HankB
Member
I'll bet Ted Nugent would make a heck of a Hunter Safety instructor! 
So I go to a Hunter Education course...
- Thread starter MSGT9410
- Start date
- Status
For some reason those euphemisms are giving me the willies.
Then again, I've got a working understanding of ecology (and a 7am class on the subject, which means I'm getting up at 5 am :banghead: )
But it's the blatant wordsmithing that really gets to me, it's the same thing that Disney does when they call fingerprinting their 'guests' the 'hand-e-scan'
Then again, I've got a working understanding of ecology (and a 7am class on the subject, which means I'm getting up at 5 am :banghead: )
But it's the blatant wordsmithing that really gets to me, it's the same thing that Disney does when they call fingerprinting their 'guests' the 'hand-e-scan'
Carlos
Member
That is the stupidist, most ignorant thing I've heard all day. I would have left and asked for my money back.
What a friggin moron.
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
Having been a Hunter Education Instructor for nearly 25 years and a NRA Firearm Instructor for over 20 years, let me shed some light on the topic....it is "Hunter" education, not Firearm education. Firearm instuction just happens to be a small part of the overall program mandated by States to obtain a hunting license whereas firearm/weapon specific classes are a whole different game and cover different material.
The firearm portion has nothing to do with personal defense and protection, it only provides a brief overview of firearms to those with little exposure who will use a gun hunting.
A frying pan is a "weapon" if used in an offensive manner....the same applies to firearms, it's all about intent.
Guns are refered to weapons by law enforcement and military because that is how they will most likely be used. As a rule, "Hunting" applications of firearms are not used for protection or self defense. This is why they are not refered to as "Weapons".
The term kill is an accurate description what occurs in hunting....are there less offensive or better choices of words?..yes. "Harvest" does not evoke the same mental picture as "Killer" to the non-shooting public, so why cast more negative upon the sport than is necessary?
Loaded gun in the house?.....this is not a personal protection course or CC classes. It's about "Hunting"....the point is hunting firearms should not be left loaded in the house.
Few things offend gun owners more than the misuse and ignorance of firearms in the movies and televison. Yet that is exactly what gun owners do when they use the wrong terminology and context of firearm usage.
The firearm portion has nothing to do with personal defense and protection, it only provides a brief overview of firearms to those with little exposure who will use a gun hunting.
A frying pan is a "weapon" if used in an offensive manner....the same applies to firearms, it's all about intent.
Guns are refered to weapons by law enforcement and military because that is how they will most likely be used. As a rule, "Hunting" applications of firearms are not used for protection or self defense. This is why they are not refered to as "Weapons".
The term kill is an accurate description what occurs in hunting....are there less offensive or better choices of words?..yes. "Harvest" does not evoke the same mental picture as "Killer" to the non-shooting public, so why cast more negative upon the sport than is necessary?
Loaded gun in the house?.....this is not a personal protection course or CC classes. It's about "Hunting"....the point is hunting firearms should not be left loaded in the house.
Few things offend gun owners more than the misuse and ignorance of firearms in the movies and televison. Yet that is exactly what gun owners do when they use the wrong terminology and context of firearm usage.
Andrew Rothman
Member
The NRA is very clear in its instructor training: It's a "gun" or a "firearm," but never a "weapon."
The NRA, people.
Relax. They're just words, and it's just hunting.
The NRA, people.
Relax. They're just words, and it's just hunting.
Eskimo Jim
Member
write a letter to the head of the Department of Wildlife (or whatever the agency is called in your state) if you wish. Is it really that big of a problem that requires getting excited about? they say Tomato, you say Tomahto. Does it really make that much difference? 
Use their words until you get the certificate, then run from the room muttering killing deer with my weapon etc etc to your heart's content.
Sure it is PC run amok :banghead:
-Jim
Use their words until you get the certificate, then run from the room muttering killing deer with my weapon etc etc to your heart's content.
Sure it is PC run amok :banghead: -Jim
Ryder
Member
It's not totally wrong to say weapons are used by criminals to kill people but so do cops and the military. I subscribe to the belief that "weapons" are for killing people and not animals and I think that's the point he was trying to make so don't be too hard on the guy.
I personally prefer the term "gun". Even though I may kill a person with one someday that's not the sole reason I own it. It's just as a rope can hang a person to death yet I don't call my rope a weapon because it's useful for so many other things. I do possess items which I consider weapons yet even those I don't call weapons. These are only useful for harming people yet even so I don't call them weapons. I call my swords "swords" for example.
