Write to Papabear

Wolfaboos vs. Anti-Wolfaboos

9/26/2013

Dear Papabear,

Yeah, I did send you an email about one thing but this subject is a brand new one, and it's about this stupid "Anti-Wolfaboo" thing going around.

Note: It might not be much around in Furry Fandom but it might be known and used badly.

Ever heard about it? http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Wolfaboo.

At first when I heard about it, I thought it was just talking about a person being sooooo obsessed with wolves, that the person gets very annoying over others, threat others for no reason, and makes non-sense facts over stuff already proven (Like how there are more grey wolves in the world) and other possible things. All together.

But when I look around Deviant Art, it seems these anti-wolfaboos I hear about, basically attacks ANYONE who loves wolves, who wants to protect them, or have any personality with them. They may not attack basic wolf liking people, but anyone who loves them personality (They said it's OK to like, but not go beyond) and wants to protect them from hunters, or wants to draw personal designs of wolves (Sparkle wolves for example), or wanting to believe wolves can sometimes be harmless, or wanting to have wolf pets, or believing you are a wolf or some form, believing they are magical in spirit and such, or anything that is amazing, gets attacked. And it often comes from the ego groups from DA who wants to promote hunting, who wants to promote fur, and other messed up things. They also believe that what they often know are "facts" and much more.

The worst part, is that I don't seem to see any groups/stamps much that defends wolf lovers, just the nasty hate stamps hunter supporting stamps most of the time.

And the even WORST part, I fear this "anti-wolfaboo" bullcrap is spreading all over the Internet. (If it's a small group, that isn't effecting anything, I could just ignore it but...) I looked at some comments regarding that movie "Alpha and Omega", and I start seeing "Wolfaboo!" and this one I wanted to check to see if it wasn't spread. "Wolfaboo the movie!". As they said it in a bad way. In fact, I think this is how I found these nasty groups on the Internet and I think it's spreading. Also, I found a stamp saying "wolfaboo" the movie, and of course, it's this. Like I see many hateful comments judging the way the style of the cartoons of the wolves look, pretend fans who like the movie because of them, don't count and other sad things like bashing against the idea of hunting being bad, and such. And yet, I love the designs and I even like the movie for that reason, and that it shows love for creatures existing. God it feels like, everything in this world I love, is frowned upon. Everything.

Now, not only that there is unusual hate against furries who could have a certain "fetish" but now furries/or non-furries who happens to just love wolves in anyway, gets attacked, just because of the personality. Anyone who draws "wings" on wolves, makes them magic, or any sign of loving them, is looked down. Sorry if I said anything twice here.

I question you though, did you hear anything about this or similar before? Is there anything wrong with being a "wolfaboo?" Note: people might of used the name of it wrong but IDK anymore. Do you know if this bullcrap against wolf fans is spreading and rising?

When I saw this, it felt like a big huge middle finger against my own personality and love for these creatures, and man I just feel sad that this whole "drama" has to exist on the Internet.

It's now a word that's made up, just to bash anyone who might fit in with it. It's sad, honestly.

Sorry, may not be a proper question, like I often say. If you don't understand my writing, please tell me. ;)

Diamond Man

* * *

Welcome back, Diamond Man,

While I’ve heard about wolfaboos, I had not heard about any large anti-wolfaboo movement of any kind. I certainly see nothing wrong with liking wolves and wanting to protect them. Goodness knows wolves have for too long taken a bad rap from humans that they don’t deserve. They are actually quite shy animals and stay away from humans whenever they can. Grey wolves have sprung back somewhat in population in North America, which is good, but the bad news is that there is already a movement to de-list them from government protections, which is ludicrous.

It makes me physically ill that there are so many humans who like to kill such a beautiful creature. Such people have lost all connection to Nature and appreciation for the wonder of life. There is something dark and twisted about their souls IMO. There is no need to kill wolves. They are not very dangerous to humans (coyotes, cougars, and bears are all much more dangerous to people), and it is rare that they harm livestock (and protecting livestock from wolves is very simple to do; also, the federal government reimburses ranchers for livestock losses due to wolf predation; furthermore, most livestock losses due to predation are caused by stray DOGS, sometimes mistaken for wolves.). Therefore, the only reason to kill them is because you get off on killing things, which is just sick and disturbing.

