An Opportunity to Discuss Rights vs. Welfare

Someone keeps sending me links to the Manhattan Bird Club forum. I’m not complaining; there are few things I appreciate more than blog ideas by well-meaning readers.

Check out this series of posts:

#52, which reads (in part):

Let me explain, there are three agendas going on here —

a)  The really bad one – the breeders and petstores who make big bucks$$$$$$$$$$$    and don’t care if birds end up in basements or closets….all they care about is dollars$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.  They are greedy bloodsuckers and use deception to pretend they care while fattening their bankrolls.

b) Then there are those who advocate for animal welfare. These organizations/people fall into the middle range, they want to give animals a better life BUT IN CAGES. These may be good people or not, they advocate for better conditions for animals.  Not a bad agenda….

c) The third group which consists of groups like PETA and similar organizations/people rally for complete freedom and independence for animals – not to be sold, bought, caged, not to be worn, not to be USED in any way such as an income, as entertainment, as a hobby, etc, etc.

If you are in the first group or support them….you are immoral, and unfortunately you are beyond hope.  Anyone who owns a petstore or breeds for profit falls into this group. And there are shelters/sanctuaries that fall into this group. 

The conflict exists between Group B and Group C and if you run an organization it should be stated in your Mission Statement if you support Animal Welfare or Animal Rights, because there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

My personal belief is that Animal Welfare obstructs the Animal Rights Movement, however, this can be the start of a book or at least a 10-page essay.  It is necessary to verify and state if you are support only animal welfare or support the animal rights movement.  Once this is established, things should become clearer and the AR movement can move forward and their efforts will not be foiled by Group B.

Now, post #54 does attempt to correct, with:

Organizations like the Humane Society of the United States is considered by many people to be animal welfare oriented.  This organization often does not advocate for the total elimination of animal use, but works to reform it.  However, some more radical developments of the movement consider even PETA to be welfare oriented because some of the changes that have resulted from their campaigns recently have been more welfare oriented.

Post #56 speaks to what I was going to write about today, but am saving for tomorrow, and by no means do I agree with the author:

For the record, I don’t believe that animal protection advocates and animal rights advocates are necessarily hurting each other’s causes.  How humans treat animals is a very complex set of issues populated by varying interests — from exploiters (who are MANY and powerful) to conservationists to abolitionists. 

In a real world, the incremental changes that animal protection advocates promote lead to bigger and better conditions and attitudes toward animals. In my mind, those advances will eventually lead to the goals of abolitionists.  No, it won’t happen fast, as abolitionists desire but cannot achieve. 

But to imply that protectionists are "selling out" and ultimately hurting animals is naive and fails to acknowledge effective strategic thinking. As long as abolitionists don’t practice violent tactics, they keep the ultimate goals visible and that is a good thing, too. So, both ends of the spectrum ultimately help each other reach their goals.

This thread was not supposed to be about rights vs. welfare, which has perturbed some people. However, it is an opportunity to clarify what PeTA is, what abolition is and whether you think (or have evidence) that incremental welfare reforms do or do not lead to abolition.