I go out to kill an animal. "Harvest" has become to PC. Besides when I harvest something, it involves corn or other crops. A deer is not a crop.

VERB:
har·vest·ed , har·vest·ing , har·vests
VERB:
tr.

[ol][*]

To gather (a crop).
To take or kill (fish or deer, for example) for food, sport, or population control.
To extract from a culture or a living or recently deceased body, especially for transplantation: harvested bone marrow. [/ol][*]To gather a crop from.[*]To receive (the benefits or consequences of an action). See Synonyms at reap. [/ol]

From the American Heritage Dictionary found on line under Yahoo so anybody can check it out. Clearly harvest is an appropriate term when talking about killing deer.

SBGobblers,
Thanks for the info. I'm referencing Webster II New Riverside University Dictionary. I went back and looked, and the def you provided isn't there. Doesn't surprise me really, they add and delete words all the time.
However, as far as I can tell using the word "harvest" to describe killing a deer is a euphemism - An act or example of the substitution of an inoffensive term for one considered offensive.
Further it is at least worth noting, that if enough people start using a word incorrectly, Webster will by default, update the definition to document its new context/meaning.
Another fine example of this is "Point Blank" or "Point Blank Range". One of the definitions (according to Webster) for this term is "pointing a gun so close to a target that it is unlikely or impossible to miss". However, the real definition/history of this word holds a lot more information. This term was used to describe a distance that one could shoot a particular firearm and be certain of where it would hit its mark within a given range. More specifically it is the distance at which the projectile has fallen equal distance below the line of sit as the maximum trojectory (above the line of sight). For example if you're shooting your trusty 30.06 and have it zeroed at 100 yards, your maximum trajectory may be 3 inches above the line of sight between the near zero and the zero marks. Thus meaning that when your projectile falls 3 inches below the line of sight, you have reached your point blank range (probably in the neighborhood of 130 yards). Double the distance (6 inches below the line of sight)and you're at the supplemental range. But, low and behold, 99% of society doesn't know how to shoot (even many successful hunters) and so they start using these terms incorrectly. But Webster will catch up, and instead of holding true to the original term they will change it. Go ahead and use harvest, after all it is areally lofty way to describe "killing". I will use, kill, not to be harsh or tell those "anti's how it is, or try to upset them. But simply because it is the most accurate wordto describe what I've done. You can bet that if they were there to see what you'd done, they would call it killing too. And it is my opinion that there is nothing wrong with killing animal for good reason, so I'll call it what it is.

To me it is about manners and being respectful of what may be offensive to others.Political correctness and being offensive are not necessarily one and the same!
Personally I don't use the word harvest,but I don't also very often use the word kill.I use the words took or shot or got.Why would I in a conversation with a lady or a non hunter or even an anti hunter show some respect and courtesy by using termonology that isn't as graphic.I have no need to let them know that I can use the word kill and it is my god given right to do so.I know what I did and so do they!
I don't think there is any thing wrong with not offending someone when you havea choice in the matter.Not very many people have grown up where they witnessed and participated in the process of bringing an animal to the table from start to finish.I don't disagree that folks should have more of an awareness about the process and if the opportunity is given I will tactfully participate in the discussion.
To influence people you have to meet them where they are and then tactfullybring them your way.

I kill bugs and let them lay, I harvest deer and eat them for dinner.

Kill-to deprive of life : cause the death of b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering.

Harvest-the season for gathering in agricultural crops...

I use them both

when amurder shoots someone they dont say he harvested that guy, they say he killed him... so if the murder decided to eat him, they they would say he harvested him?

Come on guys! Harvest and kill are NOT synonyms so let's stop with the ridiculous analogies. Of course a murderer isn't harvesting nor is somebody killing pests. But when you participate in the process of trimming down the deer population and you take the meat and put it in the freezer then not only are you killing but you are also havesting. Avoid the term all you want but in the english language the term harvestappropriately describes what is happening.

We are talking about the term harvest as a verb. You've pulledone useage from a dictionary as a noun and conveniently avoided the useage as a verb which again is the way we are using it in this discussion. If you are trying to say that the term harvest only applies to crops, you are simply wrong.