I don’t like it. To me the term harvest , as related to wildlife, implies an anthropocentric view of nature. We sow it, we manage it, we harvest it. Now if that’s what we’re doing – as in the case of stocked fisheries, shooting preserves, etc, which effectively reduces “wildlife” to the status of cattle – then harvest is the correct term. But when it comes down to wild, free range, free born, fair chase nature then I don’t think harvest is applicable. State wildlife agencies use the term commonly because they think of game species as a commodity or crop of sorts to be managed and manipulated to meet both biological and social needs and desires. To me, harvest implies thinking of wildlife as simply a renewable resource to be used to meet our needs and wants. But wildlife is so much more. All species have inherent values irrespective of how we may or may not use them. Wheat’s inherent value is to provide us with bread. If we didn’t eat it we would have no use for it. By using the term harvest, we disregard all those splendid, complex and interrelated virtues or wildlife and focus on how those animals are useful to us. Not saying that everyone that uses the term is anthropocentric. Just a different way of thinking about it.
