# Harvesting opinions



## Boom Boom (May 31, 2005)

I have something on my mind that's troubling me. My friends brother harvested a doe Saturday a.m. I have no problem with that. What's bugging me is that he took the deer to the Salvation Army (or some group like that) to have them process & donate the meat. His intentions were good but I have issues with him taking the deer off public land. If it was on private land for herd management, or from a farmers farm for crop damage control I could understand. IMO he truly "hunted" strictly for sport (not even for a monster buck). What do you think?


----------



## crankus_maximus (Apr 14, 2004)

I think this is OK. People hunt for different reasons. He hunted for the thrill o f it. he did not waste the meat. Deer are a public asset. Even if they cross onto private land they are a public asset that we all share. So, whether you harvest the deer on private or public land doesn't much matter. He did not waste the meat and it was definitely put to good use. I would not personally be that giving. I would make sure my family had enough meat and then donate an excess as he has done.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

crankus_maximus said:


> People hunt for different reasons.


No doubt about it. 

Your friend in your mind apparently hunted just for the kill, but I hate to try and think that I know others thoughts and motivations. Maybe he intends to keep the next one for himself and this act was truly one of generosity and compassion for those in need, or it could be just as you read the situation or anywhere in between.

It is not an act(if your assertion is true) that I would personally do or encourage but I also won't criticize your friend for taking an animal and donating it, it's all within the laws.


----------



## jiggin'fool (Dec 18, 2005)

just think of him getting your buck to doe ratio closer to where it needs to be! come november the bucks will be fighting each other off and chasing harder if their ratio is closer! Ihad a buddy do it for a local needy woman and her kids...shot the doe took it to a processor who in turn split the cost of processing to donate to this lady! I find that very respectable... usually I do that every year! someone i know say they wouldnt mind haveing a deer I say you pay the processing and I will get you one! they are not big on hunting but love the meat! I get the excitement of the hunt and they get to have some venison steaks and burgers!


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

You really have to be looking to have a problem if you have a problem with him donating meat simply because it was taken from public land. Personally, I have a problem with people calling it "harvesting". They aren't crops, they're animals. People should worry only about why they hunt themselves, and not worry about why others hunt. I really have to wonder about someone's true intentions if this is something that bothers them.


----------



## Fishstix (Aug 16, 2005)

What he did is alright by me. First off, even most public land has the buck/doe ratio out of whack. I feel it is very important to fill atleast one tag with a doe. I shoot 2 mature does every year to help with the buck/doe ratio on our property. Secondly, he gave the deer to charity. I am big on community service/charity. I feel that was a very generous thought.


----------



## bigjohn513 (Apr 6, 2004)

I think you should be giving your friend a pat on the back for a good thing and get over the fact that he got a deer and im guessing you didnt


----------



## flypilot33 (Feb 9, 2006)

I think what he did was a good thing. Like many people have said about the ratio, that is one thing that stands out as this being a good thing. Next he donated it, I think there needs to be more people like that.


----------



## Flathead King 06 (Feb 26, 2006)

All in all, your friend has done a great thing, he has given up a deer permit to help feed several people. The only problem I see in giving up your own kill is that in order for you to actually be able to give it up to the salvation army, the deer has to be processed at your expence, by a recommended butcher.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

I see absolutely no problem with what your friend done. Some people take great pride in helping others. Maybe its way of giving back. I personally donate deer to my non-hunting friends every year after my family has been taking care of first. I always make sure I have some one to take one before I harvest another one though. With all the negativity hunters get, this is a great way to show that hunters are truly caring people not the monsters that groups like PETA portray us as.


----------



## crankus_maximus (Apr 14, 2004)

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary - 



> Main Entry: 2harvest
> Function: verb
> transitive verb
> 1 a : to gather in (a crop) : REAP b : to gather, catch, hunt, or kill (as salmon, oysters, or deer) for human use, sport, or population control c : to remove or extract (as living cells, tissues, or organs) from culture or from a living or recently deceased body especially for transplanting
> ...