Having said that, I would like to note that it is not a good idea to have a wolf as a pet. They are wild animals and belong in the wild, not in your home; even raising them from pups is not a good idea. Too, there are some people who raise wolf/dog hybrids (cf: http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers/wolf_hybridsarenotsafe.htm) that can be a danger to people. On the other hand, drawing pictures of wolves, anthrowolves, or even sparklewolves with wings on them is harmless. If people have nothing better to do than to criticize artists who draw such things, then those haters really need to get a life. They’re pathetic.

Now, when we get to the extreme of wolfaboos, my understanding is that this can get a little out of control. Wolfaboos (and anyone please correct me if Papabear is wrong) find wolves to be superior to humans and enjoy stories about humans being killed and eaten by wolves. To me, this indicates a deep hatred of humans that cannot be described as healthy. But I believe that is the extreme case and most wolfaboos just have a very passionate love for Canis lupus and nothing against humans per se.

As with anything, getting obsessed about something is really not good for your mental health. It tends to give you a skewed outlook on life, and when that happens you lose your ability to be objective and to see things clearly. This can then result in some bad decision making. It can, likewise, be harmful to obsess about people who are trashing wolfaboos. If you constantly worry about trolls and haters, writing them emails or posting in blogs to respond to their hate, you just give them ammunition to harm you back, and you also validate their hatred by recognizing it as noteworthy.

See, what these people want is attention, so they say any dumb thing to get it. The more you respond to them, the more they get off on it because they see they are upsetting you, and haters LOVE that.

So, here’s what you do: ignore what is hateful and reinforce what is good. You love wolves? Great! Donate to an organization that helps wolves. Get active in politics: write to your senator or representative against bills to de-list wolves from the Endangered Species List and for any bills that help protect wild lands and prevent wolf hunting.

Drawing pictures of sparklewolves and such is fun. You want to make a difference, though? Help the real wolves of the world. They can use your help.

Hugs,

Papabear

15 Comments

Diamond Man

9/26/2013 08:33:27 am

Of course, I did reply in email, I will just say this too:
Thanks for the letter. :)

"To me, this indicates a deep hatred of humans that cannot be described as healthy."
Yeah I kind of get it, though I had a small amount of feelings too, I do think it's un-healthy as long if those feelings doesn't get used by law. Since a lot of people will have different feelings. xD Same thing if it was the other way around (Hatred against wolves).

But thanks for some suggestions. ^.^

Dan the bear

9/26/2013 12:17:15 pm

Well, i never heard about such thing, not the movement , not the haters. Bu i think that while things stay in the internet, theres no real harm there beyond some trolls that cna be blocked. Wolf is one of the most popular animals in the fandom and im sure it would be difficult that a movement to annoy them prevails.

And as Papa ber said, the best way to prove yer a real wolf is getting involved in rela things to protect the wolves and show the real love and conection with your animal spirit, Leave the drama and haters in the internet, they rarely take their annoyance to the real world.

Sha

9/26/2013 04:15:45 pm

Just to shed some light on things, I was there near the beginning of the anti-movement, and the main reason why there was a movement is because a) the wolfaboos acutally would go batshit insane on anyone who did not like wolves, and b) a lot of the anti's were ranchers and had either serious problems with wolves, or knew someone who did (small communities and all).

From what they've testified, stopping wolves is a hell of a lot harder than many think. Those defenses that are supposed to stop wolves are quite expensive, and ranchers have a limited budget. Not to mention they won't prevent the wolves from coming back. The cheapest and most effective way to stop them was to kill them. And even though attacks may have been rare, when they do happen, that stresses out the cattle and cause them to lose weight, not to mention the wolf packs hang around the area and make the cattle even more stressed out. Ranchers are only paid based on their cattle's weight, so the less weight = less pay, and it's not exactly cheap running a ranch. Thirdly, the wolf population has been growing and killing a lot of the game. In those areas, humans were the population control for the game (deer, elk, etc.). It's not a free for all killing spree; there are specific quotas that hunters can't go over, and if they do it becomes illegal. Not only does this bring money to the local economies, but it also keeps the population stable and prevents the ecosystem from being overeaten. (Seriously, being in an area overrunning with deer is not fun.) But when wolves came along, they not only killed a little of the game, they killed a lot of the game, and, at that time, were starting to overpopulate (wolves can breed like crazy). Since it was illegal to hunt wolves, the wolves took away most of the game and the economies suffered (I think they are allowed to hunt wolves now though).

