Editor:rnThis letter is directed to those who wrote anti-hunting letters to your paper.
If a person hires a killer and, subsequently, is caught, she or he is just as guilty of murder as the person who did the actual killing. If you eat meat or chicken or fish, have a down comforter or pillows, wear leather shoes, have a leather purse or wallet or suede jacket, or leather upholstery in your car, then you paid money to have someone slaughter the animals that provide those things. Therefore, you are as guilty of the animals' deaths as the ones who actually killed them. There is no higher morality in having someone kill your meat for you.
As a hunter, I take personal responsibility for the death of an animal I will eat. I do not relish the actual killing. I work very hard to see that death is instantaneous. I give the animal a symbolic last meal and say a prayer thanking it for giving itself to me. I use virtually every bit of the animal. I have worked very hard all my life to protect and enhance wildlife habitat. I am proud to say that, despite unsubstantiated claims by so-called environmental groups, no hunted game animals in North America are on the endangered list, so this argument against hunting cannot be used.
I wonder how many anti-hunters say a thank-you to the animal for the steak or the lobster on their plate? I wonder how many have worked to protect these animals? I wonder how many can justify eating endangered wild salmon?rnSome things must die so others can live. This is a simple fact of nature. It really doesn't make any difference if the thing that dies is an animal or vegetable or whether it is wild or domesticated.
Hunters can do without criticism by people who hire slaughterhouse killers and then act as if they were innocent of the deaths - often very inhumane deaths - of the animals killed.
Maurice Toporowski, Osoyoos

Editor:rnIn the March 16 Osoyoos Times there was an article about the air quality in the valley.
Let's talk about the air quality in the valley.
They want to stop people from using wood burning stoves. There is also the possibility that they may ban the use of gas lawn mowers.
They also say not to idle your car because it causes pollution, yet they allow Rattlesnake Canyon to operate at times 9 hp gas go-carts 12 hours a day 7 days a week.
I use my 3 1/2 hp lawn mower approx. 32 times a year for 1 hour each time.
This town council made a big mistake when they didn't have a study made on the noise, air pollution and the disruption on the residential neighbourhood before they issued the permit.
For the town council's mistake the taxpayers of this town are going pay. And it is probable they will have to pay a lot more before this is over.
There are those that think this noise and air pollution is okay (as long as it doesn't interfere with their way of life). We in the east end pay taxes just like all the taxpayers in this town. We don't want the noise and fumes in our back yards.
O. Kopan, Osoyoos

Editor:rnWe encourage the Town council to appeal the courts decision with regards to Rattlesnake Canyon noise.
If there is no noise bylaw there will be no need for a zoning bylaw. Will it be a free for all? Anything goes?rnE. & G. Aspe, Osoyoos