Tailsend Cattery - Why Animal Welfare Not Animal Rights?

Why cat fanciers support animal welfare, not animal rights

What do animal rights advocates believe?

Animals and humans are equal (based on Eastern religious philosophy).
No animals should be used by humans for any reason, including pet ownership (exploitation).

Animal rights advocates (including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) and the Humane Society of the United States) adhere to the following agenda:

Abolish by law all animal research.
Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, and classroom demonstration (medical and veternary students would not be able to practice).
Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools.
Eliminate all animal agriculture (resulting in no chicken, fish, or meat for food, no leather for shoes or clothing).
Eliminate all herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.
Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture.
Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.
Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.
End the international trade in wildlife goods.
Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade (resulting in no more pets).
End the use of animals in entertainment and sports (resulting in no horse shows, dog shows, animal actors.
Prohibit the genetic manipulation of the species (resulting in the elimination of critical medical research relating to cancer and other life threatening diseases).

What do animal welfare advocates believe?

That man has responsibility over animals, and that this stewardship should involve humane care and treatment based on the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
The animal-human bond in our society should be promoted, and man is responsible for the support and humane and caring use of animals for food, fiber, service and companionship, and abhor the inflicting of any unnecessary pain or suffering.
National, state and local laws should and do support this concept with cruelty/abandonment provisions.
Industries, including those using animals in medical research, have and should establish "watchdog" committees to insure compliance with sanitary conditions and humane treatment.

What do animal rights activists say?

Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of PeTA, has said:

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." (Vogue, Sept. 1989)

"If my father had a heart attack, it would give me no solace at all to know his treatment was first tried on a dog." (Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1983)

"Meat eating is primitive, barbaric, and arrogant." (City Paper, Feb. 1990)

"I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's specieist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding ... as the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance. (Harper's Magazine, Aug. 1988)

"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. (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." (Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990)

Other animal rights activists are also outspoken about their plans:

"The $10,000 microscope was destroyed in about 10 seconds with a steel wrecking bar we purchased ... for less than $5. We consider that a pretty good return on our investment. (ALF memo about destruction of lab at U. of Oregon Oct. 1986)

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

"[Expressing opposition to use of bug sprays] "Only a few of the million you kill would have bitten you." (Dr. Michael Fox, HSUS, Returning to Eden, Fox publication)

"Even granting that we [humans] face greater harm than laboratory animals presently endure if ... research on these animals is stopped, the animal rights view will not be satisfied with anything less than total abolition." (Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983)

"If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it ... We have no basic right ... not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to." (Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983)

"The theory of animal rights is simply not consistent with the theory of animal welfare or other approaches that reject the rights view and, more importantly, embrace animal exploitation. Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and nonhumans alike." (Gary Francione, Director, Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic, The Animals Voice, Vol 4, #2, pp. 54-55)

"...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...(In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses." (Barbara Biel, The Animals' Agenda, Vol 15 #3 (summer 1995 issue))

...and there's much, much, much more. Check out the following sites: