This is something I’ve been thinking about: What’s the difference between animal welfare and animal rights? I certainly don’t have an answer, of course, and I’d love to hear what you think. Here’s how I’m looking at it right now:
“Animal rights” is hot. It’s divisive. It’s PETA. Animal rights activists argue that all animals have the same rights as humans (also animals, of course). The animal rights movement wants to end the use of animals for any domestic purposes, in some of the more extreme cases even as pets.
“Animal welfare” means we’re responsible for the care and humane treatment of all animals. Animal welfare is about being responsible for the animals who share our space. It’s animal shelters and the ASPCA.
The animal rights movement wants to end animal testing and horse racing and animals in the entertainment industry. Animal welfare doesn’t necessarily oppose those activities as long as the animals are treated well.
I suppose if my breakdowns are close to accurate, I fall somewhere in the middle. I think humans have worked very hard to domesticate many animals to help us, and as long as we treat those animals with care, love, and respect, we can have a great partnership. I think service dogs are a miracle. And I think animals in the entertainment industry, as long as they’re treated really well and not stressed out, are awesome. I mean, have you seen Hotel for Dogs?
But I don’t think animals should be used for testing. I don’t think we should have horse racing or greyhound racing. I think we need to take into consideration how incredibly intelligent animals are and factor that into our care and treatment.
So I suppose I fall somewhere in the middle? This is pretty heavy for a Friday, I know, but I’d love to hear what you think. What do you think are the differences between animal rights and animal welfare? And where do you fall on the continuum?
Image: eng1ne
I 100% agree with you. Like, I could have written this post. I would like to see the end of puppy mills, factory farming, horse racing, greyhound racing, and animal testing. But when I talk about it, it can be hard because they think I’m going to throw paint on them for eating meat or something. I think PETA does some good work, but their extreme tactics always make the news and make the general public think that anyone who is working toward animal welfare is as drastic as them.
This is not an easy issue. To me, animals rights to some extent are needed. Without them, it is very, very difficult to protect them in the way they deserve. For example: dogs should not be living their lives on chains or in a small pen – it’s cruel. However, because animals don’t have rights inherent to themselves, it can take a lot of struggle to get laws passed to stop this kind of obvious neglect and cruelty. Yes, organizations like PETA tend to go to the extreme and will turn people off. But, sometimes things in this world do not get changed without extremists. If not for PETA, there are many, many beautiful creatures that would still be living their lives in a laboratory being used for experimentation. So, this is a difficult issue because of the line to be drawn. In my opinion; no animal deserves to be harmed, period! We do need some rights given to them so that it won’t be so difficult to help them when needed. Puppy Mills, for example, are anything but humane. They could easily be stopped all together if the animals had more legal rights.
I agree as well. When I look at the animal rights activists such as PITA, I see extremists, taking a good thing too far. In my opinion, animal rights is the right of the animal to be treated humanely, with love and respect, patience, nurturing and education, just as we do with our children. I see animal welfare as the result of treating all animals with the love and respect we want ourselves.
I’ve always considered myself more of an animal welfare advocate. Perhaps because I’ve wanted to stay as far away from groups like PETA as much as possible. In my opinion, and this is just me blathering, I think PETA has done harm to the animal welfare movement by using extremist and alarmist tactics. PETA, or groups like them, have made the rest of us look like wackos. In the general public’s eye, welfare organisations have lost a lot of credibility.
Anyway, to get off my soap-box, by your definition, I think I’m a middle-of-the-roader as well. While I don’t attempt to value animal life on the same level as human life, I do believe they deserve the most humane treatment possible.
I would highly recommend the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer (I mentioned it here- total “aha” book for me: http://fidoandwino.com/2010/09/08/freeatarian-baby/)
I agree with Kim- crazy as I might sound, I think PeTA has actually done quite a bit of good. Their tactics can be in your face (it is by their own admission in your face and they do that on purpose to get press)… but sometimes that is where you need to go to be heard. I started to follow their blog to learn more about them- I thought I would unfollow immediately… but turns out I haven’t.
Singer talks about the capacity to suffer and how that is an important line to draw when it comes to animal rights. Obviously animals don’t deserve the same “rights” as humans (right to vote etc, etc), but they deserve a life without suffering. They deserve to *be* animals- walking around, stretching their wings, not having their young continually taken away, a life without fear.
And now I have officially gotten way too heavy 😉
I think you hit the nail on the head as far as the differences between the two. Let’s not forget that Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is standing there right next to PETA. Many people fail to realize this.
I have always looked at Animal Welfare as a good reflection on us as human beings. Animals are property, and should remain as such. Anybody who disagrees should not be using ANY animals products whatsoever (including life-saving drugs), because that ownership is exactly what makes ALL animal products possible. HOWEVER, the way we treat those animals is a direct reflection on us, and animal need not be given specific legal rights in order for us as human beings to be responsible for their ethical treatment.