So those were the main reasons for the anti-wolfaboo movement. That, and there was a lot of misinformation about wolves in general.

I don't know what it's like now as I've long since moved on to other things, but from what I hear was like the Twilight pro and anti movement (which I was also there for). Basically what happened was a bunch of Twilight fans freaked out bad that some people didn't like Twilight. This encouraged anti's to examine and critique the book, which was great. But then more and more people joined and it soon turned into a rabid movement that started attacking the fans instead of the books (at that point I left). I suspect something similar has happened here.

Anyway, sorry if this is kind of rambley (it's 2:00 am right now). Just thought it would be helpful to glimpse the other side of the debate.

Papabear

9/27/2013 02:23:53 am

Thanks for your comments, Sha. It's good to hear the story from both sides of the issue, and you provided a very detailed response.

As with most debates, the truth lies somewhere in between. Papabear has not doubt that tempers have likely flared on both sides, causing both to spout some venom that results in hurt feelings, more anger, and escalating the problem. Allow me, as someone who is not a wolfaboo nor a rancher, but who has some experience in wildlife training (13 years at zoos), to provide some perspective.

First, to reply to the wolfaboos, especially the letter writer with whom I have corresponded a few times since the letter was written: it is NOT nor is it EVER a good idea to own a wolf as a pet. I believe that wolfaboos glamorize wolves to make them some kind of Nature spirit or other. Seriously, people, wolves can be dangerous, and wolves that are used to people can be extremely dangerous. Please do not own one, or a hybrid.

To Sha and ranchers: Yes, ranching is a hard life, just as farming crops is. You are going to get some losses, and that's just part of the deal. I would like to respond to the accusations against wolves with some statistics.

PREDATION (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stats)

Wolves killed about 55 cattle in 2007, compared to 25,800 deaths from illness and other medical issues, 7,000 deaths as the result of harsh weather, 600 losses from human theft, and 1,500 deaths from poisoning.

Coyotes killed 2,300 calves in 2007, mountain lions killed 500, and dogs killed 100.

POPULATION

To say that there are too many of an endangered animal is absurd. To accuse them of reproducing too quickly is nonsense. Right now, the state with the most wolves is Minnesota, with about 2,000. Wisconsin is next with a little less than 200, then Michigan with about 150, Yellowstone park has 80-100, and Idaho and Montana both have fewer than 100.

If wolves continue to be killed, their population is at risk for becoming so small and isolated that they will not longer be genetically viable and will go extinct. Of course, ranchers would probably love that, but I, for one, would like to have wolves around for future generations.

If ranchers focused more on taking care of the medical and other issues that plague their livestock, they would easily overcome the few dozen losses they suffer from wolves.

Learn to live with Nature. If we destroy it, we destroy ourselves. We cannot survive independently of Nature and our ecosystem. To believe we can is the most pugnacious form of hubris.

D-Man

9/27/2013 06:36:38 am

Jeez, I don't think I'm a fan of having a Wolf pet, I was giving my thoughts about some people "owning one".

While I do feel connected in Nature with them at points (Which I find nothing wrong), I probably don't think they are dangerous at all times, (I think there are also reports of safety that might exist too,) but I get your main point. But I won't agree with it as a reason at all times, based on some reports. I guess it's all just opinion.

Sha

9/27/2013 08:35:16 am

Yea, I have a feeling this is going to be a "site sources related to ones own views that will contradict each other". I'm going to do just that anyway.