Words are funny things. There is a correct and an incorrect use but I feel everyone should have the liberty to pick and choose their own preference. I don't get ticked when somebody calls a magazine a clip as long I understand the meaning. The problem with imposing PC terminology is in it's attempt to control the choices of others. That's anti-freedom.
I am way past having to worry about hunters safety but I do take the CCW indroctinations. State law mandates some of the rediculous things these instructors say. It's not their fault so I don't grief them about it (too much). I resentfully take my certificate and am glad that it's behind me.
I say "let's go hunting". Never "let's go harvest" or "lets go kill". That isn't going to change unless I decide it will and I have a pretty good idea that is not going to happen simply because someone else wants it to be so.
I personally prefer the term "gun". Even though I may kill a person with one someday that's not the sole reason I own it. It's just as a rope can hang a person to death yet I don't call my rope a weapon because it's useful for so many other things. I do possess items which I consider weapons yet even those I don't call weapons. These are only useful for harming people yet even so I don't call them weapons. I call my swords "swords" for example.
Words are funny things. There is a correct and an incorrect use but I feel everyone should have the liberty to pick and choose their own preference. I don't get ticked when somebody calls a magazine a clip as long I understand the meaning. The problem with imposing PC terminology is in it's attempt to control the choices of others. That's anti-freedom.
I am way past having to worry about hunters safety but I do take the CCW indroctinations. State law mandates some of the rediculous things these instructors say. It's not their fault so I don't grief them about it (too much
). I resentfully take my certificate and am glad that it's behind me.I say "let's go hunting". Never "let's go harvest" or "lets go kill". That isn't going to change unless I decide it will and I have a pretty good idea that is not going to happen simply because someone else wants it to be so.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Rembrandt makes some good points. It is a "hunter safety" course, and the whole purpose is exactly that: hunter safety. We don't teach hunting per se, and we don't teach shooting. We try to help folks going into the woods, possibly for the first time, how to do so in a manner that is safe to them and others. We also try to give them a respect for the sport.
Ryder said:
I like the term "harvest" in that I believe it shows respect for the game animal. My own ethic is consistent with this. Sure I kill what I hunt. But the kill isn't the hunt. I hope kids pick up a bit of my respect for the outdoors and the game. I want them to take the time to practice with their firearms/bows so they can be sure of a one-shot kill, and to have the respect that if they wound an animal, they'll track it for nine hours or nine miles if needed. Somehow, "harvesting" communicates that much anticipated end of a successful hunt in the same way "harvest" reflects the end of a successful growing season. "Kill" is accurate, but it is so perfunctory that it doesn't capture "the hunt."
I really wish I could have all would-be hunters read Meditations On Hunting by Jose Ortega Y. Gasset, but I guess that would be too much to ask.
Ryder said:
That's exactly right. We go hunting. But hunting is the full experience of getting ready, spending time afield, and returning home safely, whether or not you've taken game.
I like the term "harvest" in that I believe it shows respect for the game animal. My own ethic is consistent with this. Sure I kill what I hunt. But the kill isn't the hunt. I hope kids pick up a bit of my respect for the outdoors and the game. I want them to take the time to practice with their firearms/bows so they can be sure of a one-shot kill, and to have the respect that if they wound an animal, they'll track it for nine hours or nine miles if needed. Somehow, "harvesting" communicates that much anticipated end of a successful hunt in the same way "harvest" reflects the end of a successful growing season. "Kill" is accurate, but it is so perfunctory that it doesn't capture "the hunt."
I really wish I could have all would-be hunters read Meditations On Hunting by Jose Ortega Y. Gasset, but I guess that would be too much to ask.
MSGT9410
Member
I appreciate the insight provided by members and more notably the other instructors here. Thanks for shedding some light on the subject. I guess I just have a problem with getting reallly annoyed by people constantly using PC terms. I'll work on it.
CentralTexas
Member
Hold on!
Harvest? Sporting Firearm? The "state" for the most part is anti right? These are NRA and gun manufacturer words. Why would the state want you to use softer words that won't upset folks?
Am I wrong?
CT
Harvest? Sporting Firearm? The "state" for the most part is anti right? These are NRA and gun manufacturer words. Why would the state want you to use softer words that won't upset folks?
Am I wrong?
CT
MSGT9410
Member
Maybe North Carolina is just trying to make everyone happy?
It's not?
