February 7, 2009
To the Cult of Palin aka an Army of Idiots
Is it that you are too ignorant, lazy, or self serving, that you cannot find a better way to control the population of any part of nature, without shooting at a defenseless animal IN THE BACK, who is following the way of nature?
Is it that bullets are cheaper than logical scientific methods of controlling populations?
Or do you hate the wolf because he takes food from your fat overfed mouths?
Or is it that you feel better about yourself because you can fly a plane and shoot a gun?
The most overpopulated species on this planet is HUMANS. Where’s the plane, hand me my M4.
Is it that you are so uneducated that you can’t conceive of a better, more humane way to accomplish this goal? Or are you so lazily ignorant, that you think that “conservation” means, keeping animals from killing other animals, so that other animals can shoot them from planes? Do you think the caribou appreciate Palin’s efforts to “conserve” them, so that she can eat them?
Anyone who champions shooting anyone, anything in the back, is nothing less than a pathetic coward. The caribou and wolf populations coexited for centuries, with a natural balance. It is the introduction of the predator of man when things went askew. ME, ME, ME. We must kill the wolves, because they eat the food WE WANT. And even if, you actually had to kill the wolves, why shoot from a plane? Asinine, short-sighted, and cowadice.
The answer is, it makes you feel good, doesn’t it? Dominion? As St. Aquinas said–The thing that separates us from animals is the gift of Reason, God has gifted us with Reason. And this is how you use it?
You all probably, are Pro Life aren’t you? Pro Lifer’s taking down God’s creatures, with a shot gun and plane. I mean, if you want to feel good about yourself, and level the playing field, go hunt with bows, instead of chicken shits with guns. You are a punk! Weak, sad and pathetic. You won’t, though, because on the ground, the advantage goes to the wolves.
If you want to do something positive, control the human population, but I am guessing most of you are the types who are anti abortion, but anti birth control, because you don’t want to educate when you can legislate. Hypocrites complain, but do nothing to solve the problems, which creates, more problems. I guess it is just easier and cheaper to put a bullet in your problems, or legislate destruction of freedom of choice–another gift from GOD.
And for you lunatics, who want to come up on me about Liberal bullshit, know, I detest the Liberal mentality as much as your conservative crap. If you took the time to read my blog, you’d know that. So, anyone who came here to go off making accusations, guesstimations, and proclimations of MY personal beliefs without reading my blog for clarification, I will not bother responding to you personally. If you have some real, reasonable, thought provoking input, we can go at it, but these propagandic, shallow attempts at argumentation, are degrading to the philosophic process and beneath me.
There are different, better, less violent ways to control the population, ask yourself, why, if it has to be done, would any one settle for this method? Unless it is a deeply disturbed, psychologically unwell person. Like Ms. Palin. She may not have thought up the idea, but she has the power to change it. $150 bounty for a severed leg? What is that for? How does that help the cause? Why not use that money for research to find a viable non violent method of contraception, and population control? Nature will rule, regardless of man’s illusion that he does. You should be careful not to take too much, because the planet will bite back. Believe it.
Palin is the Queen of you all. Thank you for reading my blog. You crazy freaks.
love, love, love
gypsy zingaro
The Gypsy Tells It 
February 7th, 2009 at 5:29 AM
First off, I am not one of Palin’s fans.:-)
The reason for controlling the wolf population is not just for the purposes of eating the Caribou or Elk themselves. Speaking generally, population control is used to keep a good balance of species which in turn reduces starvation (from hunting out the prey) and disease (from over population of a particular species).
As for your statement…”Or do you hate the wolf because he takes food from your fat overfed mouths?”…lot’s of people depend on game they shoot to make ends meet up there. I have friends there, so I think I know. I also have cousins in south-west Texas that depend on game they shoot or catch to make ends meet. They don’t shoot it, they don’t eat it. This isn’t about people stuffing their mouths, it’s about making ends meet and feeding their families.
