Some of us spend the months between hunting seasons doing one of two things: preparing for the next season and sharing tales from previous seasons. Storytelling strengthens connections as well as promotes literacy, and it is likely one of the most critical social spaces for hunters to engage in artistic as well as intelligent experimentation. It isn’t easy to overstate the importance of storytelling in the history of human stalking culture, from cave paintings to social media. Stalking is solitary as well as social at the same time, philosophical and biological, physical as well as mental. Storytelling, is critical in shaping and communicating the characteristics of hunters.
Hunters tend to use either the words kill or harvest, and others use them interchangeably, even without giving the origins as well as semantics of the two terms much thought. Some can contend that deconstructing words that result in the same action is pointless. There are good reasons to use one term over another. Hunters prefer the term “kill” to “harvest” for two reasons. They agree that the term “destroy” more accurately expresses their philosophical feelings about their interactions with wildlife.
Others may argue that using the term “harvest” softens the act and makes it more appealing to non-hunters. Some also believe that poaching is an ethical as well as scientifically based environmental activity that is an essential part of the North American fauna management paradigm. The fauna management scheme has resulted in the use of farming metaphors in stalking. Today, this symbolic image of wildlife does not accurately reflect how hunters think about poaching.
After researching, you will discover that “harvest” was being used in place of “hunting” in different areas. Of course, the NRA is on board with the term harvest, although they aren’t precise in its use, it is blended in with more simple verbs like “kill.” The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is so enthusiastic about harvesting that it appears in their mission statement, in addition to being used by their spokesperson. New hunters will print out a First Harvest certificate from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which is amusing.
This is not an admission of anti-hunting prejudice; it is true that humanely hunted game is a much more reliable food source than factory-bred as well as slaughtered livestock. When deceptive language like “harvest” appears in draft laws, having the power to lead the unwary into endorsing activities they would not otherwise advocate. Such as poaching with dogs or assault weapons, as in the NRA backed “right to hunt and fish” constitutional amendments have passed or pending in several jurisdictions. People have always hunted to feed themselves, and they will continue to do so in the future.
Game conservation is the practice of ensuring that a piece of land produces a consistent annual harvest of wild game. The easiest way to understand its essence is to compare it to the other land-cropping arts. Indeed, public ownership of fauna is a core tenet of a fauna management model, and it is one of its most successful aspects. Humans have obligations for animals, according to this viewpoint on wildlife. As a result, rather than exercising the “right” to exploit as well as destroy animals, management is about controlling this position in fulfilling these obligations. These relationships can only be sustained if this commitment is treated with respect because only then can stable wildlife ecosystems be preserved.
With an increase in population, hunting pressure has risen dramatically over time. Excessive poaching to satisfy human needs is still very much alive and well, even if recreational hunting is banned. Increased demand for food and other raw resources that can only be collected from wildlife has accompanied the growth in population. Over hunting is caused by some of the most persistent and deliberate hunting activities.
Does anybody claim to have seen a mountain lion “harvest” a deer? It’s unlikely. The lion is said to have killed the deer, by using the word “kill” in this manner, humans subject themselves to nature as just another animal, rather than above nature as the one in command. The argument here is that the vocabulary being used has linguistic and cultural implications. These connote a particular worldview concerning human encounters with animals, regardless of whether you use the terms harvest or destroy.