I actually think this section from 'Strategic Action for Animals' sums up the merits of both approaches well... I totally agree that rather than arguing over who is right and wrong we should acknowledge we all have our part to play and that with so much to do, let's get on with it.
(sorry for the long post!)
----
Divisions within the Animal Liberation Movement
Within the animals liberation movement, there are a variety of viewpoints on which issues should take precedence, which ideology and tactics are more appropriate, and what kind of organisation(e.g., national or grass roots) is most effective. Healthy debate strengthens a movement as it encourages activists to think through issues more fully and come up with creative, collaborative solutions. But differences of opinion become a problems when activists are dogmatic, believing that only one ideology and approach is legitimate and that others in the movement must adopt their particular method.
Dogmatism is a problem largely because activists don;t appreciate that the success of the movement depends not on choosing one approach, among many, but on using all of them
Strategic movements need a diversity of activists and organisations. A well stocked toolkit enables activists to attack oppression from every angle and to attract a diversity of supporters. For instance, humane educators raise consciousness about the lives and deaths of farmed animals professional opposition organisations like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) prove that a vegetarian diet is healthful; and direct action organisations like Viva! Organise campaigns to abolish certain factory farming practices. And each of these types of organisations appeal to different types of supporters. Someone who isn’t attracted o direct action types of organisations, for example, might join a welfare group instead. Without the welfare group, that person may never have put forth an effort to help animals. Also the success of every sub-movement contributes to the overall success of the movement, so there is no single issue that will lead to animal liberation.
Reform or Abolition? – the Welfare / Rights debate
One of the most contentious issue in the animal liberation movement is the debate about whether activists should be working toward reform (animal welfare) or abolition (animal rights). Reformists often view abolitionists as unrealistic, making radical demands that alienate the public. They argue that because animal exploitation won’t end any time soon, efforts should be directed towards reducing the animals’ suffering. Therefore, reformists work to abolish specific practices, such as the use of tiny and painful gestation crates that confine animals in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Reformists also sometimes argue that welfare reforms will eventually lead to abolition. For example, creating more humane conditions for farmed animals would lead to more expense, which in turn could increase the cost of meat so that few could afford it.
Abolitionists on the other hand, accuse reformists of selling out, being ineffective in their efforts to help animals and even of slowing the progress of the movement by giving power holders legislations to hide behind. They argue, for instance, that animal experimenters can legitimise themselves in the eyes of the public by citing their adherence to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) as “proof” that they aren’t hurting animals.
Because animal suffering is so extensive, activists often assume that the movement is failing, and can blame each other. However, there are many reasons for the increase in animal suffering, from the population growth to centralised power amongst animal exploiters. It is likely that the animal liberation movement has helped slow what would otherwise have been an even more extensive problem. Strategic movements require both reformers and abolitionists. Welfare organisations help save millions of animals from abuse and abandonment, allowing more radical groups to focus on other types of work, such as direct action. And the radical stance of abolitionists makes reformists seem more mainstream, which allows them to push a more conservative agenda than they otherwise would. For instance, the Humane Society of the US (HSUS), once focussed solely on the protection of companion animals can now advocate for reforms in factory farming because in comparison to abolitionist organisations, their demands seem moderate.
The entire movement ultimately becomes more progressive.
