Need a rebuttal guide on hand for those times you argue with pesky wolfaboos? Give this stamp a , and you'll never be without a quick, witty response! This stamp and guide are an ongoing collaboration between myself and the wonderful sulfide, and we are working constantly to improve and expand upon it.

---

Table of Contents

To get yourself to the section you'd like to visit, simply press Ctrl+F, and enter the code for the desired section.

S1 - Definitions
S2 - Personal Testimony
S3 - Arguing With Idiots - Subsections are under construction!
        S3.1 - Common Wolf Misconceptions
        S3.2 - Hunting, Wildlife Management, and Conservation
        S3.3 - Taxidermy
        S3.4 - Veganism/Vegetarianism
        S3.5 - Animal Cruelty/Rights/Welfare
        S3.6 - Speciesism vs. Human Exceptionalism
        S3.7 - Miscellaneous Radical Statements & Lulz
S4 - Conclusion
S5 - Thoughts? Concerns? Want to add something?

---

S1 - Definitions

    wolfaboo [woolf-uh-boo]
    noun
    _{A person who recklessly advocates for the lives of wolves at the cost of human life and livelihoods, and the ecosystem at large, often harassing and employing threats of violence or death against anyone they perceive as "anti-wolf" (e.g., hunters, wildlife conservationists, taxidermists, furriers), as well as deliberately perpetuating false information about wolves in order to further their radically "pro-wolf" agenda. Knowledge regarding wolves is minimal, while placing them on a pedestal as the most important or beautiful species on Earth. Not to be confused with wolf fans, who merely harbor a modest interest for the animal or enjoy drawing them. Also not to be confused with wolf therians, who believe they have a genuine spiritual connection with wolves.}


    anti-wolfaboo
    noun
    _{A person who does not approve of wolfaboos and/or their behaviors. Contrary to popular belief, many anti-wolfaboos are also wolf-lovers. Not to be confused with trolls, who make controversial posts solely to provoke a negative reaction from the reader. Also not to be confused with wolf-haters, who harbor a genuine hatred for the animal.}


    animal welfare
    _{The avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain.}


    animal rights
    _{Rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans.}

---

S2 - Personal Testimony

Since the age of ten, I've enjoyed drawing wolves, and have invested a great deal of time into learning all I could about them. I thought that perhaps I was the only one who was as fascinated by them. Then, I joined deviantART and found myself surrounded by people who loved these animals just as much as I did. By 2010, the Internet was becoming quite tired of wolves, and the people who obsessed over them.

One group on deviantART presented itself as a driving force in the anti-wolf movement, known simply as Anti-Wolf. At first, I was intimidated by them. Surely, I thought, if I posted anything there or tried to join, I would be mocked, scolded, and laughed off the Internet. I observed them from a distance for a long while, until I gathered the courage to join. Much to my surprise, they welcomed me with open arms, and I haven't looked back since. I have learned more from my friends in this group than I ever could have imagined, and I am treated like family. I have since become a co-founder for the group, and have contributed a great deal of time to helping it flourish. I've made many great friends, some of whom I've had the pleasure of meeting face-to-face!

It wasn't long after I joined that I discovered the drama the group's mere existence caused. Enter A-O-W. It didn't take long before I had seen for myself the vicious, incessant hatred some in that group held for my new friends. I knew immediately that I wanted nothing to do with them. Being the founder of a large, wolf-oriented group myself, I checked to see if my group was affiliated with them. It was, so I quickly remedied that. I let them know why I was removing my affiliation with them, and moved on. Soon after, the group founder took it upon himself to call me a bitch, claimed that he was entitled to be a member of my group and an affiliate, and was even quicker to wonder why I didn't want anything to do with them.

Today, I know just how violent, ugly, and hateful this wolf-worshiping subculture can be, and just how detrimental it is to society. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The rest, I will leave to your imagination, but just know that it gets far worse than what I've just described.

---

S3 - Arguing With Idiots

S3.1 - Common Wolf Misconceptions
UWRG: App1: Common Wolf Misconceptions
"Wolves have never attacked people before."
Has teeth, will bite! You cannot exclude captive wolves from this sort of statement. Any predatory animal can and will bite under the circumstances. There is plenty of documentation that shows wolves have indeed been known to attack humans, including the natives.[1] This is, of course, taking into account rabid, healthy, provoked and unprovoked wolves.[2] But the main focal point being that wolves HAVE attacked people before.[3] One of the most famous pieces of literature documenting wolf attacks is Wolves in Russia by Will N. Graves and Valerius Geist.