- Wolves really aren't as endangered as everyone says they are. They are classified by the IUCN as least concern. http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=3746
The FWS has also either delisted them all or is planning to except for the Mexican Wolf (which does need to have protection). http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/
Their populations have been increasing quite well over the years, and have reached a stable population. (though I do retract that they were "majorly overpopulating"; I was tired) If wolves do go below a certain population level they will be listed again. No big deal.
Also, here's a list of the current wolf numbers in the US, according to the FWS as of August, 2013: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/WolfPopUS.htm

- Here's a study on the effects of having wolf packs around cattle. http://web.archive.org/web/20090319050632/http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publications/pdfs/wolf_impact.pdf

- I agree that it's a horrible idea to have a wolf as a pet, or even a hybrid. The only people who should keep wolves are Wildlife Sanctuaries, and only good ones at that.

Fred E Coyote

9/28/2013 02:52:39 am

If the way to stop killing, is by killing, doesn't that make you a killer? So someone must then kill you to restore order?

D-Man/Diamond Man

9/28/2013 02:42:19 pm

@Sha

Interesting, but I often don't think the "non-Endangered" thing would matter, since I think it's not good to have Humans at all to control it, since that's the Wolves jobs (To see what they want to do) like how it's our own job to control ours. They may not be endangered, well at least this one type I heard about, but that doesn't mean it's right to kill them, or to say "They cross the "limit"", and since we are soooooo far from our own "possible" endangered list. xD Every creature does have a right to spread, unless maybe it causes harm to the planet, like Humans did. But spreading might, still be a nature demanding thing.
Note: I'm not saying that it's there job to make sure they don't populate more, only to see if they over-populated in a certain area, kind of.

Sha

9/28/2013 04:33:21 pm

Hey there, interesting response. :)

However, the thing is, wolves and other animals aren't consciously controlling their populations. They will breed rapidly when their ecosystem allows it, and when it crashes either from their overpopulation or other means, it will reduce. Humans are completely different, as we are not only the only species to be consciously aware of our population, but are the only ones capable of surviving almost any kind of ecological disaster, as a species anyway. Through innovation, we have figured out how to survive through extreme climate changes such as the ice age, live in hostile deserts, cure diseases, etc. It would take a pretty extreme calamity to bring the human race down to it's knees (alien invasion, perhaps?). So because we are capable of this, it is also our responsibly to manage our ecosystem, since we risk completely overwhelming it (which has happened in the past with bad results) This is what conservationists and environmentalists do.

However, the other thing to remember is humans are still technically part of the equation. Some people mistake that humans are completely separate from nature, and that we should just let the Earth be. The problem is we still live on Earth. We need the space and resources too, and that space and resources is in competition with other animals. And because we are predators, we do put our own species needs ahead of others, as do other predators, who do kill other predators to eliminate competition. But what's actually amazing is humans do know (and are learning), at what point to stop hunting and start preserving. We realize there is no need to keep eliminating the competition when it's no threat. Obviously this didn't happen in the past, but the fact we are trying it at all is good step forward.

Also, there isn't exactly a "right to spread" since before humans came along, nature didn't do that anyway. The species that was most adaptive and resilient spread out the most and pushed others aside, as they were able to. Humans just take that to an extreme scale. If another sentient species evolves or comes to Earth, then the issues of "right to spread" will become relevant. Plus as I said, humans are doing a pretty good job of conserving and getting better at it. Any other species would have been like "fuck it" and wiped everything out. And no, we are not wiping everything out. The fact that there are an increasing number of successful conservation and reintroduction programs is proof of that.

TL;DR: Because humans are the dominate species on the planet, it's our job to manage the environment. The fact that the concept of conservation is spreading is a good thing.

Diamond Man

9/28/2013 08:19:13 pm

That's interesting, I think I do believe that Humans are spreading some respect for Nature than last time, although I have to disagree that hunting some to "help" isn't a good thing still, since it would be considered "abuse" to the life of another animal (Even if that even did help). Sorry if you did not mean it that way. In case so, I heard that hunting can actually cause more problems somewhere once. And questions me about the hunting of humans it's self, to be "OK". Even though we can control our selves more, but the other reasons of being responsible outside of us still remains.