As a person who’s headed into the world of breeding dogs and who owns rescues, I can say that rescues are wonderful dogs but to implement laws making the lives of GOOD breeders a living hell is a terrible shame. Many dedicated people over the course of time have practically given their entire lives (and in some extreme cases, did give their lives) to developing and maintaining the purebred dogs we have today – dogs with true and valuable purposes. To force the abandonment of those breeds for the sake of unrealistic ideals is something I find to be positively shameful.
We have to think when we vote on these laws. Some I have read say things like “all dogs must have unabated access to the outdoors”. How many of our OWN dogs have this? Does that mean we are bad owners… because we put out dogs in a crate to keep them safe? Are we willing to have our OWN homes searched and our OWN dogs taken from us if these unrealistic expectations are not met? We MUST think before we act viscerally on these issues.
Animal welfare should be an animal right! I definitely agree with the testing. Not sure about the racing, didn’t have any direct exposure.
Tough issue. I think “welfare” is more about our moral duty to companion animals whereas “rights” is more about codifying the limits to exploitation. On the one hand, I am absolutely against animal testing, even if its humane. On the other hand, we own race horses- who love to run! We treat our horses like gold, but there r a lot of horses who aren’t so lucky. It’s a tough line to tread.
The line between welfare and rights is very distinct. One believes animals can be used, albeit humanely, one believes they shouldn’t be used by us, for any reason, in any way.
Me, personally, I support humane welfare laws, as well as things like racing and biomedical testing. Cosmetic and other testing is a little iffy, but if the laws are enforced, it *can* still be humane, if testing were limited.
Unfortunately, I also believe that more laws (like the BS Prop B in Missouri) aren’t going to do much good. The focus needs to be on executing the laws already in place by hiring more people, and coming up with ways to help finance it (maybe taking some of the multi-million dollar donations from PeTA and HSUS?). More laws only mean more money and manpower needed.
And sorry, I don’t see any good having come from PeTA, or HSUS. Sure, PeTA may have pushed some things like CAK (still unsure on just how humane it is), but it’s only so they can push more rights-based laws without anyone giving them funny looks. And with $30 million+ a year, you think they could do a lot better than a 98% kill rate.
I would say I am more about animal welfare. We are to be good stewards and guardians of animals.
PETA! As the owner of two Pitbulls…one male (Reggie) who passed last year (13 1/2 years with us) and my female Pittie “Sofia” who is with us currently…I have to bring up the comments made about Pitbulls by Ingrid Newkirk, one of PETA’S big shots.
She has basically said that Pitbulls should be banned and exterminated, and that there were plenty of other suitable breeds of dogs that need to be rescued. Check it out for yourself. Amazing that someone in her position would play God, and say such sick & harmful things.
Wow. This is a really interesting discussion. Thank you, everyone, for sharing your thoughts and opinions. After reading all the comments, I have to wonder: Could the distinction between the two have more to do with OUR relationship with animals than the animals themselves? Perhaps animal rights has to do with considering all non-human animals as equal to humans with equal rights, and animal welfare has to do with people being responsible for providing animals with humane treatment? That’s just off the top of my head, but… having read all the interesting insights, that’s my first thought.
“Obviously animals don’t deserve the same “rights” as humans (right to vote etc, etc), but they deserve a life without suffering. They deserve to *be* animals- walking around, stretching their wings, not having their young continually taken away, a life without fear.” – This comment comes as a surprise to me, as many of you must be aware, that plenty of animals hunt other animals in the wild. There is no such thing as an animal ‘living without fear’, UNLESS they are on top of the food chain, in which case, they are the ones torturing the lesser animals (they need to live, of course)! If a ‘life without fear’ means they could get horrible stung, suffocated, slized, ect … well, I think animals would choose humanity’s approach.
How many people do you guys know would want to torture any animal? Most people fall into the welfare spectrum but confuse it as being the same as animal rights. I’m sure most of the people in your life do not harm animals. Why do you assume that all farmers do the same? As far as factory farming goes, how many of you have actually been to a ‘factory farm’ beyond what PETA spoons feeds you?
Many animals kept in captivity live full, save, HEALTHY lives. They receive medical care from their owners (majority are quite loving! Agian, MOST people aren’t heartless torturing individuals), temperature control, and they have NO need to fear predators. At the very least, if they’re consumed by humans, they are usually killed swiftly!
My dog lives a happy full life with me. He gets great meals, warmth, shelter, companionship…how could anyone tell me he’d be better off in the wild? In the wild, dogs have to hide if their sick or weak because another dog might attack them. In the wild, they may swiftly die of illness. Nature is cruel. Not all humans are.
PETA is good at bringing attention to some cruel things. But PETA themselves are also responsible for killing thousands of cats and dogs, and also advocating the death of pit bulls.
If you’re going to be an animal rights activists, don’t use PETA as your guide. Think for yourself and make your own choices. Violence to display your point accomplishes nothing.