I've generally been opposed to the whole concept of animal "rights", as opposed to having laws that prevent humans from abusing animals, which I support. Animal

I've generally been opposed to the whole concept of animal "rights", as opposed to having laws that prevent humans from abusing animals, which I support. Animals having "rights" would seem to imply that we have a duty to protect animals in the wild, which we can't do, and, more importantly, don't want to do: many conservationists would be strongly opposed to us preventing predators from killing prey in the wild. On the other hand, there seem to be a few humans in the wild: Sentinelese, Amazonian tribes. We deliberately don't enforce the human rights of individuals belonging to those groups. Perhaps we regard the rights of the groups as taking precedence? Perhaps it makes sense for animals to acquire "rights" within the context of human society, but I still tend to think it's an abuse of the concept of a "right" because in practice it's just humans enforcing their idea of what's right: the animals are not being consulted and have not expressed an opinion. I don't think humans are competent to decide what is in the best interest of animals in the way in which they are (and have to be) competent to make decisions on behalf of young and cognitively impaired humans. I'm definitely undecided about these questions.