As for the "right to spread", I was referring to the consent right of any creature to "have babies" then spread based on that. Like if it's OK for us humans to spread, that also means it is for the other animal. I just don't think a human (Or any creature) should violate the process of that.

And yeah, we live on the planet too and are part of it, when I said humans are responsible for there own species, I was referring that they should try to slow down there race or something so they wouldn't effect the rest of the planet/lives/plants. Or any other damages since we are big, and there are over 7.0 billion of us. xD
Though, if we did have the ability to leave Earth someday and go on a empty planet, I would love that since our living on here still could be overly average that may not be well for the other life of Earth. Well.. I always wanted to leave and explore for the hell of it. Haha

To the part when you said wolves would decrease if they were responsible, I won't agree to that either, since many creatures has been able to make it without the need of humans, but if some did decrease, I might rather see that naturally (If all doesn't go away) without any unnatural effects of helping/non-helping from other creatures. (Though, I'm still carefully thinking about this one.)

If I didn't make sense, please tell me. ;)
Oh and my responses are not in the right order from up to down..

Diamond Man

9/29/2013 05:39:18 pm

Yeah I can't hold it, but I will say it, since my response to Sha or anyone may not been too clear yet. And it's to everyone so it's not simply another "reply" to a single guy. And I say this just in case.

It's morally never right at all to kill a wolf or any other creature for ANY reason. Weather you do it for fun, meat, or in the claims to help them, or any other reason. Why, because it's a un-consent kill of that creature's right to live. (If they don't have a right to live, we humans don't too.) It's just as bad as killing another human being, regarding any ability each animal has. So even if they are not in the endangered list, that doesn't mean we shall have rights to kill them without permission, they were proven that they do in fact have pain and suffer, and it interrupts the process of them.
OK so the only "reason" we may have to shoot one is if one is jumping on you and trying to tear your skin apart and you had no other choice, I think. Also, you can probably legally do that to a killer of other humans too and he/she did the same thing or something.

Of course, as some say, we humans shall have rights to survive, but so does every other creature of this forbidden planet. Are wolves a threat around houses? Sometimes, maybe, but we are also a threat to them for taking a lot of land away from them, or any other inhabited area, (and of course killing them). While we are part of the Ecosystem, and we may be responsible (For damaging a lot of things with our brains), we do not own the whole thing. We only own ourselves, and we should take any damages we do to the other parts that we do not own. Note: Of course, we need more land to survive, but if we continue to do that with a major amount of humans that are way beyond a average limit, it will be harder and it's basically never good to give up on the harder balance of the system, by limiting other animal population since it's very selfish in anyway to do so because it's "Killing" others to survive. Which would be the same kind of thing if we did this in a crowded house that can't stand 199 humans, and we couldn't escape. There is another way to solve this too.

As for preventing over-populated areas. The best thing (And morally best) to do to prevent that, is to move some away rather than killing some. That is the only "control" that is OK by humans. Because it's not really a threat maybe. It's more of a help to the right to live. Yes, the right to live is real, it's the process of being alive, and life is supposed to be about "growing" "moving", and being "alive". And if a human has the choice to stop a "Destroying process", they need to. The only difference in us than un-controlling killing like "Weather" "Or any" others that can lack choice is that, we have the ability to learn and stop. Though, some creatures can get extra thought, depending on how intelligent they are.

I had to say this because I have deep anti-Speciesism thoughts and love equality for all kinds of creatures. That's kind of why I can never say hunting/fur/statues is right, or even natural.
Oh and in case nobody knows what "Speciesism" means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Papabear

10/1/2013 09:47:58 am

FYI, I'm pasting below a letter I got from the Center for Biological Diversity. If you want to help wolves, here's a way to do it.

Dear Kevin,

Breaking news: The anti-wolf zealots are losing ground.

After weeks of intense pressure from the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just admitted to excluding key wolf experts from the scientific analysis of its infamous, nationwide wolf-delisting plan. The Service has dissolved its hand-picked panel and turned over the entire review process to an independent research institute. Now the nation's top wolf scientists --once improperly disqualified for questioning the Service's proposal to delist wolves -- will be reconsidered as candidates for the review panel.

