Those animal rights organizations, whose goals are the end of all animal use, continue to use the same old approach to animal issues. The World Society for the Protection of Animals, or WSPA, is a good example of commonly used tactics: First step, claim that the creatures deserve to be left alone. Second, point out that anything people do to confine animals is unnatural and cruel. Third, mention that any killing methods are certainly inhumane, and fourth, note that the products are not worth the alleged pain and suffering, especially in the case of the production of fur.

WSPA recently composed "An ethical perspective", an "inquiry into the welfare of animals on fur farms". The first premise states that while people used to simply take animals for granted, perceiving them as resources, the more modern approach is more ethical - that animals are not ours to be used as we wish, but deserve to be left alone as much as possible, to live their lives without interference. This is the basic animal rights philosophy, which most humans simply don't buy.

In order to change human behavior, therefore, and to cause humans to use animals less than formerly, organizations such as WSPA often focus on the use of fur, making it an "issue" that deserves ethical consideration. One approach that has been used without fail is a claim that all animals on fur farms (usually fox and mink) are treated cruelly. In fact, the modern treatment of fox and mink on fur farms is very humane, and the animals prove this by breeding prolifically. Their offspring have a much lower infant mortality rate than those in the wild, the parents are well fed and overall, they suffer a minimum of stress in their everyday lives. In addition to those factors, fur farmed animals receive modern veterinary care so that they do not contract infectious diseases such as mange, distemper and rabies, and they never go without a meal. No other predators ever threaten them, and when they die, it is quick and without anticipation. Their wild brothers do not experience those life luxuries. Nevertheless, WSPA would prefer to see fur farming abolished everywhere.

IWMC prefers a different approach to animal husbandry than that of the animal rights organizations. We applaud all those farmers who give their animals proper care, decent surroundings, and a humane death. We support animal husbandry when it is accompanied by modern science, the best veterinary care, and when it is practiced with respect for the animals and for those who care for them. We prioritize differently than the animal rightists; IWMC supports the rights of human beings to own, confine, consume, and otherwise use, any animals, as long as they do so in a humane and sustainable manner. The difference between this philosophy and that of animal rightists is profound.

Respect for people is the foundation that we build upon as we advocate for sustainable use of the world's natural resources.