Not only that, but DDT was very useful here in our own country, long before lefty environmentalists took control of the EPA (which, IMO, should be controlled by each state, solving your purple voter problem; you could not use it, protect your birds and deal with the mosquitoes, we could use it and stay mosquito free, but I digress), and decided to protect animals over humans.
Personally, being part of the oh-so-annoying "breeding population", I would prefer that my children be protected from mosquito borne disease rather than defer to the health of specific wild animals. Call me crazy. Same reason I don't give a crap about the caribou in Alaska, and prefer drilling there.
I love animals, and in fact have been a rescuer for years. I do, however, realize that humans come first.
Just like with the birds, your attitude drives people away from voting Republican (which is at least marginally more conservative than the Democrat party). Your approach will have purple states turn blue instead of red. A lot of people don't fall 100% at one end of the political spectrum. They don't like big government, but anarchy isn't too appealing either. If they're forced to have to choose between "To Hell with progress" and "to Hell with nature" many will choose protecting "nature", however they define that in their minds.
The best plan is not to boldly say that you don't give a crap about the effects on nature, but to inform people that the solutions won't harm nature... as is the case with drilling in Alaska. Don't force people into thinking its an all-or-nothing choice. Saying "Who cares about the birds?" or "I don't give a crap about the caribou" sends the message that following your choices will get rid of the birds and caribou. You're inadvertently helping the liberals out by implying the same thing the liberals do.... If people vote conservative, they'll destroy nature.