I kinda like using "harvest", instead of kill, for the fence-sitters benefit. However, I don't like being conditioned to (or seeing kids conditioned to) using "sporting arms" because they are in fact weapons (as I define that term), and if their only use is sporting, then we've got no real need or protection for them under the US Constitution. But still, not too big of a deal at that age.
newfalguy101
Member
Well, as far as "weapon" goes, it's right there in my NRA basic pistol safety course lesson plan that I ought not to use the term, on page III-4, underlined, "Do not use the term weapon in this course. Weapon has a negative connotation."
As for "Harvest", well, I think it better captures the whole picture of what goes on in turning your animal into delicious meals. All the magazines like to ignore the whole part where the rest of the day is hard work with hauling and blood and entrails and skinning/plucking, just like if you shot a ripe wheat field and had to drag it home and make it into bread.
As for "Harvest", well, I think it better captures the whole picture of what goes on in turning your animal into delicious meals. All the magazines like to ignore the whole part where the rest of the day is hard work with hauling and blood and entrails and skinning/plucking, just like if you shot a ripe wheat field and had to drag it home and make it into bread.
Ryder
Member
In regards my reluctance to use "harvesting".
I grew up on a farm. When we harvested crops we did not come home empty handed. I've spent whole seasons in the woods hunting without firing a single shot. We did not use the two terms interchangably. Hunting is recreation, harvesting is work.
Aren't you afraid the term harvesting will give non-hunters the false impression that success is guaranteed and animals are defensless easy pickings? In my opinion this could generate more anti-hunters.
As I said, it doesn't bother me what words others choose. i just wanted to explain myself better.
I grew up on a farm. When we harvested crops we did not come home empty handed. I've spent whole seasons in the woods hunting without firing a single shot. We did not use the two terms interchangably. Hunting is recreation, harvesting is work.
Aren't you afraid the term harvesting will give non-hunters the false impression that success is guaranteed and animals are defensless easy pickings? In my opinion this could generate more anti-hunters.
As I said, it doesn't bother me what words others choose. i just wanted to explain myself better.
cracked butt
Member
I have to concur with the instructors who posted on this thread. My dad was a Hunters Education instructor for about 15 years and it was always "firearm" and "harvest."
I took the NRA Riflle Instructors course a few years ago and it was stressed there that the word "weapon" not be used, but use the word "firearm" instead.
In bothe instances, the course being taught or the course to be taught would be for beginners in the firearms field. It makes more sense to give firearms at least a neutral connotation versus a negative connotation by the words used to describe them. PC crap, yes, but the people being taught are not likely to be shooting 3-gun matches or IDPA anytime soon after taking the courses.
I took the NRA Riflle Instructors course a few years ago and it was stressed there that the word "weapon" not be used, but use the word "firearm" instead.
In bothe instances, the course being taught or the course to be taught would be for beginners in the firearms field. It makes more sense to give firearms at least a neutral connotation versus a negative connotation by the words used to describe them. PC crap, yes, but the people being taught are not likely to be shooting 3-gun matches or IDPA anytime soon after taking the courses.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Ryder, helpful clarification. Most of the kids (and adults) in my classes over the years, despite many being from rural areas, were not actively involved in farming, so they wouldn't have that same point of view.
I, too, have had "dry seasons" (when I didn't take game), but it seems to me that that expression is also consistent with an agricultural metaphor. Extended dry seasons can be "bad things" for farmers, as well as hunters.
We spend some time on ecology, including animal birth rates, life expectancies, habitat carrying capacity, deaths from starvation, predation, and hunting ... all of which give the kids an appreciation for the "cycles of life" that are common understanding to farmers. For many in the class, all they've heard before is the "PC crap" they get in "environmental extremist gradeschool curricula." We try to give them a better understanding of the role sportsmen and women play in conservation. With that backdrop, I think the expression "harvest" makes particularly good sense.
But hey! We're talking about introducing a bunch of newbies to the "sport" of hunting. For some rural families, though, hunting is every bit as much work as farming. They depend on the game taken for food. Many of the kids I taught in central NY State were far different from the upscale, computer-savvy firearms enthusiasts found on THR!
I, too, have had "dry seasons" (when I didn't take game), but it seems to me that that expression is also consistent with an agricultural metaphor. Extended dry seasons can be "bad things" for farmers, as well as hunters.
We spend some time on ecology, including animal birth rates, life expectancies, habitat carrying capacity, deaths from starvation, predation, and hunting ... all of which give the kids an appreciation for the "cycles of life" that are common understanding to farmers. For many in the class, all they've heard before is the "PC crap" they get in "environmental extremist gradeschool curricula." We try to give them a better understanding of the role sportsmen and women play in conservation. With that backdrop, I think the expression "harvest" makes particularly good sense.
