Basic differences exist between animal rights and animal welfare movements.
Are you an animal rights activist? An animal welfare supporter? Do you know the difference? Many people do not realize there are fundamental differences between the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movement. However, these differences are rudimentary and set the animal rights movement far apart from the animal welfare movement.
Animal rights definition
Supporters of the animal rights movement believe that animals of all types have rights equal to those of humans. The group known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the foremost animal rights group and is well-known in animal rights circles.
Animal rights activists, including PETA, reject the use of animals for any purpose, whether or not the animals are treated humanely. Animal rights activists do not believe that animals of any type should be used in research, sporting events or entertainment venues. Animal rights advocates do not believe that animals should be used as work animals to aid people in completing necessary tasks and believe that breeding and exhibiting animals in zoos and conservation parks is a form of animal exploitation.
Animal welfare defined
Animal welfare advocates, unlike animal rights supporters, believe that animals have the right to be handled humanely and to live a life free of pain. However, animal welfare advocates do not believe that animals should have rights equal to those of people. Animal welfare advocates support the use of animals to satisfy human needs but require that animals used to serve humans are kept in such a way that their basic needs for food, shelter and health are met.
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."
Differences between animal rights and animal welfare
Proponents of the animal rights movement, such as PETA, stand against the use of animals for research under any circumstances. Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA, has been quoted as saying "Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." Animal welfare groups, by contrast, believe that animals can and should be used in research to further the treatment, cure and prevention of human disease.
Animal rights activists also oppose the use of animals for producing food or clothing. Even the use of eggs for food is opposed by some animal rights groups. Conversely, animal welfare advocates endorse the use of animals for food or clothing but seek methods to ensure that animals used for these purposes have their basic needs met and are handled in a humane fashion.
Animal rights groups would prohibit the breeding and exhibition of animals in zoos and other facilities, even when these species are endangered or extinct in the wild. These same groups believe that dogs used in search and rescue operations are being exploited by their human handlers and should be prohibited from being used in such a fashion, regardless of the fact that these dogs may be responsible for saving human life.
In summary, the philosophies of animal rights proponents and animal welfare advocates are extremely different. There are many people who believe strongly in the animal welfare cause who simply cannot support the cause of animal rights. Conversely, many animal rights advocates believe that animal welfare groups simply do not go far enough in protecting animals and securing their rights. Wherever an individual stands in regards to animal rights versus animal welfare, it is worth noting that these causes are not synonymous of one another.
The copyright of the article Animal rights versus animal welfare is owned by Lorie Huston. Permission to republish Animal rights versus animal welfare in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Photo Credit: Morguefile.com/taliesin
Comments
I'm not so sure about this definition. I'd have to read what the ALDF says and PCRM as well as the HSUS.
I know I am both. I believe that animals deserve rights and to be treated humanely.
Most people would agree that people deserve rights and to be treated humanely and yet look at GITMO, the death penalty and the fact that we have the largest number of slaves in the US in history.
Maybe it's a question of acting on our beliefs.
If we believe that animals should be treated humanely than it would be hard to make the argument that it's ok to do research on them for any reason or to confine them in zoos.
I'm reminded of a quote by Dr. C West "Justice is what love looks like in public".
PETA are not animal rights, they campaign for bigger cages and euthanase healthy animals. Welfarist.
Very amateurish article that fails to even reveal the tip of the iceberg. Animal rights radicals control HSUS and PETA. Animal rights radicals control the state Animal Welfare Department in Maine. The deluge of anti-pet legislation in Maine, and across the US, is driven by radicals who seek to end all animal use. Everyone is entitled to his beliefs, but no one is entitled to force his beliefs on others.
Excellent piece, Lorie. You nailed it. Animal welfare is about making sure our animals (including our nation's food-producing animals) are treated properly while animal rights is about not using animals for any purpose, or for that matter even owning animals as pets.
The other thing we must recognize is that some national groups that portray themselves as animal "welfare" groups - PETA and HSUS - really are animal "rights" groups and their goal is that of ending the use of animals in our nation for any reason. Since they know the public is not accepting of their animal right argument, they frame their efforts as being animal welfare oriented. Basically, they capitalize on the fact that there is a blurred understanding of animal welfare and animal rights.
So before you write a check to PETA or HSUS to "save the animals" recognize what you are really supporting. It isn't about helping puppies and kittens get a good home.
This article is overly simplistic and downright false in several instances. Animal rights supporters do NOT believe animals should have "rights equal to those of people." In many ways, the philosophies of welfare and rights do indeed overlap. I suspect Ms. Huston is among those who would like to think of themselves as "animal lovers" who nevertheless want to continue eating animals, wearing animals' skins, and otherwise using them for human-centered purposes regardless of whether those purposes result in the deaths of tens, hundreds or even thousands of animals. The concept of animal rights, in part, means allowing animals to live their lives on their own terms and not seeing them through the filter of their "usefulness" to others. It is rarely possible to "love" animals and still use them in a way that harms or kills them. People who claim to care about animals need to consider how they would feel if their lives and bodies were used by another species in the same way.
