Something Evil This Way Stalks

Because I wrote about the panther problem, and numerous articles appeared as a result, the Agencies got together with an animal rights group and caused a compliant judge and prosecutor to investigate me. The charge - conspiracy to commit animal cruelty.

If that charge sounds like something out of Alice In Wonderland to you, you are right. I'll get to the legal circus, after I bring you up to date on the activities of the PantherPersons here in the Swamp of Socialism, and the event that triggered the whole thing.

My neighbor, down Dill Road, is retired, and has Parkinson's Disease. He can't shoot, if his life depended on it. And unfortunately, it very probably may. Something is profoundly wrong, when the Endangered Species Act can be abused so egregiously, that mere puma are more important than human lives.

And I mean mere puma - because America has over 32,000 of these predators. They are not endangered in any way, except under the arcane and asinine rules of the Endangered Species Act. Texas has it right. In Texas, these cats are considered varmints, and can be shot on sight.

- - the "endangered Florida Panther" doesn't exist. It was a taxonomic error. Whether such an error was accidental, or deliberate, will be the subject of another article.

Enough is enough. We are Americans, not peasants in India, where "protected" tigers were eating the peasants. Oddly enough, all tigers in one of those areas suddenly disappeared - perhaps those peasants read a copy of the Constitution and decided they, too, had Unalienable Rights?

Dear Gunslinger3

OHHH! My first troll! And you are hanging around the Big Kitties, no less. Since you posted, I shall have to answer; nothing personal, just remember you asked for this.

Please read the article and remind your self that I wrote "a party occurred across the street from my property". That's their property. As in "theirs". That means "not mine".

OK, now that ownership has been clarified, remind yourself that these people have been shooting all their lives. It is a well honed skill, by now a reflex, and so is having a safe backstop for each round.

In decades of living here, not one shot ever went into my property.

That's important for because I have a school here. And while you are casting aspersions on those who shoot, or on me, consider this. During those decades, not one person who partied, enjoyed their 2nd Amendment Rights, or otherwise "recreated" (forgive the bureau-babble word), has ever said anything inappropriate to any of the students.

Given that these are gifted students, and often gifted physically as well as mentally, think about this: not one pick-up attempt, nothing in the least bit suggestive or inappropriate in 25 years.

When partying, even drunk, their behavior has been unobjectionable. Not even a wolf whistle - in 25 years.

Want to compare that record with the of schools in any Big Sh*tty of your choice? I think you owe the partiers an apology.

As Sam Clements said, "An armed society is a polite society".

As for my IQ, judge that by my research, my writings, what I have designed and built, and by those who are my colleagues. Don't believe just the IQ tests.

Not that IQ matters all that much. What of the Constitution is all that difficult to understand?

Lastly, the article was about cats and 'crats, not the alleged IQ of anyone. May I suggest not attempting to hijack a thread? When I go trolling, I prefer to do it in the Gulf Stream, not on Free Republic.

Dear Gunslinger3,

Your line "It is exceedingly rare for a mountain lion to kill a human being" is deliberately deceptive."

The rate of cat attacks on humans was essentially zero until the enviro-socialists caused the attacks now occurring. That's right, the Gang Green crowd caused these deaths.

Here's why. Let's use my property in the Everglades as an example as it is probably the clearest and most concise example of how a faulty premise led to invalid conclusions.

When I bought the property in December of 1979, panthers lived in the Everglades, and in the immediate area. But they were exceedingly rarely seen by even those of us who lived amongst them.

The historic cat was afraid of man. That fear was a result of being shot whenever a human thought the cat was a risk.
Note: The citizen made the decision, not a 'crat from an agency with an agenda.

The end result was that the cats stayed out of sight of men. As ambush hunters, they have evolved the skill of staying out of sight to a high level.

Without question, they were there. And without question, they actively avoided man. And children, AND MY STUDNTS!

Got that?

Then the enviro-socialists caused the Endangered Species Act to be passed. Suddenly the cats were legally more important than humans.

The cats took a decade or so, and then their behavior began to change. First they were no longer avoiding being seen by humans. Then they began chasing deer through campgrounds full of people. Now they raise their young alongside my property, and that of my neighbors and are now seen within 35 feet of people on my property.

Worse yet, they walked within 15 feet of my neighbor with Parkinson's and killed and ate animals within 30 feet of him.

Check the literature - you will find that such behavior in the West preceded attacks where people were either mauled or killed and eaten.

Only Animal rights whackos and enviro-socialists would ask an American to accept the risk of being attacked, mauled and eaten for a mere animal.