This is a victory in our fight to keep federal protections for gray wolves -- but another battle is raging in the northern Rockies and Great Lakes. The wolf-killing season is starting, and hunters and trappers are lining up by the thousands.

In case you missed my last email, the Center urgently needs 6,000 wolf heroes to counter 6,000 wolf killers in Montana. Will you help now by giving to our Wolf Defense Fund and become a hero for these beleaguered animals?

In Montana 6,000 people just paid $19 to kill a wolf. Selling cheap $19 wolf tags to 6,000 people is an atrocity, because Montana only has 625 wolves left after last year's killing season. Not satisfied with the massacre, the state has lined up 10 times as many rifles as there are wolves to finish the job.

I'm writing today because the Center for Biological Diversity needs help balancing the odds. We need 6,000 wolf heroes to donate to our Wolf Defense Fund to ensure that federal protections are not stripped from all wolves across the country.

By donating, you'll help stop the killing and send Montana a powerful message that a wolf's life is worth far more than $19.

We can't let these extermination practices spread nationwide. Wolf haters are putting up money to wipe out wolves. Wolf supporters need to do the same if we're going to stop the killing.

That's why we're asking for 6,000 people to donate to our Wolf Defense Fund to keep wolves federally protected. Please give as generously as you can, and pass this appeal on to your friends.

With your help, we can counter the 6,000 wolf killers with 6,000 wolf supporters.

When it comes to wolf protection, the Center's lawyers and activists know how to get the job done. Oregon’s wolves now have more protections because of a lawsuit the Center and allies filed in 2011; last month we won a decade-long battle to improve federal protection standards for wolves in New Mexico and Arizona; and because of our work, California is on its way to placing wolves on its highly protective state endangered species list.

With your help, we'll stop the federal government's plan to strip protection from all wolves nationwide. We'll secure a future for wolves in California, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado and the Northeast. And we'll pressure Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the Great Lake states to stop indiscriminate killing.

Don't let Montana's killing spree spread. Become one of 6,000 wolf heroes and give to our Wolf Defense Fund today. With your help we can stop the mass deaths.

For the wolves,
Kierán Suckling

Kierán Suckling
Executive Director
Center for Biological Diversity
P.S. Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just extended the comment period on the proposed wolf delisting to Oct. 28, we're organizing large turnouts and street protests at all the public hearings. Your donation to the Wolf Defense Fund will pay for this work and for us to go to court to stop the killing. Please give today.

P.P.S. If you have problems with the links above, please cut and paste this into your browser: https://org.salsalabs.com/o/2167/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=10348&track=E1311B2

KitKat

10/3/2013 04:23:32 am

I just wanted to stop by and say that most anti-wolfaboos actually really love wolves, they just don't want to see people spreading misinformation on them or glorify wolves in an unhealthy way. Many wolfaboos use false facts to try and back up their claims they make, and when presented with accurate information tend to yell back that you're wrong or that you hate wolves.

Sure we make fun of sparkle wolves and such, but we don't mean that people should stop or that we hate them. They're not why we exist though. We exist because there are many, many people out there who view wolves as the most holy creatures in existence and idealize what wolves are. And we want people to know "hey, it's totally okay to like wolves. Heck, we love wolves too, but don't get carried away and don't spread false information just because you want it to be true."

As for the hunting thing, we don't support mass killing of wolves or anything, but we don't think that a wolf being shot is the literal end of the world. I personally dislike the whole "ranchers killing animals on sight" thing, especially since my favorite animal is the jaguar and that happens to them in South America (and they are way more endangered), but the shooting of wolves isn't as large of a deal, biologically speaking, since wolves aren't too endangered (grey wolves anyway).

Speaking of, wolfaboos also tend to only care about wolves, and grey wolves especially. They turn a blind eye to more endangered species, even amongst wolves. The Mexican wolf? They really don't care as much. Grey wolf? They swarm.

As a final comment, I want to leave you with this little tidbit I saw a wolfaboo saying once:
"a wolf could take down a lion!!"

Just one wolf.

