Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?

by Karen Lawrence

Reprinted with permission, Pets Quarterly Magazine, Fall 1996

Animal rights or animal welfare?
Which one will best serve our pets?

The argument between animal rights activists and animal welfare proponents is a long and involved one, and unfortunately is one that shows no sign of coming to any amicable conclusion in the near future.

The word "rights" can be defined as "that which is justly owing", while "welfare" means more along the lines of "ensuring health and happiness". Therefore, an animal rights activist believes that animals and humans are equal and should be treated with equal respect, while an animal welfare proponent believes that man has an unwritten responsibility to properly take care of pets.

The Stance of Animal Rights Activists

In the past few years, the stance taken by Animal Rights activists seems to be centered on working toward a hidden agenda - the total elimination of all pets as companion animals. Activists are activley seeking positions on local animal welfare councils, and are now working from within to achieve the goal in their "hidden agenda". Hidden Agenda? What is that? A good example of this theory is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), whose printed goals make it sound like a worthy organization as described in their literature, until you begin to explore the depths of their true agenda which is the complete abolishment of animals as pets. The following quotes from their leader, Ingrid Newkirk, give insight into their true goals:

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." (Washingtonian Magazine, August, 1986)

"I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's speciest language. I prefer 'companion animal.' We would no longer allow... pet shops... Eventually companion animals would be phased out." (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." ("Where Would We Be Without Animals?", Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990)

Their Effect on Coercive Legislation

The result of animal rights activists sitting on our legislative committees is that many communities are considering restrictive laws limiting the number of cats or dogs one can own, mandatory neuter/spay laws, licensing laws, or so-called indoor-only laws. These measures are being takenand legislation is often passed in a mis-guided attempt to control the outdoor cat population and reduce the number of animals in humane society shelters. What the run-of-the-mill legislators (those without a hidden agenda who just want to do what they think is "right" for the animals) don't understand is that the majority of the over-population problem - in particular with cats - is due to the feral or un-owned cats who roam a neighborhood, not the pedigreed cats who live their entire lives indoors.

Feral cats are those running wild, or abandonded animals that have no homes, and feral cats have no owners - therefore:

no matter how much legislation is in effect!

Many comunities are also passing laws limiting or banning any and all breeding of cats and dogs. Unfortunately, these sweeping laws are passed with little concern for the responsible, pedigreed breeder or for the valuable breeds that could face extinction. These laws are not affecting the people who are causing the problem with an overpopulation of pets. The un-owned cat that is allowed to run and breed at will along kitten and puppy mills, where quantity not quality is the ultimate goal, are causing the over-population problem!

Cat Licensing?

Mandatory cat licensing is not the solution, either. Remember, the problem cats have no owners to buy them a license! The San Francisco SPCA's Position Paper on Mandatory Cat Licensing explains the problems and their innovative solutions very well. Communities and local humane organizations need to invest their time and energy into developing progressive projects such as the Trap, Test, Alter, Vaccinate, and Release Program. This program would at least control the population of feral or non-owned cats to a certain extent, and ensure that the feral cats in the community are healthy.

Celebrity Endorsements

Another oddity is trying to understand the logic behind the financial support for the animal rights groups handed out by many of today's movie stars and recording artists - mostly people with extremely high profiles and lots of money. These people donate millions each year to animal rights groups, and then show up at ceremonies like the Academy Awards wearing a red ribbon to support Aids research! Again a quote from PeTA's leader:

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

Ironic, isn't it? To financially and emotionally support Aids research with one hand, and with the other hand give money to a group who is obviously against Aids research!

Visit the Americans for Medical Progress Education Foundation for the an eye-opening look at celebrity endorsements.

For the sake of our pets,
we must seriously support
animal welfare over animal rights!

Be a responsible pet owner!

San Francisco SPCA Position Statement Against Mandatory Cat Licensing

Issued January 3, 1995 this paper sets out the San Francisco SPCA's vehement opposition to mandatory cat licensing.

"According to proponents (of at licensing), mandatory cat licensing will put an end to the problem of stray and abandoned cats, raise the statuse of felines, increase funding for budget-strapped animal control agencies, and make cat owners more responsible. Unfortunately, licensing cats, like licensing people, won't do any of these things."

TTVAR Programs

Trap, Test, Alter, Vaccinate, Release (TTVAR) programs have been instituted in various parts of the United States with great success. Captured animals, once treated, are returned to their environment, however they will not reproduce. This will help to greatly decrease the over-population problem. Vaccinations will also help to ensure a healthy "feral" community.

Canadian Animal Welfare Groups on the World Wide Web

Reports and Studies to fight coercive legislation

[ Back to Index ]

Page maintained by Karen Lawrence, klawrenc@computan.on.ca. Copyright(c) Karen Lawrence and Dan Petty. Created: 4/10/96 Updated: 12/7/96