But hey! We're talking about introducing a bunch of newbies to the "sport" of hunting. For some rural families, though, hunting is every bit as much work as farming. They depend on the game taken for food. Many of the kids I taught in central NY State were far different from the upscale, computer-savvy firearms enthusiasts found on THR!
XLMiguel
Member
"Semantics", the PC fun game 
Though I well understand the concept of controlling the topic by framing the conversation, which means choosing and controlling the vocabulary carefully, at some point it just gets silly.
I agree that "weapon" has a combat connotation, and one does not do combat with deer and ducks in the normal course of hunting (please, no "bucks gone wild" stories ). "Harvest" is clearly a nod to putting a 'kinder, gentler' face on hunting for the citified, but I wonder where these sensitive souls think their steaks and chops come from? I don't think the term "slaughter house" is about to be replaced with "harvest house" any time soon, nor do I think it has caused too many to turn from carnivore to vegitarian. Then again, we "dress" game rather than butcher it, though I couldn't tell the difference the last time I took a deer apart.
Allin all, it's pretty stupid, but I'll concede it may be necessary to protect the sport in this day and age. :banghead:
Though I well understand the concept of controlling the topic by framing the conversation, which means choosing and controlling the vocabulary carefully, at some point it just gets silly.
I agree that "weapon" has a combat connotation, and one does not do combat with deer and ducks in the normal course of hunting (please, no "bucks gone wild" stories
). "Harvest" is clearly a nod to putting a 'kinder, gentler' face on hunting for the citified, but I wonder where these sensitive souls think their steaks and chops come from? I don't think the term "slaughter house" is about to be replaced with "harvest house" any time soon, nor do I think it has caused too many to turn from carnivore to vegitarian. Then again, we "dress" game rather than butcher it, though I couldn't tell the difference the last time I took a deer apart.Allin all, it's pretty stupid, but I'll concede it may be necessary to protect the sport in this day and age. :banghead:
birddog
Member
Ryder, that is one of the best rationales for not using "harvest" that I've heard yet.
I like to use the words "shoot" or "kill" even in mixed company, because I'm a big fan of the truth. But I'm also not against saying something like "it was a successful hunt". "Harvest" just seems disingenuous to me...But that's just me.
I like to use the words "shoot" or "kill" even in mixed company, because I'm a big fan of the truth. But I'm also not against saying something like "it was a successful hunt". "Harvest" just seems disingenuous to me...But that's just me.
PC semantics. Use it if you like it. "Firearm" seems not overly objectionable to my ears, however, I get tired of the overuse of "harvest."
I am a "weapon" kinda guy, ever since the gentle ministrations of my drill sergeants set me on the path of righteousness. Any firearm and any carrying blade is a weapon to me.
I am a "weapon" kinda guy, ever since the gentle ministrations of my drill sergeants set me on the path of righteousness. Any firearm and any carrying blade is a weapon to me.
Berek
Member
The People of the U.S. vs. PC
Ok, I guess I have to pipe up. In NY, these Hunter Education classes are free. You don't pay for the books, the targets, additional handouts or even the privilage to show up. The instructors are volunteers. We do not get paid ANYTHING to teach these classes even though we have to tolerate a great deal.
In order to be certified as a teacher, we are required to use the terminology that the state tells us to, which include the terms "Harvest", "firearm" and "entrails". We have to refrain from calling the anti-hunters and anti-gun people names, regardless of how outraged we feel.
Using the PC terms helps to show the anti-'s that we are not all like the stereotype that hunters have. Sometimes it is difficult to remember to use the terms that the state tells us we have to instead of "killed" and "gutted". Have I used these terms outside of class? Yes, to other hunters who are not offeneded by the imagery that these terms provoke.
I guess my point would be this. It is a privilage to attend these classes in order to get the required license you need to have the privilage to hunt. In my state, you do not pay, so deal. If you are outraged that we use PC terms in the class, don't attend. It's 12 hours and it's free. If you want to hunt legally, it's a small price to pay.
I do not, however, condone instructors that do not even know what model firearm they own or are demonstrating. That's just stupid. If you're going to teach it, know it. If you don't know it, learn it. If you're not going to learn it, go away.
Just my opinions.
Berek
PS: You could probably tell by my taglines that I'm not all that PC outside of class....
Ok, I guess I have to pipe up. In NY, these Hunter Education classes are free. You don't pay for the books, the targets, additional handouts or even the privilage to show up. The instructors are volunteers. We do not get paid ANYTHING to teach these classes even though we have to tolerate a great deal.
