Could you maybe tack a qualifier like 'extremists' onto that weird 'Animal Rightists of today' term you've invented. Just so we that we're clear you're not over-generalising out of prejudice.
1. Reasonable Lewis Caroll might have recognized we mistreat animals more today (factory farming, cosmetics testing) and on a larger scale than ever before.
2. It is rather easy to critique a movement by lumping everyone in it together, lambasting the worst, and decreeing that they represent everyone. It is also somewhat cheap.
It is the AR that intentionally lump themselves with the AW, in order to dupe people for their nasty cause. Check the link in my previous comment and read the articles in there and links within links as well.
I'm sure in that in distinguishing so harshly between AR and AW you're creating a false sense of two distinct, non-overlapping groups.
The blurring of the line between the two is the main tactic of the AR movement and it is sad to see how many people are duped by this. AR and AW are actually moral opposites, not variants of the same thing. Explore the links within the links (especially the links at the bottom of this post) again for more detailed explanations, and here is the first stab as a shortcut before you explore the rest.