At 08:51 PM 12/31/97 PST, you wrote:
>Kelly & Tweeters:
>
>Speaking of using more reflective terminology, I think The Dept of
>Fish & Wildlife should say "killing" rather than "harvesting" or
>"taking". (In their hunting & fishing regulations.)

I don't agree, I'm afraid. Our hunting and fishing regs do, if I'm
not mistaken, have sanctions against those who merely kill, rather than
harvest or take (which involves killing, of course).

They're written that way for good reason.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting we open hunting and fishing seasons
to those who'd like to just kill fish, deer, etc and leave them to rot.
rather than those who are willing to abide by the laws which require them
to hunt or fish in a harvest or taking (utilization) context?

As long as hunters are required to make use of the meat of their targets,
I think the term "harvest" or "take" is fine. If you insist on dropping
that, wouldn't they be fairly able to insist on dropping the legal
requirement to do anything other than simply kill?

I know one Oregon birder who has "killed" in just this way, in order to
verify rare bird sightings...he didn't eat them, to my knowledge, and the
best-known example turned out to be a western sand rather than the rarity
he'd thought he'd identified...

I'm no hunter, but happen to like venison and elk, and am glad my (very
few) friends who hunt do "harvest" rather than simply "kill".


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net