You say…”Anyone who champions shooting anyone, anything in the back, is nothing less than a pathetic coward”…would you feel better if they shot them from the front? Seriously, that’s a silly thing to say. Animal’s can’t shoot back so it’s not like it matters much what way you shoot them from. The angle is somewhat important though if you are looking for a one shot kill.
“If you want to do something positive, control the human population, but I am guessing most of you are the types who are anti abortion, but anti birth control”
You place animals on the same level as humans? You don’t have to be religious or conservative to disagree with that.
“You are a punk! Weak, sad and pathetic. You won’t, though, because on the ground, the advantage goes to the wolves”
Anybody who knows how to hunt wolves has the advantage on the ground because we can learn and think better then they; you can use dogs, calls, traps, all sorts of things. You don’t have to use airplanes, that’s just the easiest way.
You don’t seem to know much about hunting, if you don’t mind my saying so.
February 7th, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I don’t have to know much about hunting to know that anywhere, there are population control options that do not require shooting animals in the back. I never said I placed animals on the same level as humans, no, humans have the capacity to reason as animals do not. For God’s sake, we are supposed to be smarter than them, use our intelligence to create solutions to issues rather than put a bullet in them.
And if this were about “people surviving” that would be one thing. I grew up in the country, I know what it means to hunt to survive. But it isn’t just about Natives and those who survive off of the land, if it were, shooting from the air would not be necessary. Natives, caribou and wolves existed for generations with out mindless killing because humans choose to encroach on the wild. THere is not much left, so it is precious. If you don’t mind me saying so, you do not know much about anything.
Ecosystems, human greed and encroachment, you aren’t smart enough to figure out that man is the problem here. A $150 bounty for a severed leg? Why not spend that money on something more humane? Answer: lazy, cheap, and egocentricity.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:26 AM
“I don’t have to know much about hunting to know that anywhere, there are population control options that do not require shooting animals in the back.”
1). I still don’t understand why you are obsessed with how horrible it is to “shoot them in the back”. The gun has the same effect from the front or the back and the animal doesn’t have a gun to pull out and shoot at you, so it doesn’t make much difference outside the world of ranting.
2). Okay…let’s say there are other animal control techniques that work well on a large scale. Can you tell me about them? I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that you have ranted a lot without actually offering up an alternative solution.
3). “Natives, caribou and wolves existed for generations with out mindless killing because homans choose to encroach on the wild.”
True to an extent. You left out the part about how animal populations actually were controlled though, whether purposefully or out of ignorance I don’t know.
Nature used disease and starvation to keep things balanced much of the time (wolves starving when they overhunted their primary prey, overpopulated getting diseased, etc). That still happens in part of the country where there are still large wildlife populations, such as where I live.
It’s a myth that Natives were always respecters of the earth anyway. Plains Indians often ran herds of Buffalo over cliffs and were only able to use a small portion of the dead. I don’t blame them much since they didn’t have guns…but it was hardly humane.
I would love to hear some of your solutions, seeing how we have already heard your rant.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Well, Mark, Thanks for asking. You know, I am seeing that there is very little argument for people who are so shortsighted that the only option they can come up with is shooting animals for population control (its not just in the back, it is shooting them, I was raised to have respect for both life and guns and in that I learned that lethal violence should always be the last resort, and only if your life is in imminent danger, not because you cannot find a better solution with your brain), but if you read anything else in my blog, or you have it in you, yourself, to do research, you might know already. But since most of the people who are gung ho about gunning down animals, I will give you some reasonable alternatives.
First, let me say, that I come from the country, with coyotes who stole our livestock, and overrun populations of cats, dogs, mice, etc. I have NEVER said that population control was not necessary, and I never said that Natives were always respectful.
But the argument that “animals die” in nature, by starving and predator situations as an excuse to shoot them, well, that is beyond stupid.
Yes, things die in nature, things starve, things run off of cliffs, but overrunning the wild with “pioneers” who wish to change ecosystems, because the don’t respect the very small part of this world that is still Natural, because they want to live in the wild, but not by the terms of the wilderness, is stupid.
To argue that on one hand you are “conserving” wilderness, but on the other hand, it is just for the betterment of mankind, is ludicrous.
