I am primarily a consequentialist, but when it comes to animal rights, my reasoning is not consequentialist first and foremost, which is why I am a vegan and not simply avoiding eggs and chicken (which might be better from a consequentialist perspective given the trade-offs explained here---my effort might be better spent on changing my lifestyle to donate more, etc.). I think "do not pay people to abuse and kill others on your behalf for the sake of convenience and pleasure" should be a strict rule. The ambiguity comes in once the justification changes from "gaining convenience and pleasure" to "avoiding misery" (from either physical health problems or having to manage your diet so strictly as to cause significant suffering). I don't know where to draw the line, but for the majority of people I think their justification for not going vegan falls more into the first category than the second, so the majority of people should still go vegan.
That being said, I agree we should be honest and up-front about the tradeoffs, and this is something I am frustrated with other vegans about---when we say "going vegan is easy", we alienate people who struggle to go and stay vegan, which I do (mainly due to cravings for animal products, difficulty cooking for myself consistently, and a tendency toward impulsive behavior).