If, as you say, consent doesn't matter for animals, then you can't rape one at all and we can fall back to the more conventional "abuse", "mistreatment" or "animal cruelty".

Your "contextual inference" seems to be the inference of consent, so I'm confused by what you mean. If consent doesn't matter then clearly it doesn't matter if the goat is tied to a pole.

I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. If you kill a goat, you're a goat killer. If you buy a puppy, you're a puppy buyer. If you fuck a goat you're a goat fucker, and unless you passed the impossibly high bar of proving consent, you're a non-consensual goat fucker, commonly called a "goat rapist".