Yeah, I think that Rodríguez absolutely has the right of it here. Animal communication is "simple" in human terms, but is quite rich on its own terms. To anybody who spends quality time with animals in their own comfort zones, it is utterly damned obvious that many animals experience and are entirely competent at communicating love, friendship, curiosity, jealousy, covetousness, and many other thoughts/feelings -- and, also, that they are just as able to blur species boundaries as we are. There are varying levels of complexity to this: snakes are too simple-minded to have a sense of humour, for example, but foxes
definitely do. Fox humour isn't the same as human humour, but when you anthropomorphize them, and they foxopomorphize you, there's enough overlap for an intersubjectively meaningful exchange to take place.
I think that science's unwillingness to acknowledge this has multiple roots.
The first is a religious relict of wanting to put Man at the centre of the universe. Descartes, deeply religious, believed that humans were the only beings endowed with a soul, and that therefore animals were necessarily mere automata. This became the default "scientific" dogma, to be considered true unless proven otherwise. But it really is just dogma, with no basis in either rationality or observation.
The second is the scientific requirement for experimental controls and reproducibility, which is easiest to do in a laboratory. If animals really were automata, running on instinct, then that would be fine. But they're (mostly) social creatures, formed through interaction as much as we are. If your understanding of human psychology was formed wholly through the observation of humans who spent their lives trapped in Skinner boxes, you'd form some rigorously incorrect notions of what humans are capable of. Ultimately, there's no way to to get a proper understanding of humans in a non-subjective capacity. Same goes for animals.