----------



## Pure river (Sep 12, 2005)

I have to agree with the group here! As some of you probably know I am a huge QDM proponent. With the current situation in some areas the doe population needs to be curbed.
I have a friend that his property is overran with them severly skewing the proper male to felmal ratio that should be in place. I often preach "Quality, not quantity" which often goes against what some hunters would rather have. People LIKE TO SEE DEER...regardless weather its a ballnaced herd or not..they like to see deer. 

The state pretty much has our hands tied in controlling the numbers. The only way to do it is legally get more people/hunters involved and KILL(that was for Mangus  MORE DOES. If it takes measures like your friend aplied to accomplish this goal, then I have to say more power to them. One problem lies in simply "getting more people hunting" ..not all of them want or NEED TWO OR THREE DEER. Often to control LOCAL..numbers these "extra" deer are often donated to a good cause.

I myself enjoy hunting and understand management needs. But..also can only eat so much venison. I would assume your friend is still elligable to take another deer and possibly an Urban deer. Unless he is a voracious eater, one deer woudl be plenty for his houshold.

I think he did a great thing.

PR


----------



## Onion (Apr 10, 2004)

A great man once said:

"I would like to start with something I have used in almost every speech, and this is, "paying forward." And that is the thing that you folks can do with your great education for the rest of your life.

Try to take that attitude toward life, that you're going to pay forward. So seldom can we pay back because those who helped most--your parents and other people--will be gone, but you'll find that you do want to pay. Emerson had something to say about that: "You can pay back only seldom." But he said, "You can always pay forward, and you must pay line for line, deed for deed, and cent for cent." He said, "Beware of too much good accumulating in your palm or it will fast corrupt." That was Emerson's attitude, and no one put it better than he did."

Seems like he was just paying forward a little bit.


----------



## crankus_maximus (Apr 14, 2004)

Very nice post onion.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

crankus_maximus, I never said I don't understand what it means, I only said I don't like to see it used when referring to hunting. It is accurate, but it's simply a way of cowering to the bunny huggers. If a person isn't proud of what they do, they shouldn't do it. However, that's not what this post is about, though the wording of the original post makes me wonder.


----------



## crankus_maximus (Apr 14, 2004)

Good point about the purpose of the post. However, the definition for harvest says to kill for sport, as in hunting. I intermix the word harvest and kill. It just depends on who the audience is. 

I am not becoming more tolerant of the tree huggers, I am just trying to keep the harsh words down for the fence-sitters. Those are the people I want to sway our way - not the tree/bunny huggers. We'll never change their minds, but the people in the middle are the ones who haven't made up their mind are the important demographic.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

I think many may be missing the point or question in the original post. maybe I'm wrong but,

I read the question as dealing more with killing just for the sake of killing. The original question has been overshadowed by the donation of the deer to help the needy, a good thing in anyone's opinion I hope.

It does not change the original question however. If a person (don't know if it applies to this guy or not) hunts only for the kill and nothing else doesn't it go against much of what we hold sacred as hunters? I personally am against killing just for the sake of killing. If this guy would have just left the deer to lay, and not donated it would you feel differently? We don't know this guys motivation, does he hunt to help the needy? Does he hunt just so he can kill something? Does he hunt to help control buck to doe ratio's   

If, if, if, this guy just hunts just to kill stuff and see how many he can kill in a year just so he can tell his buddies how many deer he killed, he is not the kind of person that I would hunt with, but that's just my personal feelings, nothing more.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

I understand what your saying crankus_maximus, and I actually agree, though I personally don't use the term "harvest". However, I'm still extremly suspicious of this post and it's intents. Someone needs to climb down from their high horse and realize that just because someone donates a deer doesn't mean they're simply killing to kill. To me, the only way one could come to that conclusion is if they were trying to find fault.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Okay, playing devils advocate. Another way of looking at this is people fish for fun. Some have no intentions of eating their catch what so ever. Say if they kept their catch to give someone, does that make them "bad" people? Bass fishermen do not keep their catch. Are they bad? Fishing has catch and release, hunting obviously doesn't. If the guy wants to hunt because he enjoys the thrill of being in the outdoors, so be it. No one on here can say they hunt because they have to. Everyone can go to the local store and buy their own meat. You do it for the sport, camaraderie, etc. As long as he is legal with his license and permits, the law allows it. If he doesn't want the deer, he did the right thing by donating the deer to the needy. He could of left it but he didn't. If he would have kept the deer for his own eating, what is the difference if it came from public or private? Does it really matter where he shot it? JMHO


----------



## Onion (Apr 10, 2004)

Wow...now I can't talk the way I want because it cowers to the "bunny huggers". I have an idea, how about the thought police stay on the PETA side of the fence.

