Animal Rights (AR):

Animal rights advocates/activists (ARAs) do not distinguish people (human beings) from non-people (non-human animals), at least not in a way that is normal or right. ARAs are opposed to all types of animal usage by humans, no matter how humanely the animals are treated prior to or during their use or slaughter; however, ARAs are not opposed to non-human animals using one another for their own gain, no matter how barbaric or torturous the animals' methods of maiming and killing one another may be. ARAs are only opposed to human beings using non-human animals for their own benefit. ARAs are therefore, basically, anti-human, in my opinion. They aim to take away many basic rights from all people for the sake of all animals! Although ARAs are, for the most part, a small minority (at this time), many of them tend to be very loud, obnoxious, hateful, and intolerant bigots who have their ways of tormenting omnivorous people, which they try to do as often as they get the chance. Of course, some ARAs are not quite as agressive in their acitivism/terrorism as others are, and may choose to remain rather quiet, though they still condone and support the evil actions of the more militant ARAs, which makes them just as bad as the rest, in my opinion. Many AR organizations have accumulated large amounts of money and are pushing very hard for pro-animal/anti-human legislation while, at the same time, hiring and protecting criminals to perform illegal acts of terrorism and violence against omnivorous people everywhere. They must be stopped!

Animal Welfare (AW):

Animal welfare advocates, on the other hand, are people who support the humane treatment of all animals that are used by humans, but they do not necessarily oppose all animal usage by humans, particularly the killing of animals for food, as long as it is done as humanely as possible. I am an omnivore who likes to hunt and fish, and I consider myself an animal welfare advocate.

Animal welfare advocates tend to be much more varied than ARAs, for the most part. Some animal welfare advocates are borderline-ARAs while others are meat-eating, leather/fur wearing, hunter/fishers, like myself. ARAs, on the other hand, I have noticed, are basically all the same, it's just that some of them are a little crazier than the others are.

Just because someone eats meat, wears fur/leather, hunts/fishes, and/or raises animals to be killed for human consumption does not mean that person is evil and does not care about animals and their welfare. It is not too hard to use animals for our own benefit while taking their health and comfort into consideration at the same time, especially when one does his or her own killing. It is not too hard to give an animal (wild or domestic) and quick, clean, and relatively painless death. It's just that some people, particularly those who work on factory farms and in slaughterhouses (in the 'big business' meat industry), cut corners because they are lazy, greedy, and careless, which causes a lot of unnecessary and easily avoidable pain and suffering to our food animals. This is wrong. The meat industry needs to be cleaned up; animal suffering needs to be reduced to and kept at a minimum. This is a goal for most animal welfare advocates, like myself.

Many ARAs have claimed (or rather admitted) that animal welfare reforms aimed at improving the conditions of animals which are used by humans actually impede progress towards the goals of animal rights because they improve the conditions under which 'animal exploitation' occurs, making it more difficult to stimulate public opposition to animal use. Of course, they are absolutely correct!

The differences between 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare' are actually quite obvious and contrasting indeed. In my opinion, everyone should be for animal welfare...but NO ONE should be for animal rights!