunters on Bowsite.com had some interesting comments concerning the use of harvest versus kill. “Ironbow” said, “ I do not want to offend the non-hunter, so I may use the word harvest on occasion, but we should not hide or be embarrassed by what we do…there is no need to be offensive with it either.” “Labdad” stated, “We spend too much time trying to avoid offending non-hunters and anti-hunters. In my opinion, you harvest crops; you kill game. Is it dirty to use the word? I don’t think so, it’s the reality of life. In killing an animal legally, I am exercising my right as an outdoor person to take game for the consumption of my family. It is a necessary to kill in order to do this.” “Bowyer” says, “I have drifted to using harvest and taking, however our speech has softened over the years and I see no problem using softer speech to avoid offending people”.
“Dan C. in PA” says, “I am a self-proclaimed hunter who stands proud of that select membership and title. I would however take exception to those who would call me a killer. I am a hunter. In my opinion there is a difference. The death of an animal or kill is the ultimate consequence rather than intention of my hunt”. “Don Schultz” says, “I’ve used both depending on my opinion of the people. I was talking to my wife, a non-hunter, but supportive of my hunting, objects to me using “harvest”. She feels it is sugar coated, and not honest”. “Deerdreamer” says, “My non-hunting friends ask me; “Did you catch a deer?” None of them ever ask if I killed a deer. Since they always avoid the word kill, I do the same when I’m around them. I’ll use terms such as got, caught, took, and very rarely harvest, but never kill. “Bowbender” believes, “While we must make every effort not to offend non-hunters, I don’t think we should become politically correct in our speech or in the articles we write. Bill Wonderling takes it one step further, “Do we as hunters harvest or kill our game? It doesn’t matter how we describe it, it only matters that we have the opportunity to enjoy it.” Overall, “Doc in PA” probably says it best, “We need to demonstrate that we are responsible, dedicated, honest and sincere people who love animals at least as much as the non-hunters. Neither term should be off limits, there is a time for the soft euphemism, and the time for directness.” Is this whole issue a matter of semantics? I believe both sides would agree it’s not what we say, but how we say it, that reflects on what hunting is all about. Although we all hunt for various reasons, I understand that a hunter’s primary intent is to kill an animal for food. Thus, sportsmen may never even think or use the term harvest. But, maybe if they really understood their role in wildlife management they would! In Dr. Dave Samuel’s, “Know Hunting” column in Bowhunter he has mentioned many times that one way of educating our non-hunting friends is by having wild game dinners. He’s right, no one would argue with his recommendation. But, Rick Wilson from the Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry www.fhfh.org has taken it one step further. Wilson started a non-profit, venison feeding ministry through his church in Hagerstown, Maryland that he’s implementing nationwide. If you are not familiar, the one main obstacle all states have in feeding the hungry is the funding issue. Wilson and Maryland DNR biologist, Doug Wigfield convinced the wildlife department to include a voluntary $1.00 (or more) check off box to be included on all hunting licenses to pay for the butchering of donated deer. The donation box seems to be the icing on the cake for this long-term marriage between the MD – DNR and FHFH. This is a fantastic idea that all states may want to consider to counter any financial problem associated with feeding the hungry. Once again, hunters are taking the lead in conservation and the need to feed the unfortunate. Many believe the future of our beloved may well depend on organizations like FHFH and dedicated people like Wilson. Industry leaders also see the benefits in organizations like FHFH. API treestands, Easton arrows, IBO, Mathews, Knight Rifles, Mossy Oak, the North American Hunting Club, Scent-Lok and Whitetails Unlimited have been some of FHFH’s best sponsors. Ameristep, Buck Knives, Hawg’s Limited Synthetic Scents, LEM Products, Loggy Bayou, Bowsite.com, Muzzy broadheads, Nature’s Essense, Pope and Young Club, Quality Deer Management Association, Suzuki, Tiger Tuff arrow rests and Vulcan Outdoors have also joined the FHFH team of sponsors. Companies like these are surely a blessing to all of us in the hunting community. Wilson showed me a letter from non-hunter, Ms. Kathy Marks. She said, “I have always been avidly opposed to hunting. But the story about FHFH really got my attention and gave me some hope for all concerned (the animals, who won’t die in vein to grace the wall of someone’s game room and those people who truly need help). My husband was really surprised when I told him I wanted to make a donation”. Obviously, organizations like FHFH can only help our beloved sport! Is there a happy medium between using words like kill and harvest? I think so. Admittedly I’m bias, but if this subject educates one hunter to better communicate to an non-hunter on why we hunt and the proper usage of words like kill and harvest, then my purpose has been met and our sport will thrive. Although we all hunt for various reasons, if hunters really understand their role in wildlife management we would all be viewed in a more positive light!
Bowsite.com asked this question: By using words such as “harvesting” animals rather than “killing” them, refusing to wear camo in public, and hiding our sport from non-hunters – have we become too Politically Correct? Out of the 441 respondents, a total of 69 percent said yes.
|
