The Abolitionist Approach

I agree with him in theory but the reality is that people that do care about animal welfare want to do something for all the animals right now. Even if it is just to make cages bigger at least it is taking away some pain right now while we work on changing the way the entire world works. So in a perfect world, which we are not, his theory is great but in reality people don't want to let animals keep suffering if they can make a little change right now. I would love for the world to turn vegan but it just is such a big ask. And also by preaching at people you will just push most of them the other way.

I have read a lot of the threads on his Facebook page and this guy seems to have an answer for everything. It is nearly scary how he has an answer for everything to the point of me almost questioning all of it... AND I AM A VEGAN! I don't feel that anyone should have an answer to EVERYTHING. When someone dares challenge his teachings he is quick to shoot them down with carefully articulated passages. A little cult like.

In some cases, I do agree that the 'animal welfare' people are just making things worse.
Case in point, the RSPCA teaming up with meat/egg producers and promoting their products as being 'humane'. What a joke.

On the other hand, with a situation like live export for example, there are a lot of meat-eaters who are actually on our side with banning live export. I think we need to take an opportunity like that and work with it, even if it means encouraging more meat processing in Australia to replace live export.
I actually see that as a good step as well, especially with the introduction of an Independent Office of Animal Welfare. It means we'll have a better chance of exposing the cruelty taking place on our own shores (both intentional abuse and standard practices), which most people would never believe is happening.

I really hope that CCTV cameras made compulsory in meat producing factories... I signed a petition asking for that a while ago, but I'm not sure if anything is happening with that. I think it would force the meat producers to pay more attention to animal welfare, and also make getting footage of abuse a lot easier than hidden cameras and undercover workers, so these people/companies can be held accountable, and in turn, more of the public might be exposed to the truth and realise what they're supporting by buying meat.

He's a guy that has done a lot of thinking on the subject and has been a Vegan for 30 years or something so I'm not surprised he has an answer for everything.

And I think his whole point is that our main focus should be on extolling the benefits of Veganism and promoting vegan education. He even says himself that he would accept any animal welfare changes to alleviate suffering in the here and now but thinks that our time would be better spent on educating people about being vegan.

I think there is a much more subtle way of promoting veganism, which i do in everyday life. Setting up tents saying "go vegan" will only scare people away. Being an advocate in everyday life (cooking nice food, being polite about it, saying it isn't difficult etc) is much more likely to work and many of my friends have gone vegetarian (and even one vegan!) since I have. I think that advocating for welfare in the more public sphere is a good thing, because it builds upon a common ground of care for animals that in theory everyone has, and brings into popular consciousness the idea that animals are being harmed. Further education from there is necessary, and part of it can be on veganism, but I think it's a good first step.

That being said, there are many different approaches to campaigning and advocacy and they don't have to be entirely the same to be successful

Putting some of my personal feelings on the subject completely aside to critique his methodology;

I don’t like that he either gives his opinion as fact about what motivates people to be pro-welfare, or only focuses on one aspect (“it just makes meat eaters feel better about what they do”) of what motivates people to be pro-welfare.

What studies is he basing the assumption that welfarism just allows people to feel good about what they are doing? Has there been any kind of reputable study done on why people are pro-welfare? (I did look through his website, please point me in the right direction if there was a study quoted).

And while I don’t doubt that some people are motivated to be pro-welfare for this reason, he still ignores all of the other explanations as to why people might be pro-welfare (just look at the variety of the responses to threads on the subject within this forum).

For a lot of people (and I qualify this by saying that my evidence is anecdotal) the journey to veganism begins with questioning your eating habits and food production methods and the impact that they have on the lives of animals. It starts with reducing the amount eaten and buying items that have been produced with animal welfare in mind, with sorting the greenwash from real benefits. Welfarism raises awareness, people who begin down that path are already questioning. It doesn’t necessarily make them stop questioning as he supposes (why would it??). It certainly didn’t for me.

That’s how I started to become vegan. None of it was ever a panacea, it didn’t make me feel better in any way. It just made me search harder for ethical products until I was left with no other moral option than to go vegan.

I don’t think that the welfarist position and the abolitionist position are mutually exclusive because the basis of both is the recognition of animal sentience.

The problem with what you said is that most people aren't that inquisitive and don't do as much research into the topics as people who become Vegans. They just take it at face value that "Free Range" means that the animals are roaming around in a paddock and are happy when that couldn't be further from the truth (not to mention they all still end up at the same slaughterhouse regardless of free range or factory farmed).

And this is not helped by organisations like RSPCA who give their stamp of approval to animal abusing industries. In the eyes of the average consumer they believe they are doing the moral thing by consuming "free range" animal products, and this is because animal people like PETA and the RSPCA are saying it's ok.

And I disagree with you that the abolitionist and welfarist positions aren't mutually exclusive. The welfarist approach says that it is ok to use animals for our own selfish purposes as long as there is not unnecessary suffering. While the abolitionist message says there is no reason to use animals for any purpose.

People would of thought it strange if people campaigning for the end of slavery had campaigned for welfarist options instead of the complete unequivocal end of slavery. If campaigners had campaigned for softer whips or bigger shackles or something, we may still have the scourge of slavery in society today (it still exists but is less widespread). Why do we think it is any different when it comes to animals?

In my opinion the clear and concise message from activists and animal organisations should be that if people wish to stop supporting cruelty to animals they should go Vegan (and we should stop supporting the notion that it is difficult because it really isn't). If animal welfare options present itself in the meantime then we should ofcourse accept them but presenting Veganism as an unnecessary step in doing the moral thing for animals is an approach which will never lead to animal liberation in my honest opinion.

Personally, the Animals Australia "Why Veg?" page sparked my interest and put me on the path to veganism so I think I'd have to disagree with Francione when he says animal groups only serve to make consumers feel better about eating animal products.

In saying this, I've had people tell me that going vegan is taking it too far, whilst buying free range and organic is ideal. So I can see where he is coming from.

I don't know man, I couldn't argue for either side. I couldn't tell you what I think is most effective because I don't know. I think groups like Animals Australia are great, with activist groups like the Animal Liberation Front being just as important.

I don't think those who the "abolitionists" call the "welfarists" agree with your definitions. According to them, I wouldn't think there are any vegans who would call themselves welfarists. Rather, they think that vegan-only education is not the best way forward, as they believe most people will not listen to it. I don't think that someone who has gone to the effort of being vegan agrees that animals should be used for our own "selfish purposes." I would say almost all of us want animals to not be harmed or used for our purposes, we just disagree with (or are unsure of) how to get there.

I do understand where you are coming from though. It's a complicated issue, and I don't pretend to know all the answers. Personally I wouldn't label myself as either side because I believe there are good arguments for and against both. I think that most vegans would also be in this category. I think the best I can say is that I genuinely don't know.

I suppose to lump all welfarists into the same boat as people who believe animal use is ok is not correct as there are probably many who do want to see the abolition of animal slavery but just differ on how to get there.

I think the whole point though is that we will never see the goal of animal liberation achieved without changing the world's perception of animals as "things" and "commodities" to real beings with their own interests and their own reasons for existence. And the only way in my opinion to achieve that is through the Vegan message, not the welfare route.