So, do some research, ask Australia, how devastating it can be, when you interfere with natural ecosystems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia
See man’s effect on the planet with this attitude
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:GzXRjtzO9FcJ:www.sahfos.ac.uk/PDF_files/education/A%2520level/Human%2520activity%2520and%2520effect%2520on%2520environ.pdf+man+effected+ecosystems&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=safari
See nonviolent means of population control
Bears
Click to access StullAug2007.pdf
Feral Cats
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/feral_cats/
Deer
http://www.idausa.org/facts/deercontrol.html
all this information is available to anyone who is on the internet, or wants to make an informed decision. these are just a few links, but there are books, yes, books, that you can read to enlighten you on the subject of alternatives. i have given you a start, if you want to be taken seriously, you must do the rest.
And as far as Natives not being respectful…Buffalo Bill, Bill Hickock, most settlers? It is not that all natives are good, and all settlers are bad, but when you have an influx of people who want to take, but never give back or never fully understand how manipulating an ecosystem effects us globally, then you have problems arise.
Use Science, and Reason, to deal with these issues.
Stop overrunning the natural habitats, but humans don’t want to hear that THEY are the reason there are shortages, because this would require them taking responsibility, and maybe not getting everything they WANT. Oh, damn it. I can’t just take and take? Not if you want this planet to thrive, as responsible beings, we have to say, on occasion, maybe I can find a better solution to fulfilling my desires, without destroying all in my wake.
I never said animals shouldn’t be hunted, thinned out, or preserved for their own good. I eat meat, sparingly, mindfully. All things mindfully.
It is about erasing the idea that violence is the only method of dealing with things. THis mindset leads to destruction, senseless destruction. Where do you stop? This “US” and “THEM” attitude, where Humans or Americans have no one to answer to, and that we can just take what we want, and if we can’t take it, we shoot it, well, it is ignorant of reality, disrespectful, and selfish.
Hope this helps you, but I won’t hold my breath. All these answers were at your fingertips, but you chose to spend your time coming here, to attack me, rather than inform yourself. Let me know how that works out for you, with your head in the sand.
I would like to thank you all though, your obsession with me, rather than logic, reason, research, compassion, and intelligence, has really helped my cause, which is to expose lack of reasoning in the masses, proving my point, that while the options are out there, for some, it is just easier to follow the “program” set up for them by their collective mentality. Keep following your heart, but don’t drink the koolaid.
If you would like to know more of nonviolent means of accomplishing goals, please see the internet, go to a library, maybe call some professionals. The answers are out there, but you must seek them, rather than ignore them.
I love you guys, keep coming back. I am happy to help guide you towards a more enlightened point of view.
much love,
gypsy
February 9th, 2009 at 6:01 AM
Gypsy,
I have personally dealt with predator control on my family’s 300 acre 100% organic, all natural ranch frequently. We raise cows (maintaining a herd of about 100+ head year ’round), goats (about 50 depending on the time of year), pigs (about 65 at the moment, but we have had as many as 90 at a time and are working towards increasing our number), chickens (we raise about 9,000 broilers every year and maintain about 300 layers), and have had sheep in the past before they got to be too much (the herd size fluctuated between 75 and 200 head). Our primary methods of predator control are guard dogs and electric fences, hunting is rare, and we never hunt deer, even though they do cause us a considerable amount of time and effort (I just fixed three fences they broke when jumping over).
I do not say that in an effort to sound like an authority on the subject because I don’t believe I am. My main objection to what you have said is the very nasty and condescending labels you put on those that disagree with you. I have read the material you posted, though I am already familiar with most of it, and you didn’t link any information on non-violently controlling wolves even though wolves are the animal in question. From the standpoint of humaneness, which seems to be your primary concern (correct me if I am wrong), the information on deer made good sense, the link on rabbit control didn’t seem that humane (destroying their habitat and poisoning them was basically what it advocated, if I am not mistaken) and the information on feral cats made sense (we have had up to 30 barn-cats in the past before we give most of them away). But, you didn’t post anything about wolves and wolves are the animal in question. Wolves are very different then rabbits, feral cats or deer.
