I genuinely don’t see a contradiction? Let’s work hard to eliminate animal testing, even if that means developing new technology to solve the problems we’re currently trying to solve with animal testing. In the meantime this position would advocate to rapidly end all non-survival related animal products like cheeseburgers, while allowing some nuance for life saving medicine. Seems perfectly reasonable?

There's a difference between,

> we ultimately need to end animal testing

and,

> work hard to eliminate animal testing

One is known as a universal; animal testing shouldn't be done regardless of the consequence. The other is a much weaker standpoint. You've taken the extreme condition of "cheeseburger" where most people would say there doesn't exist anyone who can't reasonably switch to a non-animal product - but what about cosmetic products which people use to help their self-confidence (acne treatments and what not), can those be tested on animals?

By what metric do you choose what's necessary and what's not in the meantime? Your own example of leather boots isn't directly survival related i.e. you don't die if you don't have them.

The final problem is that it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that there will be products which will always be needed to be tested on animals (such as medicines) - is it morally correct in your worldview that we continue to pursue such products?

I don't see the contradiction, it is similar to say "we ultimately need to stop burning fossil fuels" while using Internet and living in a city.