Animal Welfare - Good or Bad? (And some definitions)

Yes that title could get a few heckles up but let's stick to context because from my perspective at least there seems to be a less than clear understanding of some of the terms involved in animal welfare. It has given rise to misunderstandings on both sides of (for example) the Live Export debate and some cynics would go so far as to claim it allows some people the benefit of adopting a shape shifting form, making them more prone to firing shots whilst maintaining a fairly elusive stand point if one wants to scratch the surface deeper.

Feel free to hit up the comments section with your "definitions" if they differ.

Cruelty to Animals -  It includes overt and intentional acts of violence towards animals, but it also includes animal neglect or the failure to provide for the welfare of an animal under one’s control. - See more at: http://www.rspca.org.au/animal-cruelty/what-animal-cruelty#sthash.7XJDyUik.dpuf

Animal Welfare -  Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behaviour, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate about which of these indicators provide the best information.
(So Animal Welfare could in the case of an animal wilfully tortured or left neglected without food or water as being poor animal welfare whilst a well looked after animal, healthy in every respect being a product of good animal welfare. Where the think gets confusing is when Animal Welfare and Animals for Food get entangled, more later)

Animal Welfare Advocate/s - Those willing to speak up against the mistreatment of animals, those willing to speak up in opposition against cruelty to animals.

Fairly simple, although there seems to a slight confusion as to who this includes. My father is a farmer, livestock producer. We run cattle and have (in a different district) run export lambs and wethers. He is not in favour of cruelty to animals, not in favour of mistreatment nor neglect to animals. He, like some other W.A. farmers, is actually a Life Member of the RSPCA.

To many livestock producers, its quite reasonable for a person to produce and sell livestock for profit and gain AND still oppose cruelty to animals. To many livestock transporters, its quite reasonable to be in a contract business and oppose cruelty to animals.

To many shearers, stock agents, farm workers, vets it's quite reasonable to be part of the livestock industry AND still oppose cruelty to animals.

So seems reasonable and fair that its more than possible for ANY person of any trade, profession,  position or background to be against mistreatment and cruelty to animals...and therefore anyone is or can be an Animal Welfare Advocate. No one has the singular mortgage on the higher moral ground when it comes to animal cruelty and I am yet to find any person in any livestock industry who thinks its ok to be cruel or mistreat or neglect an animal in the pursuit of profit. I have heard of residential rental that was raided because it was being used as a venue of illegal cock fighting and a warehouse unit that was raided as a result of it being reported as an illegal dog fighting venue. I don't know what race, creed or forms of professional livelihoods were amongst the alleged perpetrators, but fact is they were committing cruelty to animals. If to be an Animal Welfare Advocate you have to be away from the industry, then no one owning a pet or companion animal can be an Animal Welfare Advocate whilst they have a pet. Yep, that's the noise of an implosion of logic that some folk would rather you weren't aware of.

Animal Rights Activist (ARA)- Animal rights is the idea that some or all non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as an interest in not suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. The first three definitions I doubt would cause a lot of core disagreement however ARA's have a bit of a dilemma on their hands and we can potentially see some shape shifting here. (Bit more on that later)

Animal Rights - Protection of animals from cruelty through requirements of humane treatment. Laws protecting animal rights proscribe certain forms of brutal and merciless treatment of animals in medical and scientific research and in the handling of and slaughter of animals for human consumption. (Now this was an online definition I found, but notice "the handling of and slaughter of animals for human consumption - this one has worms in the can too...but that a bit later)

Veganarchism or vegan anarchism - is the political philosophy of veganism (more specifically animal rights and earth liberation) and anarchism,^[2][3] creating a combined praxis that is designed to be a means for social revolution.^[4][5] This encompasses viewing the state as unnecessary and harmful to animals, both human and non-human, whilst practising a vegan lifestyle. It is either perceived as a combined theory, or that both philosophies are essentially the same.^[6] It is further described as an anti-speciesist perspective on green anarchism, or an anarchist perspective on animal liberation.
(Ok, this came from Wikipedia, make of that what you will, but this is probably towards the more radical end of things and whilst there are probably fewer people who wear this badge in public or in secret, this form of worldview does have a very widespread impact and influence of upright, well meaning people who quite rightly are against cruelty to animals.

Animal Liberation -

1)the freeing of animals from exploitation and cruel treatment by humans.

"animal liberation is the goal for which the philosophy of animal rights is the philosophy"

2) the title of the 1975 book by Peter Singer

 

(yep this one has a few issues too. More later...in fact there's so many subtle side issues here its quite a deal to research it all and type it all. I'll hit publish and come back with a more condensed version of the "more later" bits)