animal welfare/animal rights

There is a woeful lack of understanding out in the general public about the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Well-meaning people are unfortunately supporting groups that are actually working to undermine the very things in which they believe.
Animal welfare wants to improve the lot of domesticated animals by such actions as outlawing cruel practices with livestock (such as raising veal calves in tiny boxes where they can't turn around), minimizing live animal experimentation as much as possible while acknowledging that some research is necessary and valuable (for instance, dogs suffer many of the same diseases as humans and thus are an excellent research model that benefits both species), halting animal cruelty such as dog fighting and cock fighting.
Animal rights wants to stop any sort of use of animals by humans, including barring you from owning pets. They don't often say this in public, but I have a letter somewhere from the founder of one of the most powerful groups, stating just that goal. So what are you truly supporting when you give one of these groups money? You are helping them force you to get rid of your beloved dog(s), cat(s), or whatever animal companions you may have.
It's not always clear cut, either. Some groups veer back and forth from one side of the dichotomy to the other, holding good positions and doing valuable work on one specific issue while going over the line on another.
I'm not going to name specific groups -- I'll probably get hassled enough just for going this far. But I would urge everyone to fully investigate the goals and practices of any group before offering support. Some of the most extreme groups can actually be classified as domestic terrorists who have bombed offices or universities, freed lab animals (who can no more fend for themselves in the wild than most of us could), and committed other illegal acts. Put your money where your true goals are -- if you want to support canine health or TNR programs for feral cats or stop greyhound racing or whatever, be sure whatever group you choose agrees with your goals and doesn't want to go further than you would want.

Dog Writers Need Freedom of the Press, Too

Recently, some other bloggers have written about PETA's dismal record of animal adoptions, using PETA's own statistics, which by law had to be supplied to the state of Virginia. I won't go into the actual intake versus adoption versus euthanasia numbers here. Go investigate for yourself if you're so inclined.
What I want to talk about here is the fact that these bloggers, after writing using unquestionably accurate information, received letters from one of PETA's attorneys, warning them to cease and desist. While I don't support what PETA is doing as far as companion animals are concerned, I really can't stomach this attempt to curtail freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Short of slander, libel, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, we as Americans are supposed to have the right to speak -- or write -- our minds at any place and any time. Yet here is this massive "nonprofit" organization, one of the biggest moneyraisers in the country, using some of their gelt to try and muzzle those who would dare to utter a word against them.
Well, in this case it has backfired, as other writers and bloggers are now adding their voices to expose this attempt to silence our brethren. Perhaps PETA's lawyers are going to be very busy, churning out those "cease and desist" letters, or perhaps they will realize that this is not an effective way to keep the press reporting only what PETA wants them to report.
Funnily enough, though I disagree with the goals of PETA, I have in the past defended their right to state their case. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone, even those with whom you disagree. The powers-that-be at PETA might want to sit down and think about that.