Animal Welfare v Animal Rights-What's the Diff?

I have gotten so sick of being called an "animal rights activist" that I made this page to which I can point people who don't know the difference!

Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights

What's the diff?

For the last 50 years or more, the debate has raged over the role of animals in human society, with particular reference to the ways in which we use them for our benefit. Fueling the debate still further has been the emergence, particularly in the last three decades, of a small but vociferous group of adherents to the philosophy of animal rights, which views humans and animals as essentially equal and condemns any and all use of animals for human benefit.

Animal rights advocates do not distinguish between human beings and animals. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." Michael Fox of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has said, "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect."

Animal rights advocates reject all animal use, no matter how humane. Some have even suggested that animal welfare reforms impede progress toward animal rights because they improve the conditions under which "animal exploitation" occurs, making it more difficult to stimulate public opposition to animal use.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione, The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992, pp. 40-42.

"The major success of this decade [the 1980s] has been the reapplication of the concept of rights in the human population to nonhuman species." --John Kullberg, president, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as quoted in Charles Oliver, "Liberation Zoology," Reason, 22, No. 2 (June 1990), p. 24.

"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

When the interests of humans and animals come into conflict, animal rights advocates put the animals first. PeTA's Newkirk has said, "Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

The animal welfare philosophy is fundamentally different from the animal rights philosophy, since it endorses the responsible use of animals to satisfy certain human needs. These range from companionship and sport, to uses which involve the taking of life, such as for food, clothing and medical research. Animal welfare means ensuring that all animals used by humans have their basic needs fulfilled in terms of food, shelter and health, and that they experience no unnecessary suffering in providing for human needs.

The American Veterinary Medical Association Policy on Animal Welfare and Animal Rights describes animal welfare as:

"... a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia."

In firmly endorsing animal welfare while rejecting animal rights, the AVMA takes the following position:

"The AVMA's commitment to animal welfare is unsurpassed. However, animal welfare and animal rights are not the same. AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as food and fiber, and for research conducted to benefit both humans and animals."

As an extension of this animal rights philosophy, a number of people are embracing veganism, relying exclusively on plant-based food, and plant-based and synthetic clothing. However, with less than 3 percent of the Earth's surface being suitable for crop production, animal protein and fiber will continue to be indispensable to the survival of the planet's 6 billion people, and to the conservation of natural habitat. It is for these reasons that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) promotes the use by humans of both plants and animals, domestic and wild.

On the importance of domesticated animals, the FAO takes the following position:

"Domestic farm animals are crucial for food and agriculture, providing 30 to 40 percent of the agricultural sector's global economic value. Around 2 billion people - one third of the global population - depend at least partly on farm animals for their livelihoods. Meat, milk and egg production will need to more than double over the next 20 years to feed the growing world population." (FAO press release, Dec. 5, 2000)

In Their Own Words ~

Pets

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." --PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme." --PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs {artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance." --Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind," -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Animals, May/June 1993.

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

"[Animal] Fancies provide an escape from the real world, a sense of purpose in a lot of purposeless lives, a chance to play God by breeding animals, and a chance to play celebrity by showing them." (The Animals' Agenda, Dec. 1991, Phil Maggitti).

"Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage." (Dr. Michael W. Fox, HSUS, in 1988 Newsweek interview).