The second point which you should consider is that the risk of a cat attack isn't spread across the entire population of America.

The risk is unequally borne by those of us who have been forced by enviro-socialists, and "Attack 'Crats" in the agencies, to have these beasts quartered on our property.

All large bodied predators in America are in no risk of extinction. Bears, cats, and wolves are in no risk of extinction whatever. What may be at risk is the funding for "Endangered Predator programs".

But what is inarguably at risk are the children and adults forced by the ESA to live with such beasts by agencies who have removed our Unalienable Right to self defense.

That is unacceptable, Gunslinger3. How appropriate that a troll by that name should be the vehicle whereby I am given the opportunity to say the following.

Firstly, Americans are unwilling to have any animal eat any human.

Secondly, Americans insist on their Unalienable Right to shoot any animal they, not some 'Crat in an agency, feel is a risk to them.

Live with it.

And please stop trying to defend the indefensible, done by the undesirable, on behalf of the unendangered.

A bit sensitive aren't you? If you can't answer my arguments, lapsing into argumentum ad hominum is hardly going to cover your inadequacies on this forum.

As for my worries about people who grew up with a gun in their hand - once again, they give me no worries. Read the article again and let me know what part you are having trouble understanding.

Now for your attempt to use deliberately disingenuous statistics, for the second time, too. Please note that accidental shootings are an urban problem. In general, such shootings are also found in blue state areas, where those afraid of guns have eliminated the historic American culture of the armed citizen.

Blue staters tend to also not punish their whelps for bad behavior. Contrast that with what happens in a conservative family when a child even thinks about playing with a gun.

Consider my own background in this area. Though Mom was a NYC educated Liberal Jew, and Dad was a southern businessman but a Republican in a day when Republican Jews in the South were unheard of, I was allowed to have first archery equipment, and then my first gun, at an early age.

Dad always had a loaded Browning and I knew where it was kept. And it was always loaded, too. And I knew what would happen if I touched it, too - so I didn't touch it.

Consequences for asocial behavior. Isn't that easy to understand?

Back to the cats. So far, no neighbor with a gun has threatened me, nor is there any history that would support any such worry. I can't say that for the cats.

Here, I must say that you certainly are a master of the non sequetor. Guns and panthers are a bit difficult to correlate in any meaningful manner. Yet you do persevere.

Get to know those who know guns and you can lose your fears of guns.

For any who are tempted to place any credence in your argument, I suggest www.evergladesinstitute.org and look at the data on panther attacks in America. As always, I suggest hard data in preference to hard ball politics.

As for your suggestion that I thank God because my neighbors haven't sent the first shot into my property in 25 years, what about gun control being able to hit your target can you not understand?

Once again, you are casting aspersions upon those who can handle their guns and handle their liquor. Or beer. Their choice. But your aspersions. Once again, you owe them an apology.

But what troubles me about you, and your arguments, is that the risk of a horrid death by an out-of-control ESA project predator is inflicted upon those of us who have to live with these beasts. People like you, who support these asinine programs, are not at risk.

You never have to live with the consequences of your "pampered panthers", "wilderness wolves", ad nauseam. Instead you force retired, medically disabled citizens, students, and recreationists, to bear a risk which you deliberately and knowingly inflict on them, but you know you will never be at risk yourself.

How ethical and couragous of you. Now for your question about my use of the word "evil". I was referring to the 'crats, not the cats. Predators are merely animals. Cats kill and eat their own offspring, and even their mates. Calories are calories to a cat.

But the 'crats do know better. And they continue to do the same deeds. To knowingly continue to do wrong is evil. Look it up.

My apologies if slaughtering some of your sacred cows has distressed you, but before you start slinging ideas, make sure yours are valid.

Now for your attempt to use deliberately disingenuous statistics, for the second time, too. Please note that accidental shootings are an urban problem.

It's not disenguous to point out that lightning is more dangerous than the panthers. One heirarchs danger with context. Accidental shootings aren't just an urban problem.

Tell me, are the 2,586 documented firearms hunting accidents in Texas over the last 40 years 'just an urban problem'? How about the 530 fatalities consequent to those accidents? Funny how you accuse me of being disenguous for bringing up the facts, then you try to obfuscate with references to 'urban' and 'blue state', but avoid any reference to facts yourself.

Here, I must say that you certainly are a master of the non sequetor.

If by 'master' you mean I know how to spell it.

I just pointed out that lightning and your neighbors (you never mentioned if their party included alcohol, or just just lots of gunfire) firearms are more likely to cause you harm than a panther.

