Post by BuckMaster on Dec 21, 2006 11:57:13 GMT -5
I was reading an article in the Maryland Independent Sports section about this years deer "Harvest" compared to last years. The article starts off with this but then the writer goes off on some tangent about how DNR is trying to make hunting more apealing by calling a hunted deer a "Harvest" and not a "Kill"
What do you guys think?
here is a portion of the article.
Thankfully, that goal has been met, and hats off to Maryland’s DNR for a job well done.
My only complaint is the language it continues to use, and I’m not alone with that concern. My good friend, Gene Mueller of the Washington Times, has also mentioned how he feels about the DNR’s word choice lately to describe the deer kills throughout the state.
For example, in this most recent press release, the word ‘‘harvest” is in the title, used in some form five times in the first paragraph, and then three more times on just the first page.
When I was in school, we learned that something was either animal, vegetable or mineral, right?
Didn’t you learn that?
Sure, and one ‘‘harvests” vegetables.
That’s a logical use of the word. It’s OK to say, ‘‘The farmer harvests potatoes or the farmer is harvesting his corn crop tomorrow.”
That sounds right.
I believe we’d go about collecting minerals such as, ‘‘The highway engineer collected a rock sample from that mountain over there so he will know how much dynamite to bring along next week when he blows it up and pollutes the nearby stream for that new inter-county connector route.”
I guess it’s politically correct to tell a child, ‘‘Young man, you are so lucky, for Santa is going to bring you some exceptional black, shiny and unique nuggets that are almost magical because they can keep you warm on winter’s coldest night.”
Or, should we just say: ‘‘Hey kid, you get no presents. Santa is only going to put coal in your stocking this year.”
That kind of sugarcoating is not really unlike how our DNR is trying to make hunting sound so innocent and not injurious at all.
I simply don’t think it should continue to use the word harvest when referring to deer taken out of the woods by hunters.
It sounds equally silly with fish. ‘‘We had a great day, and harvested 32 white perch by noon.”
We harvest peas or beans or wheat, not fish, ducks or deer.
The truth is, with animals, we sometimes ‘‘kill” them, and glossing over that action with the word ‘‘harvest” by our DNR isn’t fooling anyone.
Let’s just start calling it like it is, or maybe we ought to change all references.
I think most of us would find it pretty strange to read in the paper about a drive-by shooting, ‘‘The killer fired three shots into the vehicle and harvested that nice old lady who lived around the corner.”
Come on, DNR, let’s lose the word ‘‘harvest.”
What do you guys think?
here is a portion of the article.
Thankfully, that goal has been met, and hats off to Maryland’s DNR for a job well done.
My only complaint is the language it continues to use, and I’m not alone with that concern. My good friend, Gene Mueller of the Washington Times, has also mentioned how he feels about the DNR’s word choice lately to describe the deer kills throughout the state.
For example, in this most recent press release, the word ‘‘harvest” is in the title, used in some form five times in the first paragraph, and then three more times on just the first page.
When I was in school, we learned that something was either animal, vegetable or mineral, right?
Didn’t you learn that?
Sure, and one ‘‘harvests” vegetables.
That’s a logical use of the word. It’s OK to say, ‘‘The farmer harvests potatoes or the farmer is harvesting his corn crop tomorrow.”
That sounds right.
I believe we’d go about collecting minerals such as, ‘‘The highway engineer collected a rock sample from that mountain over there so he will know how much dynamite to bring along next week when he blows it up and pollutes the nearby stream for that new inter-county connector route.”
I guess it’s politically correct to tell a child, ‘‘Young man, you are so lucky, for Santa is going to bring you some exceptional black, shiny and unique nuggets that are almost magical because they can keep you warm on winter’s coldest night.”
Or, should we just say: ‘‘Hey kid, you get no presents. Santa is only going to put coal in your stocking this year.”
That kind of sugarcoating is not really unlike how our DNR is trying to make hunting sound so innocent and not injurious at all.
I simply don’t think it should continue to use the word harvest when referring to deer taken out of the woods by hunters.
It sounds equally silly with fish. ‘‘We had a great day, and harvested 32 white perch by noon.”
We harvest peas or beans or wheat, not fish, ducks or deer.
The truth is, with animals, we sometimes ‘‘kill” them, and glossing over that action with the word ‘‘harvest” by our DNR isn’t fooling anyone.
Let’s just start calling it like it is, or maybe we ought to change all references.
I think most of us would find it pretty strange to read in the paper about a drive-by shooting, ‘‘The killer fired three shots into the vehicle and harvested that nice old lady who lived around the corner.”
Come on, DNR, let’s lose the word ‘‘harvest.”