Robert Garner of the University of Leicester, a leading academic protectionist, argues that animal use may in some circumstances be justified, although it should be better regulated, and that the pursuit of better treatment and incremental change is consistent with holding an abolitionist position.
Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark and a leading abolitionist, calls this approach "new welfarism".
He regards it as counter-productive because it wrongly persuades the public that the animals they use are being treated kindly, and that continued use is therefore justifiable.
Abolitionists also argue that real reform is invariably unsuccessful because industries that depend on animal use will not implement change that harms their profit margin, that is, the property status of animals prohibits reform that will harm their owners' interests.
[3] Robert Garner argues against this that welfare reform is not simply a staging post on the way to abolition but is in itself desirable.