For any anarchist (or any rational, self-disciplined human being) who owns pets and doesn't choose to eat said pet because it provides a source of mutually beneficial companionship, then the natural extension of the argument seems perfectly rational assuming that same person doesn't believe that their household pet has feelings/sentience above or beyond animals slaughtered for food. Said a different way, if you don't eat your pets, why would you eat another animal unless you believe the other animal has less of a right to life? If there is an argument as to why one animal deserves preferential treatment to life then I'd love to hear the ethical argument supporting it.