Diamond Man

10/3/2013 03:49:51 pm

Sorry for long reply:
"Many wolfaboos use false facts to try and back up their claims they make, and when presented with accurate information tend to yell back that you're wrong or that you hate wolves."

I seen some info from "Anti-Wolfaboo" but lot's of them often use actually false information, against fans who enjoy to believe something that no one ever proved or dis-proved.

"Sure we make fun of sparkle wolves and such, but we don't mean that people should stop or that we hate them."

Well one of the "claims as facts" for making fun of them is honestly hatred or offensive, based on claims saying "They don't look normal", when yet it's possible a wolf can look like one as a new existence (Sci-fi) and such. (And I don't see people make fun of other creations based on other creatures much) Honestly, there is no reason to go talk fun over "Sparkle Wolves", even if it wasn't there to stop them.

Honestly, these groups I saw are not really honest, they tend to unreasonably post stamps/hatred/unfair stuff from what I see. Like attacks against people who believes they connect with a wolf for example when really, we do not know for sure about our "Soul" and "Nature". Most info I heard from those guys are often based on casual and non-proven claims, especially with hunting support.

Sure, some wolfaboo may have got a bit very far to extreme stuff, and posted actual non-facts over stuff that were proven like: "What some grey wolves do", "Claiming wolves to be morally better and has more life than humans", etc. But the "Anti-Wolfaboo" thing I been hearing around was a huge unnecessary thing, honestly. Haters or some "other" thing could of been more honest about certain claims and not make fun of anything they enjoy based on so called other "claims" (That are not proven)

I don't think those groups I saw "Hate" wolves, I was kind of aware of that I think, but there groups are still unusual hatred and unreasonable with little good information and mostly opinion based; I saw one of them attack "Alpha and Omega" fans and pretended there opinions on the designs of the characters being bad were "facts", when they really aren't. (Due to fans enjoying the designs, that's proven false.)

Another thing:
"We exist because there are many, many people out there who view wolves as the most holy creatures in existence and idealize what wolves are. And we want people to know "hey, it's totally okay to like wolves. Heck, we love wolves too, but don't get carried away and don't spread false information just because you want it to be true.""

Sadly, a lot of people has viewed "Humans" like that, and sadly lot's of people still do. I think it would of been better to judge that since currently, that's a lot more effected than how some wolfaboos do. (Everyone is morally holy equality I think. But people personality viewing though, won't be a issue as long if not forced)
And carryed away? Like the freedom to go beyond loving, that effects "Fursona's", personal connecting believes and such? What's wrong with that?
The only true thing I will agree is if the guy started to harm anyone who is very deep with wolves or if they did make false claims over things that were already dis-proven. Like I kind of explained above.

Even another:
Shooting wolves is a huge deal because they are equal to the life of a human, I think there is a reason why people freak out when one is killed. It's the same thoughts of when some human is being killed by another human. It's completely false to suggest it's not a huge deal, because there are those who happen to love the value of a wolf personality, which is a good thing to have.
Oh and yes, some will "Only care about one creature" but I say it's better than nothing though. Although, people do that because wolves just happen to be there favorite creature, just like anything really.

Not sure if you will read this, since this may be a 3 day late reply. I just don't think these groups are "nice" or "loving", even if they thought that. Nor are they "often smart" based on some research.

Diamond Man

10/3/2013 04:03:54 pm

OK, may not be a 3 day late reply and my reply may have been repeated on some things, I hate that. xD

Anyway, when I said "Equally holy", I meant that to every creature. And please excuse me for spelling some things incorrectly.
Again for that, idealizing what wolves are: If you mean, those "Magical thoughts" or "Spiritual thoughts", I have to disagree. I think most people do that in a mind set, showing that they are very holy like any creature, just they just personality like that, and we don't know for sure if those thoughts are "false". It's the "special idea" of existing, just like how humans did for them selves, it's self. And it's very harmless to have that kind of expression. Unless they effect outer 3D dimension effects of "wolves" if you know what I mean.

Wolfaboos vs. Anti-Wolfaboos

Leave a Reply.

Categories

Home

Letters

Write Me

Disclaimer

About