'Animal rights' is a term that’s been tossed around for years. Organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are well-known animal rights groups that are constantly putting out media about injustices animals suffer, be it slaughter for human consumption, cosmetic testing or serious cases of neglect.

As an animal lover and avid horseback rider, I’m very familiar with these types of groups, their work and the media they disseminate. But I don’t agree with them.

An animal lover that doesn’t agree with animal rights groups? It sounds like a contradiction.

Rather than supporting animal rights, I support animal welfare. Changing that one word really does make more of a difference than it might initially seem to. Wesley J. Smith, author of A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy, describes the two movements saying, “Both movements are concerned with the way people treat animals, but that is where the similarity ends. In fact, animal welfare and animal rights represent incompatible moral principles and mutually exclusive goals.”

So what are these “incompatible moral principles and mutually exclusive goals”?

Animal rights activists are opposed to any use of animals that prohibits them from living a natural, free life. They would like to see animals have legal rights and equity with humans, and serve no purpose other than to live their lives, no matter how benign the use is to them.

Animal welfare activists, on the other hand, believe humans have higher moral value than animals, but that animals have intrinsic value and it is the responsibility of humans (as the higher group in the moral hierarchy) to treat and use animals humanely.

This stark difference is often not understood as “animal rights” has become a catch-all term for the notion that animals should not be abused, neglected or otherwise treated poorly. But the anthropomorphism (read: applying human characteristics to non-human entities and objects) of animals has led to some confusion on what is abuse and what is use.

Here’s an example that’s near and dear to my heart and profession: horses. Horses are actually classified as livestock animals, not companion animals. This is a HUGE distinction that is based on the primary use of horses being for production and business purposes, not company. Using horses for sports, farm work, recreational riding, scientific research and as pasture pets are all in violation of animal rights, but not animal welfare.

There are many horses, and other animals, that depend on humans for subsistence. Domestic dogs and cats need to be fed, many animals need medications in order to survive. Animal rights activists would rather these animals be in their natural habitats, despite many of them being unable to survive there. This, and my belief that other animals should be able to be used humanely by humans – for food, for work, for companionship – is why I’m not pro animal rights.

I could go on and on, but the take-away is this: it’s an important difference that changing “rights” to “welfare” makes. Changing that one word is the little known, but hugely important difference between two drastically opposed ideologies. Changing that one word is the difference between your dog being able to take you to court for not throwing that tennis ball and being able to take your dog for a walk. Changing that one word changes things for animals for the better.