TW. I offered two definitions so you could clarify what you meant. Just because I can help with the clarification doesn't mean I was offering it up as my position.

That said... the contrived wolf v. man scenario works from the perspective that it led you to agreeing that ultimately the cycle stops with the man having the last word. Because men confer rights for themselves and animals only have rights to the point where they don't conflict with our rights. In other word, only those rights we choose to confer.

If animals have natural rights as you say... then they must have been conferred on them by someone "higher" on the rightious-continuum than man... but then that entity should have made it clear to us when he/she/it conferred our rights upon us as well.

Obviously we shall continue to disagree as to whether there are any innate rights that animals have.