I am amazed by the degree of anger and ferocity expressed in the attacks against PETA. Why? What are you afraid of?
PETA cannot forcibly enlighten you. Raising your consciousness to a higher level is a personal choice.
As Bob Marley sang, "None but ourselves can free our mind."
Seems a bit vague, since when were PETA animal rights?!
Wow. I can't help but notice that all of you angry people are PETA supporters and animal rights activists. Why the anger?
Besides that, attacking the author is very rude.
The author forgot to state that animal rights activists, PETA, in particular, oppose the idea of pets altogether.
PETA is a new-welfarist group.
Real animal rights groups do not euthanize healthy adoptable animals or support so-called "humane" meat.
There is no such thing as "humane" slavery.
And if animals really are just mere property, then what is "humane"? Who are you to tell people what they can or can't do with their own property? Either animals are things to own and exploit in anyway the "owner" chooses or they are sentient beings deserving of equal consideration and the right to not be treated as an object or commodity. Welfarism is hypocritical. Animal exploitation IS unnecessary suffering. We do NOT need to enslave non-humans in order to survive.
April, what angry people?? I didn't even see ONE angry comment in this whole section!
Perhaps you have an issue with activists so you choose to see their comments as being "angry" so that you can feel that they are just "bad people" so you don't have to feel any guilt??
Disagreeing does NOT mean being angry.
Hey Jessie,
You nailed it! I had to look at your name a second time to make sure I hadn't posted this comment earlier today! My sentiments exactly. In fact, I wrote a similar article for a newspaper up here in Canada arguing the same thing (check out Niagara Center for Animal Rights Awareness).
Cheers!
There may be some differences between these two groups, but the commonalities in philosophy and tactics are greater than the differences - and by focusing on the commonalities, we will do far more to end animal suffering. Let's focus on that please!
Of the comments, in terms of the article, I'm probably most in agrement with Jill's assessment. These are not all-or-nothing beliefs and I'm sure PETA as well as any other organziation clamors with diversity of opinion within its own membership.
All of you PETA supporters, before you support PETA, why don't you find out what they stand for!! PETA doesn't want to take care of food producing animals better. They don't want you to eat animals at all. According to PETA, we all need to be vegatarians. No leather or furs, either. Animal welfare = taking better care of the animals used for food production, not banning meat eating (or chicken or pork, etc). The two views aren't compatible with each other and the author is correct to point this out. There are a lot of misinformed people out there and it amazes me that people can be so ignorant of what they are really supporting.
PETA also supports terrorism and is on the FBI's watch list of terrorists. They have convicted terrorists on their payroll. Is that what you people really want to support? Is it okay to bomb buildings and kill animals? Because that's what PETA does.
Just have to add here that the Audobon Society is also on the terrorist watch list. To be precise these groups are classified as eco-terrorists. And as far as I can tell the Audobon Society is a bunch of old ladies watching birds. (No disrespect intended to bird loving old ladies.)
Tracy,
Just FYI. The Audubon Society is much more than just old ladies watching birds. They seek to educate people about a wide range of ecological topics and they also "conserve and restore natural ecosystems". They are, in my opinion, a worthy cause that is well worth supporting.
I cannot speak to your statement about the terrorist watch list as I do not know whether they are or are not on the list. To be fair, I'm not sure whether PETA and the HSUS are on the list either. I've heard those rumors, but have never done the research to confirm or deny them.
I know exactly where PETA stands and I agree with them 100%. I oppose killing animals and eating them. To me that is terrorism!
Killing and eating animals is not worthy of humans who have the capacity to be so much more than barbarian butchers!
A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral. - Leo Tolstoy
Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet - Albert Einstein
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man. -Isaiah 66:3
Jessie, I was referring to the repeated attacks on the author when I said people were being angry. Attacking an author who chose neither side and was trying to show the difference between camps IS angry and rude. I didn't say what side I was on, now did I? And, yet, you made a wrong assumption and jumped down my throat. Angry? You, apparently. Nor did I say anyone was "bad people".
Disagreeing...yes, well that means I can choose to believe as I want and you can choose to believe as you want. That is the greatness of America, yes? So what exactly am I supposed to feel guilty about?
Also, Jessie, do you own pets?
I agree with Kelly, PETA is a "New Welfarist" group. I was shocked you presented them as the archetypal animal rights organization. A better example of animal rights would be the work of Gary Francione.
Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice.
Animal rights means that animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might benefit others. However, the rights position does not hold that rights are absolute; an animal’s rights, just like those of humans, must be limited, and rights can certainly conflict. Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare allows these uses as long as "humane" guidelines are followed.
I agree with Tahler. And that's basically what the article says also.
this
good i love it rajesh baba bangalore d.j halli bangalore modi road
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!