By the way, most people who know me would classify me as a tree hugger. Not all of us are anti-hunting/fishing. In fact, if people (outdoors people and many "tree huggers") would do a little investigation into the roots of the environmental movement they would realize that the people who started it (Teddy Roosevelt, Thoreau, John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Edward Abbey) were all hunters/fishermen.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Onion, I didn't say you couldn't say it, I just personally don't like it. Just me.



> if people (outdoors people and many "tree huggers") would do a little investigation into the roots of the environmental movement they would realize that the people who started it (Teddy Roosevelt, Thoreau, John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Edward Abbey) were all hunters/fishermen.


I think most of us already know that, but I'm having a hard time understanding your point.


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

Onion said:


> I have an idea, how about the thought police stay on the PETA side of the fence.


???????????????


----------



## DavidT (Feb 3, 2006)

Yeah, I'm a tree-hugger. Every time I use my climber!


----------



## crankus_maximus (Apr 14, 2004)

Ha-ha! I'm gonna be one too, if the storms blow a different direction tonight!


----------



## Onion (Apr 10, 2004)

M.Magis said:


> Onion, I didn't say you couldn't say it, I just personally don't like it. Just me.
> 
> 
> I think most of us already know that, but I'm having a hard time understanding your point.


You don't like it, but you also cast dispersions on the validity of the post, as though the OP may be some plant from the "bunny huggers". If I choose to reference a dead deer as a "harvested" deer that should not open a door for someone to question my beliefs, or accuse me of siding with the "bunny huggers".

On the other statement, my point is that when you (not you specifically since you do not specifically reference tree huggers) paint with a broad brush you get a lot of people wet. On this board, and nearly every other outdoors message board, environmentalists are lumped in with animal rights morons as being opposed to hunting or fishing. This could not be more false for the majority of "tree huggers" I know.


----------



## Pure river (Sep 12, 2005)

nice and toasty in my BARN!! HAAAAAAAAA

PR


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Onion, I think your making more out of what I said than I meant. The word "harvest" isn't what lead me to question the intentions of the post. I was only using it to make the point that we may not all agree or understand why others do things, but that doesn't make them wrong. 
I agree with most of your second paragraph, but I think we're getting a bit off topic.


----------



## Boom Boom (May 31, 2005)

Thanks for all the responses. If you read my original post this is my friends brother, I personally don't know this guy or his ethics. There has been a few comments about the validity of this post. I don't want to disappoint anyone but I am not from PETA, I enjoy to hunt and fish like most others on this forum. Just getting opinions.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

I didn't mean to offend you, but I've seen the "bait and trap" posts too many times. More often than not, they question the ethics of a kill in some way or another.


----------



## Boom Boom (May 31, 2005)

M.Magis...no offense taken. I've seen the "bait & trap" posts too. This is legit.


----------



## DarbyMan (Dec 11, 2005)

Based on the original post I don't see the problem. There is nothing wrong with donating the meat. I never did it because they always wanted the hunter to pay the cost. Now there is another organization that will pick up the cost so I would consider it if my family had enough meat.

And this may lead to your question about motive. If I have enough meat why would I still go hunting? Well I enjoy deer hunting and if I can help feed a needy family then so be it. I will gaurantee one thing if I kill it it will get eaten. If not by my family then by one in need. 
By the way this has never happened before but I suppose it could. I will also add that with the cost of a deer tag nowadays I think I would quit shooting when the freezer is full.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## V-Man (Oct 16, 2006)

If donated the deer to feed folks that are hungry, how can you have aproblem with that?


----------

