Do non-human animal have rights

If they (animals) were recognized individual than, Why do we still have animal activists equivalent to terrorist? They donot even value the more important life (human life) Contention 1 - It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure – in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Human beings have been successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process. It is like telling herbivorous dinosaurs not to eat too much amounts of grass(Herbivorous dinosaurs used to eat a lot of grass. )Qoute - "Survival of the fittest"Over many decades people of different races and different genders have fought for their own right. It has been years of struggle for all human beings. This paragraph coincidentally also highlights the majority of the information which the history books contain, Struggle is the key to success. Contention 2 -Furthermore, Animal Rights activists are people who volunteer to give animals rights but the reality is far more grosteque and flabbergast. Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life. Organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death-threats; PETA are also an extremist organisation. These AR extremists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not have been developed without experiments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but talking of animal ‘rights’ is a sign of extremism and irrationality. How can any one justify rights for creatures that donot add anything to the enviornment for the benefit of their own species or other creatures. Contention - 3Creatures in the world are described in many categories but for this debate I am going to concentrate on the 4 main categories- PetsPets are creature which majority of humans love and are taken care of by us human but the sad reality is that they are pointless and lead a very sad life. Rights for creatures which are lazy and donot want to achieve something in their life is totally outrageous, unless opponent can justify a suitable reason and a right for these categories of creatures(pet). http://www.smh.com.au...; -PestCane toads exemplify a pest. These creatures are hated by all humans. Thus any human would not even want to desire a right for pest like cane toads. Quick fact - Cane toads to human population of Australia is 5 cane toads to one Australian-Domestic animalsThese animals are killed or their resources are used for human benefit. If these animals are given a right to choose if they want to lend or not lend their resources. Then all human populace will start illegal harvesting of resources like the Japanese whalers. This will not be beneficial as the society will start to become very immoral and maybe rich(Black market). -Wild animalsThis animals rarely communicate with humans. The ones that are under the human sight will either be killed or will become extinct(reproduction in these animals take a longer time and is slower). Laws should be made for their welfare but giving them rights will be absurdMy last contention -The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e. g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. The emotion of sympathy and pity towards all animals who maybe suffering is human nature. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights or need rights. Thank you for readingAwaiting Opponent(Pro)'s reply