"Okay, but there has never been a documented case of a healthy wolf killing a human in North America."
There are in fact two that recently happened over the past 6 years, Candice Berner and Kenton Carnegie. However, because wolfaboos like to believe that another animal was to blame, here is a quoted passage: "On March 7th, 1888 at New Rockford in the

S3.2 - Hunting, Wildlife Management, and Conservation (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

"Killing wolves because of over-population is a lame excuse to support killing wolves! You're just a sadist!"
It's not an excuse, it's a reason. Over-population is a serious problem, and can cause a great deal of ecological damage when left unchecked. Wolves are opportunistic predators, which means they will kill something when they can. This gives way to a behavior known as "surplus killing," which is the act of killing more than something needs to survive. For instance, in wild game, calf:cow ratios are at all-time lows in the Rockies because of wolf predation. Woodland caribou are on the verge of extinction because of wolves. Extinction is forever. I prefer that my next-of-kin has an abundance of wildlife to enjoy, not just wolves. If this makes me a "sadist," I'll wear the title proudly.

"Well, we're the most over-populated species on Earth! So you guys are hypocrites!"
Um, hardly. The exact carrying capacity of the Earth for humans isn't known because, unlike other species, humans can use technology to increase the Earth's carrying capacity for the species. Currently, scientists estimate that humans are using about 19% of the Earth's primary productivity, which is the ability of living things like plants to make food. Humans also use about half of the world's freshwater. All of this, and we only occupy 2% of the world's landmass. Standing shoulder to shoulder, all 7 billion of us would fill the city of Los Angeles. According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 was going to be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft). So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house. Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth. Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

"Anti-wolfaboos think guns are as natural as an animal's claws! LOLOLOLOL THEY FAIL SO HARD!"
An animal's claws are survival tools used for digging, climbing, scratching, fighting, etc. They utilize what they have, seeing as they are not capable of creating tools for themselves. Man created the spear, and used the spear to hunt, fight, and protect themselves. Killing an animal with spears and knives was gruesome, slow, and agonizing for the animal, but somehow, people claim that this method of killing is far more natural and humane. Man advanced in their understanding of weaponry, and created the gun. The gun was used to hunt, fight, and protect. The gun is still used for these purposes, and thanks to open ranges and indoor ranges, guns can be used for our enjoyment. Being able to manipulate the elements to our will isn't unnatural. Having a more advanced understanding of something is not unnatural, because humans are doing what is natural to them: advancing.

"Anti-wolfaboos claim that hunting an animal is not cruelty, which is ignorant. They only say that because shooting an animal is convenient for them and their wallet! They're so full of shit!"
It's not, considering the fact that "cruel" is a subjective term, varying from individual to individual. Consider other forms of killing animals: M-44s, shooting with calls, shooting with dogs, shooting from aircraft, denning, live-stock protection collars. How does one compare the suffering caused by trapping to the suffering inflicted by other methods? Shooting, for the most part, is a clean, painless method, depending on the skill of the shooter. What about toxicants, such as sodium cyanide and sodium monoflouroacetate? These toxicants kill wolves through internal injury and suffering, and is thereby more difficult to quantify. In the US, Wildlife Services personnel employ sodium cyanide in devices called M-44s. When a wolf (or any canine, really) bites and pulls on the M-44, sodium cyanide is injected into its mouth. Death often follows within 30 seconds up to 5 minutes. Is this device more or less humane than a foothold from the wolf's perspective? To assert that a particular killing method is unduly painful, one must have another option against which to compare it. Many animal protectionists consider all injuries sustained during an animal's capture, no matter how slight, as providing sufficient grounds to designate the method as cruel. For example, most animal protectionists will argue that the mere death of the animal (unless to end suffering not induced by humans) is by definition cruel, as the animal will have lost its expectation of life. Yet, loss of life is not what is generally understood as constituting cruelty in regards to animals. This radical understanding of suffering caused one fur trapper to remark that animal protectionists would not be happy even if people trapped or killed animals with "sweet dreams and tender kisses." This is why animal protectionists spend so much energy trying to convince readers that so-called "non-lethal" techniques work (when they actually don't) in order to stop wildlife damage. The point is simply to show that these arguments only have force if one asserts that wildlife can only be regarded as a pest or visual pleasure rather than a resource to be responsibly harvested.

"Anti-wolfaboos all whine like two year-olds because wolfaboos don't respect their opinions. How can you expect someone to respect an opinion that supports killing animals? That's completely comparable to terrorism and murder!"
No, wildlife management is not comparable to terrorism or murder. For one, murder, by definition, only applies to humans. Secondly, terrorism is the act of threatening or scaring someone into submission. Wildlife management is not a synonym for either. Nice distortion of the truth, though. As always.