The best non-violent method of wolf control I know of, assuming there is actually an over population of wolves (I don’t consider poisoning non-violent) is the sterilization of the alpha pair. The shortcomings of that approach are 1) it doesn’t always work in adequately reducing births and in many cases takes several years to have a measurable effect, and 2), it requires lots of time and effort (you’ve gotta trap all the alpha pairs out of hundreds or thousands of packs and then sterilize them) which is a problem if indeed they are over-hunting their prey. I know there are things you can put in food for different animals to naturally sterilize them with some sort of chemical or something, but those are unreliable at best because anything of that sort strong enough to sterilize everything that eats it is also very harmful to their health. If you think I am wrong on that count I would honestly love to see evidence (documentation), as well as the financial costs of it.
Shooting is sometimes (note that I said sometimes) the best way to control predators when all factors have been considered. That is my position.
I respect your opinion, Gypsy, and I agree 100% that many, many people have a reprehensible disregard for nature and the environment. Maybe that is the case with Palin…but I don’t care about her much…my concern is with the people of Alaska that are negatively affected by an overpopulation of wolves. I’m in the organics and all natural business; it’s our business to try to understand and follow the natural way, and we believe the natural way is best. So, don’t think I’m a gun toting redneck that shoots everything that moves. What I don’t respect is you’re way of describing those that disagree with you.
I didn’t ask you for sources because I hadn’t done my own research. I have read several books that dealt, in part, with non-violent means of population control while perusing the library, as well as having done internet research.
At this point it would seem that our differences go beyond this specific issue in Alaska, so I will respectfully bow out of this conversation, though I am sure you will want to respond to this comment and will look for it.
Please accept my sincere apologies for using harsh language in several instances. It was wrong of me not to communicate with the same respect I ask of others, and I recognize that. I also didn’t say with any condescension.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Here goes Mark,
I appreciate your standpoint. And if I have been unclear, in any way, allow me to elucidate my point. I am not pro-wolves. I am not anti-shooting. I am not “hey, lets let all things go unchecked, and ignore humans”. I am PRO REASON, and ANTI IGNORANCE. And YOU!!! You rock! I am not a predator specialist, nor am I a liberal of any ilk. All I wanted, was for people to have a dialogue about alternatives. I LOVE the idea of wolf sterilization as an alternative, and I realize that it is expensive, and time consuming, but it is an alternative to JUST shooting. And I realize, as I am from the country too, where coyotes ate our livestock, that sometimes, SOMETIMES, animals need to be shot. I never said they didn’t, but to go straight to killing animals from a plane, that is all we got? After centuries of developing the reason of Human existence? Really? It just does not seem reasonable, and that is my only concern. I waited forever to have someone like you come here. And I am so grateful for your input. You are a peach, and I appreciate your coming here.
As for how I refer to people, honestly, I apologize if it upsets you, but this is not meant to coddle those who are willfully ignorant, of which you are not. You have to break some eggs to make an omelet. If I could sit down and talk to people, reasonably, with education as our platform, well, I certainly would prefer it. But this is not the way it is, and it is what it is, and I am working within the confines of the reality that exists. And the fact that you would apologize for using harsh language, well, I adore you! You need not apologize on this blog. You can say what you want, even curse if you like, but I bet you don’t, you sound sweet and smart, kind and compassionate. I wish there were more like you, Mark. I wish I was more like you. But I ain’t! Either way, you are the most educated, calm, stable person to comment on this, and that is freakin’ awesome.
I appreciate you so much. I hope you will join me, in the championing of trying things in the most natural way before we choose to put a bullet in our problems. The reason this bothers me so much, is not for the wolves, but to eradicate this karmic thought process, that allows us to go straight to shooting, when all other alternatives have not been explored. Ask Iraq, how this thinking works. It may just be wolves in Alaska, but so long as people think they can solve their problems with a bullet, why would they explore other options? For some, that is far as they go, I want to go farther in an attitude of conflict resolution.
Thank you so much!
gypsy