In order to be certified as a teacher, we are required to use the terminology that the state tells us to, which include the terms "Harvest", "firearm" and "entrails". We have to refrain from calling the anti-hunters and anti-gun people names, regardless of how outraged we feel.
Using the PC terms helps to show the anti-'s that we are not all like the stereotype that hunters have. Sometimes it is difficult to remember to use the terms that the state tells us we have to instead of "killed" and "gutted". Have I used these terms outside of class? Yes, to other hunters who are not offeneded by the imagery that these terms provoke.
I guess my point would be this. It is a privilage to attend these classes in order to get the required license you need to have the privilage to hunt. In my state, you do not pay, so deal. If you are outraged that we use PC terms in the class, don't attend. It's 12 hours and it's free. If you want to hunt legally, it's a small price to pay.
I do not, however, condone instructors that do not even know what model firearm they own or are demonstrating. That's just stupid. If you're going to teach it, know it. If you don't know it, learn it. If you're not going to learn it, go away.
Just my opinions.
Berek
PS: You could probably tell by my taglines that I'm not all that PC outside of class....
Ryder
Member
I am not totally at odds with use of the term for hunting. Hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings over this. I do believe harvest is acceptable usage when referring to larger aspects of hunting.
A reporter stating that there were 300,000 participants in this state's annual deer harvest sounds perfectly fine to my ears. A conservation officer looking forward to next years doe harvest? Nothing wrong with that. So there obviously is a place for the term in teaching new hunters about the harvest hunters participate in.
A reporter stating that there were 300,000 participants in this state's annual deer harvest sounds perfectly fine to my ears. A conservation officer looking forward to next years doe harvest? Nothing wrong with that. So there obviously is a place for the term in teaching new hunters about the harvest hunters participate in.
I have raised and taught my three sons to hunt whitetails, beginning when they were little tykes who got to tag along with me up to the present where they have become my trusted hunting companions. One of the greatest lessons I emphasized to them is the gravity of taking a life. I think the use of the term "harvest" glosses over the reality of what we do as hunters and disrespects the high regard for all living things that we need to possess.
I harvest tomatoes from my garden each year, but I have never "harvested" a deer or an elk. Do cougars "harvest" their meals?
Killing is not an abhorrent practice, it is part of the natural cycle, and when we choose to take our place as hunters in the food chain, it is likely that we will eventually kill. Maybe if we were less concerned about offending the sensitivities of those whose aim is to deprive us of our heritage and more honest with ourselves, the "fence-sitters" would become a bit less squeamish. Maybe a few come to realize and accept that meat is not born on a styrofoam plate with a cellophane wrapping, and that hunting is simply an alternative choice to USDA fare that benefits the health of the herds and those who pursue them.
And as for my children, they do not relish the taking of a life, but they understand the role of the hunter and accept the consequences of their actions. They do not take their responsibilities lightly, and have learned that making a clean and fast kill is the paramount consideration when they must decide whether to drop the hammer.
I'm not so sure that lesson can be understood if one is taught to view his quarry as he would an ear of corn.
I harvest tomatoes from my garden each year, but I have never "harvested" a deer or an elk. Do cougars "harvest" their meals?
Killing is not an abhorrent practice, it is part of the natural cycle, and when we choose to take our place as hunters in the food chain, it is likely that we will eventually kill. Maybe if we were less concerned about offending the sensitivities of those whose aim is to deprive us of our heritage and more honest with ourselves, the "fence-sitters" would become a bit less squeamish. Maybe a few come to realize and accept that meat is not born on a styrofoam plate with a cellophane wrapping, and that hunting is simply an alternative choice to USDA fare that benefits the health of the herds and those who pursue them.
And as for my children, they do not relish the taking of a life, but they understand the role of the hunter and accept the consequences of their actions. They do not take their responsibilities lightly, and have learned that making a clean and fast kill is the paramount consideration when they must decide whether to drop the hammer.
I'm not so sure that lesson can be understood if one is taught to view his quarry as he would an ear of corn.
Scoupe
Member
Somehow this quote from Lewis Carroll's "Through the looking glass, and what Alice found there" seems oddly appropriate.
To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'
`Certainly,' said Alice.
`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything;
As a formal journalist and a current video producer of internal corporate propaganda, I select and use words carefully, not just for PC-ness but for precision in meaning and connotation. Words can have great power. Or they can be just babble that sounds good.
To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'
`Certainly,' said Alice.
`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything;
As a formal journalist and a current video producer of internal corporate propaganda, I select and use words carefully, not just for PC-ness but for precision in meaning and connotation. Words can have great power. Or they can be just babble that sounds good.
- Status
