Letters to the editor

May I return the compliment by saying Nick clearly wasn't paying attention when the majority of the article I wrote was devoted to the option of shooting those deer that are to be culled, rather than chasing them down at risk to human and deer injury as well as damage to property, lastly to be dispatched by captive bolt.

That was the larger point I was trying to make. Unfortunately Nick seemed to be eager to go off on a tangent expressing his own views by using parts of my letter as his platform for his presumably pro-chase and captive bolt method of slaughter, which he deems "ethical."

Likely not from the "ungulate's" point of view I imagine.  

I do take offence to his comments throughout his letter that my statements were "emotional", which is rather insulting in this day and age and unfortunately comes across as rather sexist.

It's always interesting that when someone female states their point of view from a conservationist point of view, whether it be animals or coastlines, those opposing that point of view attack such statements by declaring them "emotional" in an obvious attempt to invalidate them. 

Nick also mentioned that it was "not true" that when a deer is flooded with adrenaline it can ruin the meat.   Actually, there are scientific facts behind that statement and there are also many articles devoted to avoiding that nasty, gamey taste under those very circumstances.

Perhaps it doesn't render it inedible, however, that wasn't what I stated and I had relied on information I reviewed which were written by wild game butchers.  Stating that fact is "untrue", is incorrect and misleading. 

Although I appreciate the brief education concerning the dietary background of "ungulates of the Okanagan" despite the condescending tone of his letter, perhaps next time Nick will try to read my letter thoroughly.

Cynthia Preston