Animal welfare is a slightly less extreme sect of animal rights.

The only difference between animal welfare and animal rights is that animal welfarists don't necessarily go far enough for the vegan animal rights movement by shunning meat-eating, the wearing of leather or fur, animal research or the use of animal products. Many are against all but the meat-eating. Otherwise, animal welfarists engage in the same human-abuse as the animal rights. They are also pet owners and breeders, and definitely "rescues" interested in fighting to keep their own animals, but aws will be among the first right along with the vegan ars to spread animal abuse tales and go after anybody they believe might be "irresponsible" as an animal owner/breeder, even "rescuer.

Animal welfarists will fight tooth and nail to keep their own animals, but they'll be the first to police other people and try to control who can own what animal and why.

Aws condemn pet stores, call their animals "furkids" use "adopt" instead of buy or sell, and jump on the bandwagon that calls everything "puppy mills" and demands they be stopped.

Aws pass around e-petition chain letters associated with ASPCA or FOA, IFAW, or even PETa and H$U$, anything that tugs at their heartstrings no matter who originally started it. They pass on any chain letter that urgently claims to help some animal in some distant place, applauding animal rights groups for any brag about saving animals and believe all the negative stories animal rights people put out about animals in other cultures. They get especially zealous when any alarmist or sob story is about their favorite animal species or breed.

Animal welfarists (aw) will participate in or at the very least, support an animal raid.

If anyone thinks only the vegan animal rights extremists engage in this disgusting behavior, think again.

Animal welfarists have been known to round on people based on nothing but malicious rumor and gossip. They gladly believe and spread wild tales of animal abuse without question, caring not where the story originated. It could've come from PEta, or some mean spirited person with a grudge against some animal owner. However, the animal welfare people in their zeal to "save the animals" happily join the hate crusade and bash the person into the ground. They construe any little thing as cruelty and as the gossip spreads, the truth of the matter gets replaced with malicious lies and demonization of some innocent person, all in the name of saving the animals.

They have gone so far as staging scenes and doctoring up pictures. Or else they use the suggestion method, that is, they tell you a huge sob story about animal abuse/neglect, making sure the tale grows worse and worse as they tell it. Then they show you a picture and tell you what's in it, even if it's really not there. The plan is that you're supposed to be so gripped by the emotion that comes from their horror story that you will see non-existent mounds of fecies and sad animals even when the picture shows otherwise.

They use words like "responsible" and "ethical" when talking about breeders and pet owners, as if breeders and owners are irresponsible by default and that every potential owner has more potential and likelyhood to be a bad owner rather than a good one. In the eyes of the animal welfarists, people are always believed to be guilty before being proven innocent.

They "rescue" animals that didn't need to be rescued because they were not in a bad situation with the previous owner.

Both types of extremist work in and often boast about what they call 'rescue'. They don't sell animals, they 'adopt' them out...for a fee, of course.

Come on now, money is still changing hands, and adoption is for kids, not pets.

The only sincere rescue is saving an animal from immediate danger, such as drowning, eating something poisonous, getting injured in an accident or fight with another animal.

But the 'rescue' animal welfare does and regularly brags about is merely acquiring an animal from a previous owner...

When it's pointed out they are supporting part of something from the hard core animal rights extremists, they become very angry and defensive. Some might even go as far as to admit that it is okay, because the animal rights extremists might be right about whatever it is in question. So, as all lions are cats but not all cats are lions, all animal welfarists are animal rightists, but not all ar are aw.