"Wolfaboos support life. Anti-wolfaboos support death to animals! Who do you think the badguy is?"
Well, making such a vague, uneducated statement, one would assume that anti-wolfaboos are the bad guys. But the reality is that wolfaboos support deaths of hundreds of animals, spreading diseases that were never in the contiguous U.S. before the wolves were introduced, and not to mention, they support economic collapse and business loss, which is brought in by hunters who visit nationwide to hunt each season. The pro-management side supports life of all animals, the country, wildlife conservation, and habitat restoration.

"How would you feel if you were killed like a wolf?! I bet you wouldn't like it, you evil sadist!"
I wouldn't care because I'd be dead.

"It's okay to wish the same fate of the wolves on hunters."
Calling one a sadist, only to turn around and take pleasure in the deaths of those you disagree with is not only ironic, it is disgusting, misanthropic, and harmful to society.

"People know the difference between right and wrong, so they are different from animals. People don't need to hunt for survival, anymore. Animals only kill for survival, and it's been going on for billions of years."
Another half-assed evolutionist who wants to make rules to his theory. What other animal that has evolved do you expect to not utilize their evolved skills? If humans crawled out of the swamp, and evolved to the apex predators that we are today, was that not a product of your evolution? Was that not the perfect creature, as only perfection can be created out of the needs of nature to cause it to evolve further? In evolution, no animal is above another, as they all evolved together in some symbiotic relationship. It is only now that you want to somehow stand and preach evolution, but exempt humans. Your attempt to define 'need' vs. 'want' is just another shallow thought in an attempt to apply further manufactured hypocrisies on your already hypocritical mentality. Evolution has evidently created and removed thousands, if not millions of species since the beginning of life. Yet, somehow these nuts seem to think humans were the mistake. That somehow we cheated the system, that if real, can not be cheated. If we kill for pleasure, it is because we evolved to do so, correct? Yet, somehow, someone who claims evolution is the only truth now feels that that is incorrect. If you are an evolutionist, you can not logically place one animal above another, and that includes humans. I guess we'll see who is more evolved, who is more apt to survive a catastrophe, somehow I don't think the wolfaboos are on the survival list. They are not evolved--they are dependent.

S3.3 - Taxidermy (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

"Wolfaboos have art galleries full of fantastical wolves and furries, while anti-wolfaboos have galleries full of hate, bashing, wolf-corpses, and support for death! Photos of corpses don't belong on deviantART, because they aren't art, they're sadism."
Taxidermy: noun. 1. the art of preparing, stuffing, and mounting the skins of animals with lifelike effect. Taxidermy, by definition, is an art, whether you consider it that or not. What do you think you see when you go to a museum full of taxidermized corpses? Those are dead animals, prepared with great care and precision by someone who worked hard to preserve their beauty for the rest of the world to admire and remember! As for hunting photos showing a recently killed wolf? Yes, that's art too! It's called photography!

"Then why don't we just taxidermize humans?!"
We do! OUR BODY: The Universe Within is a great example of modern human taxidermy! Taxidermized humans serve an extraordinary educational purpose in teaching how our bodies work and what they look like. But before we were preserving our bodies in museums, we were doing it in ancient Egypt! Technically speaking, we've been taxidermizing ourselves for ages.

S3.4 - Veganism/Vegetarianism (COMING SOON)

S3.5 - Animal Cruelty/Rights/Welfare (COMING SOON)

S3.6 - Speciesism vs. Human Exceptionalism (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

"You anti-wolfaboos think you're gods! You think that all animals have to die for your goals!"
Gods? No. Top of the food chain? Yes! The most capable, innovative, empathetic species on Earth? Absolutely! Human exceptionalism is about embracing one's humanity and recognizing that we are one of the most important species on Earth. We acknowledge the worth and importance of the rest of the world's creatures, and still use them as resources in order to better the world. So, yes, as a human, I believe that I am more important than a lot of other things on this Earth. And, yes, sometimes animals have to die in order to help us, like through laboratory testing when searching for cures for catastrophic epidemic diseases such as cancer and AIDS. As long as their suffering is kept to an absolute minimum, I don't see a problem with any of this.

S3.7 - Miscellaneous Radical Statements & Lulz (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
This section has been temporarily removed until I can figure out what is causing the description updater to crash every time I try to edit this section. Sorry for the inconvenience!

---

S4 - Conclusion

Intelligence is a valued commodity in today's world, and those who possess it are, therefore, valued. Those who do not are left to wallow in the cesspool that is idiocy. These people have no cause for worry, because there are many others like them, and they will always have company. But you are judged by the company you keep.

---

S5 - Thoughts? Concerns? Want to add something?

Unlike some folks who, out of sheer cowardice, disable comments because they fear that people will refute their "flawless" logic in public, I want to use the comments section to improve this stamp and its subsections. Remember that the respect you give is the respect you will receive. So mind your tongue.