It’s better if EAs working on global poverty and animal welfare are cooperative rather than antagonistic.
If (big if!) global poverty work is badly net-negative in the views of those working on animal welfare (kbog concludes income effects are overall good), those working on global poverty might be acting uncooperatively just by working on it. Animal welfare work seems usually unlikely to be bad for humans, including the global poor (since their countries are not usually targeted), and is plausibly pretty good, if you include climate change, zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance.
However, I think cooperation is more important for those holding less popular positions, since they have less power, and prioritizing animal welfare is less popular than prioritizing global poverty in EA and in general.