Having a right without having the ability to execute on it is of interest to no one failing lobbyists and lawyers. Imagine a quadriplegic with a right to walk. That, coupled with the fact that "rights" is a man-made concept, makes the whole animal-rights business silly, in particular when fantastically ridicules entities like PETA get involved.
Worse still, these people are exceptionally hypocritical: a few years ago I was having a cigarette while sitting on my motorcycle in a strip-mall parking lot, I was wearing lots of leather, gloves, boots, jacket as were a number of my riding buddies. With something remotely resembling interest, as we are in Toronto and these people seem to gravitate to the city, we were watching a group of protesters with signs reading something about fur being murder. Not one of them as much as looked at us twice. While I cant be certain, I have a strong suspicion that had there been a group of women in fur coats they would have gotten a lot of attention from the protesters. So animal rights are worth fighting for as long as the people you are fighting look harmless? Remarkable.
What animals deserve, from a human perspective, is fair treatment - meaning, no unnecessary pain, no cruelty for the sake of it, and so on. That said, there is nothing wrong with eating meat, hunting (again, for the purposes of food, not sport), fishing or wearing leather or fur. There is quite a lot wrong with experimenting on animals when it comes down to cosmetic products but not when it is for medical research.
In conclusion, it needs to be understood that the controlling species gets to determine what rights everything else in its domain has. In first world countries we have done a decent job of being fair about it. Asking for more rights crosses into the land of increased uselessness and obscurity.