Does a rights-based "hands-off" approach lead to more suffering in the long run? For example, if we do not cull deer in a forest without wolves, they will overpopulate, strip the vegetation, and die slowly of starvation. The welfare advocate faces a tragic choice; the rights advocate often sides with non-interference, accepting natural suffering over human-inflicted death.

We need both. Without welfare, animal suffering is infinite and unchecked. Without rights, there is no moral destination, only a series of slightly more comfortable prisons.

There are several arguments in favor of animal rights: