I must begin with a disclaimer. I write with tongue firmly in cheek in response to the long, impassioned defense of our beloved coots published Jan. 22.

I qualify as one labeled in that letter as “curmudgeon.” I also have a legal and emotional relationship with the writer of a previous letter, which the defender of the coots found so “unethical and ridiculous.”

I am a bit frightened by the conclusion of the defender as she suggests “open season on curmudgeons.”

My, my, many of us have labored under the delusion that residents of Fountain hills, in particular the owners of retail establishments, welcomed us ol’ northern curmudgeons. In my many years of hunting, “open season” was intended to define the objects of such season as subject to interaction with rifles and shotguns. When applied to “curmudgeons,” that is, indeed, a bizarre application of ethics!

However, I note the primary theme of the Jan. 22 letter is “life makes Fountain Park tick.” The writer uses the tired reasoning tactic of the “glittering generalization.”

Limiting coot population is equated to eliminating “cell phone talkers, babies on airplanes, etc.

Wow!

Using that line of reasoning, is it not equally logical to assume that all life should be protected and propagated in the park? Shall we strive for more scorpions, rattlesnakes, brown recluse spiders? Volunteers, anyone?