Whether you "like" the use of the word or not is your personal choice. Use it if you like, don't if you don't.
Oh but see, you have completely misunderstood the problem. It isn't about whether or not people like terms as much as it is about how people want to perceive themselves or to perceive themselves relative to others.
But then, I've always thought of harvesting wheat or oats or corn--and never of the word as applied to any sort of meat. I don't think of harvesting fish or chickens, so why apply it to deer?
Right.
When the "hunters" describe others engaging in the taking of game in manners that the "hunters" don't perceive as being sufficiently to their high standards, they proclaim the others to be "harvesters." It is a put down, an insult, used to set apart the top tier "hunters" from lower tier "harvesters." It is a perspective those who perceive themselves as engaging in real hunting from those who are just pretend hunters. Hunting, as we all know, involves much skill and hardship whereas harvesting, like wheat or oats, is fairly simple and requiring few perceived hunting skills. You just go out and get what you need and the wheat and oats don't run or hide from you.
I have also noticed that some of the self proclaimed "real" hunters wear their title as a badge of pride but also as an explanation for a lack of success. After all, anybody can harvest, but only a few are truly skilled in the ways of hunting where the procurment of game resides in the realm of the wisdom and skill of the hunter as well as the craftiness of the prey which is indeed sometime victorious. "I tracked and stalked a 400 lb 72 point whitetail for 36 hours, but they don't grow that big by being stupid. Just before I was about to get my shot at him, the wind changed [its always the wind in these stories, isn't it] and he must of gotten a whiff of me and he bolted before I could pull the trigger. Otherwise, he never would of known I was there."
One thing is certain, the "hunters" are better story tellers...