It is, I think, generally held to be a truth that the flesh of animals instantly killed whilst in an unstressed state is better for the table than that of animals that are killed in flight, after running and subsequently requiring a coup de grâce, or after any other traumatic experience.
As it is common on the Continent to drive deer, boar and other game species to guns, are we to suppose that they are more concerned with the pleasures of the hunt than with those of the table? Or do they simply have different tastes in both? Or is the gastronomic difference not as marked as is commonly supposed?
For comparison, is it reasonable to suppose also that our pheasants, grouse, and partridges would taste better if we stalked them and took them unawares?
In the case of flying game, taken on the wing after being driven from their cover, any stress -and it stands to reason that there must be some- doesn't seem to make the dressed meat less than delicious. I wonder then why pre-mortem stress should affect the flesh of a deer so much as to spoil its flavour.
I should say here that I have been lucky enough never to have shot a deer that hasn't fallen within 10m of the strike site. [Small numbers, small species, short ranges], so have no experience of "stressed" carcases. Indeed, I shoot very few deer each year, so undoubtedly speak from a position of relative (and even absolute) ignorance.
Consequently, I'd be very glad to hear the views of the more expert gentlemen of the SD on the musings above.