Get to know those who know guns and you can lose your fears of guns.

I have several guns (Mossberg 12 gauge, AK-47 and an M1911), and I can't think of a household in my extended family that doesn't have at least one. They're pretty common in Missouri. Now we live in Florida, my mom and dad have a .22 rifle and a .38 revolver, my brother has a .40 S&W, a 12 gauge, a .410, a .380 Remington, .50 cal black powder rifle and a bow (he likes to hunt in all seasons). Your assumptions are incorrect. I've been taught a healthy respect for firearms. They certainly aren't treated like firecrackers at family celebrations.

As for your suggestion that I thank God because my neighbors haven't sent the first shot into my property in 25 years, what about gun control being able to hit your target can you not understand?

What about the word 'accident' confuses you?

Once again, you are casting aspersions upon those who can handle their guns and handle their liquor. Or beer. Their choice. But your aspersions. Once again, you owe them an apology.

Firearms accidents happen (especially when alcohol is involved! I can't believe you defend that!), much more frequently than panther attacks. I had hoped you'd clarify that they weren't drinking, but you seem to think that's ok and no threat to you if they were. I don't know a gun owner that shares that opinion. How do you feel about drinking and driving? Do 40,000 automobile deaths a year mean that mankind can't cohabitate with the automobile?

For any who are tempted to place any credence in your argument, I suggest www.evergladesinstitute.org and look at the data on panther attacks in America. As always, I suggest hard data in preference to hard ball politics.

A spot of advice - If you're going to point someone to your data you could fix the broken links on the page in question: http://www.evergladesinstitute.org/pan3.htm#

But what troubles me about you, and your arguments, is that the risk of a horrid death by an out-of-control ESA project predator is inflicted upon those of us who have to live with these beasts. People like you, who support these asinine programs, are not at risk.

You don't have to live with them. You chose to live there, "When I bought the property in December of 1979, panthers lived in the Everglades, and in the immediate area." Was the panther covered or not covered by the 1973 ESA when you knowingly bought land in panther habitat?

I must credit your perseverance - or is it either ideological or career motivated?

I'll indicate your post with GS3, to differentiate it from my answers which will be preceded with GG:.

Quotation marks will indicate that of my earlier post to which you refer.

"Now for your attempt to use deliberately disingenuous statistics, for the second time, too. Please note that accidental shootings are an urban problem."

GS3: It's not disenguous to point out that lightning is more dangerous than the panthers.

GG: I think you meant to use 'disingenuous', not disengenuous'. And you are disingenuous - regardless of spelling.

However, I can choose to remain indoors during thunderstorms. The panther are an ever present problem, forced upon me without my consent, whenever I step out onto my property. Unless you happen to support both the imposition of an undue burden upon me, and my being forced to abandon or restrict the use of my property.

GS3: One heirarchs danger with context. Accidental shootings aren't just an urban problem.

Tell me, are the 2,586 documented firearms hunting accidents in Texas over the last 40 years 'just an urban problem'? How about the 530 fatalities consequent to those accidents?"

GG: Compare those stats for rural shootings with those for urban shootings. Sorry, the numbers for any urban area don't support your position.

GS3: Funny how you accuse me of being disenguous for bringing up the facts, then you try to obfuscate with references to 'urban' and 'blue state', but avoid any reference to facts yourself.

GG: Again, it's 'disingenuous' not disenguous'. I was referring to one of the most serious facts in America's political landscape.

Alas, the urban/blue state versus non-urban/red state comparison is a reference to the fact that America is more divided between "conservative" and Liberal" than it was prior to the Civil War.

On one hand you have the New Deal/ Great Society supporters who are political spawn of a line that leads back to Marx & Lenin with a bow to that historic whiff of socialism so clearly in our heritage via the Mayflower Compact.

On the other side are those who believe in limited government and private ownership of land. I found myself in the midst of the flagship of eco-socialism, the Everglades Restoration Project.

So far, the price of showing that the Everglades "Emperor" not only had no clothes on, but was seriously degrading the habitats he purported to be 'saving' has been an unending stream of bureaucratic attacks, and various vituperations from the socialism impaired.

"Here, I must say that you certainly are a master of the non sequetor. "

GS3: If by 'master' you mean I know how to spell it.

GG: Nope! I referred to your logic, not any spelling issue. But, I was kind enough not to correct your saying that panther 'wondered' instead of 'wandered' onto my land.

Clearly, I forgot to use the Spell button; arguably, this not a matter of failed logic.

GS3: I just pointed out that lightning and your neighbors (you never mentioned if their party included alcohol, or just just lots of gunfire) firearms are more likely to cause you harm than a panther.

GG: And I described the situation accurately, both as to history and what could reasonably be predicted from that.

"Get to know those who know guns and you can lose your fears of guns."

GS3: I have several guns (Mossberg 12 gauge, AK-47 and an M1911), and I can't think of a household in my extended family that doesn't have at least one. They're pretty common in Missouri. Now we live in Florida, my mom and dad have a .22 rifle and a .38 revolver, my brother has a .40 S&W, a 12 gauge, a .410, a .380 Remington, .50 cal black powder rifle and a bow (he likes to hunt in all seasons). Your assumptions are incorrect. I've been taught a healthy respect for firearms. They certainly aren't treated like firecrackers at family celebrations.

GG: Then what of what I wrote about the neighbors behavior during the preceding 25 years haven't I made understandable? After 25 years, I have learned that some people can handle both their guns and their choice of alcoholic beverages.

By the way, I don't drink at all. But I can recognize and assess risks. The panther are, the neighbors aren't.

"As for your suggestion that I thank God because my neighbors haven't sent the first shot into my property in 25 years, what about gun control being able to hit your target can you not understand?"

GS3: What about the word 'accident' confuses you?]

GG: Nothing about the definition of 'accident' confuses me. But you seem to confuse behavior you disapprove of with risk. Once again, after 25 years I am confident in my assessment of the risk to me from my neighbors.

Would 'acceptable' risk be more acceptable to your perspective? What about 'statistically insignificant' risk?

"Once again, you are casting aspersions upon those who can handle their guns and handle their liquor. Or beer. Their choice. But your aspersions. Once again, you owe them an apology."

GS3: Firearms accidents happen (especially when alcohol is involved! I can't believe you defend that!), much more frequently than panther attacks. I had hoped you'd clarify that they weren't drinking, but you seem to think that's ok and no threat to you if they were. I don't know a gun owner that shares that opinion. How do you feel about drinking and driving? Do 40,000 automobile deaths a year mean that mankind can't cohabitate with the automobile?]

GG: Some can, and do, shoot, drive, and even fly, with lots of alcohol in 'em. I don't do it, but when people, over a period of many years, demonstrate an ability to so do, I am refuse to allow Liberal social engineering dogmas to take precedence over observed realities.

"For any who are tempted to place any credence in your argument, I suggest www.evergladesinstitute.org and look at the data on panther attacks in America. As always, I suggest hard data in preference to hard ball politics."

GS3: A spot of advice - If you're going to point someone to your data you could fix the broken links on the page in question: http://www.evergladesinstitute.org/pan3.htm#

GG: Thanks for the advice. I am something of a computer newbie.

"But what troubles me about you, and your arguments, is that the risk of a horrid death by an out-of-control ESA project predator is inflicted upon those of us who have to live with these beasts. People like you, who support these asinine programs, are not at risk."

GS3: You don't have to live with them. You chose to live there, "When I bought the property in December of 1979, panthers lived in the Everglades, and in the immediate area."

GG: Wrong again, and not for the first time either.

Please, read once again what I wrote about the enormous changes in predator behavior caused by the ESA mandated ban on citizens shooting threatening predators.

The cats were very careful to stay out of sight in 1980 because they were still being shot by the natives in
places from Homestead to Everglades City.

When Gang Green's ESA regs were enforced, the puma in the 'Glades began the behavioral progression that had occurred earlier in the West.

GL3: Was the panther covered or not covered by the 1973 ESA when you knowingly bought land in panther habitat?

GG: ESA was enacted in 1973. But enforcement of panther's ESA protection wasn't a reality on the ground when I moved to the'Glades. Panther behavior then was no risk.

Read my article, take notes if needed. The panther were assiduously avoiding men until Gang Green and ESA changed cat behavior.

Eventually, ESA enforcement began. Then allow a decade or so until the cats that knew what men carried guns, which made man the top predator. Predators know their place on the food chain - well, they did until ESA made 'em the top predator.

Thus, ESA's pampered panther came to insolently stalk the Everglades.

I'd be less critical if predator supporters like yourself had the cats on your property. Try 'em - you won't like 'em.

And the agency cats seem to have so negatively impacted the agency school down the road from me that it may be defunded due to parental unwillingness to have their children at risk of predators like panthers.

Listen to them. Their refusal to risk their children should tell you something.

Unless you are a Liberal.

19 posted on 06/04/2005 9:44:46 PM EDT by Gunslingr3

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.