I might go a bit further, however.
1) I suspect most members of PETA (the original one) live in urban or suburban environments, most of which are situated in what was once premium wildlife habitat and/or are supplied with water and electricity at the cost of wildlife habitat. The most desireable areas for human settlement (flat, arable land, with a good source of fresh water) are also the most desireable for most animals. While they may pine :) for the unspoiled wilderness and animals living free, that they live in such an area indicates that they are unwilling to put their morals where there mouths are. If they have children, they are further contributing to the problem.
2) Do they wear or use synthetics in their lives, in addition to natural fibres like cotton? If not, with what are their shoes soled? Wood? Have they ever seen an oil or chemical refinery? Again, this is "Do what I say, not what I do"; selective morality in action.
3) I've followed some of the links, where some PETA members or members of affiliated groups (allegedly) gave strange answers to the question: "If a baby and a dog fell out of a life-raft, which one would you save?". PETA Outreach Coordinator Susan Rich: "I wouldn't know for sure...I might choose the human baby or I might choose the dog." Tom Regan, North Carolina State University: "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." Now, I wonder what either of them would do (not answer, but do) if handed a rifle, and a lion was about to be released into a pen with their child.
I feel particular animosity towards PETA because I am one of their prime targets: I both hunt and angle (fish with hook and line). I don't do either for trophies, and eat what I kill (with gusto, I might add with no apologies). What PETA fails to realize is that death is the natural end of all living things (some organisms such as slime molds, perhaps excepted), and for most wild animals death is not a matter of curling up in bed and passing away of old age. It is actually usually rather gruesome as they become unable to escape from predators and are brought down bloodily in stages, or succumb to disease, parasites, or starvation. I'm not saying that death wrought by a hunter or angler is a kindness, just that it is not the worst end they could face.
The other point that PETA misses (or ignores on purpose) is that hunters and anglers have a real interest in preserving (and reclaiming) wildlife habitat. Even taken at PETA face value, that this is to guarantee a supply of animals to kill, this maintenance supports all of the species which aren't "targeted" (frogs, turtles, dragonflies, and even mosquitoes and blackflies). Through license fees and organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, anglers and hunters put far more money into preserving wildlife habitat per capita than most, if not all, groups devoted to preservation (no hunting or angling). Assuming all animals are equal (PETA's belief), the habitat preserved by hunters and anglers supports far more individuals than are killed, so the overall result is an increase of animals (hoist on their own PETArd).
Finally, hunters don't pose threats to animal populations (at least in North America), as PETA would have us believe. Hunters may have posed threats when market hunting was legal, and certainly contributed to the demise of the passenger pigeon. However, habitat loss was at least as important as the losses to hunters. Hunted species are now monitored by regulatory agencies (both governmental, and NGOs) which specify limits according to population estimates. In other parts of the world hunting does threaten populations of animals such as tigers and rhinos, but that is because of their economic value and despite regulation, not anything to do with hunting per se.
There are certain arguments PETA makes that I don't disagree with. Factory cattle farms, for example, are probably not good for the environment, nor, with the recent prevalence of E. Coli 0157:H7 good for human health either, and I would rather see cattle (and other animals raised for consumption) in a more free-ranging environment for their sake, and ours. However, consumers vote with their wallets, and the best way to convince the industry to change is by buying the more expensive choices or indicating that you would do so. This is far removed from bombing buildings.
They are out to lunch on the domestic animal question, though. I have two black labrador retrievers, and it is a real question as to who rules the roost. An alien observing me walking them, and picking up their poop, later feeding them, would have a real problem figuring out who is the master and who is the domestic animal. Without human help most cats would survive as natural predators, but most dogs (including my two) would probably die of starvation, if they weren't killed by other predators. Cats, being natural predators of small animals, never had that bred out of them: they aren't likely to attack a baby, and their tendency to kill small mammals is beneficial. Dogs, having descended from natural predators of larger animals, had to have that bred out of them, in order to be trusted in human households. An unfortunate tendency to breed aggressiveness back into some breeds has resulted in the problems with Rottweilers and pit-bulls attacking humans. That doesn't mean they would be any more successful in living in the wild, though, compared to their wild relatives. I once came across a place where an animal had recently been killed and consumed by wolves, evidenced by the tatters of fur, strewn bones, and the pattern of blood and tracks in the snow. The animal had been surrounded, and snapped at until one attack was successful, and it was downed, at which time the end was certain. The prey animal was a dog, and since I found the skull, I could tell it was a large one, probably a Husky, since the fur was black/grey/white. There wouldn't be a lot of meat on even a large Husky, so I assume there was a certain degree of territoriality in the attack. And yes, I can tell the difference between wolf prints and dog prints, especially when I'm fifty miles away from any human settlement (and the difference between this dog skull and wolf skull, for that matter). Believe me, Rover is not going to survive an attack from a wolf pack, whether he is a Jack Russel or an Irish Wolfhound. I would like to have a few more coyotes around my house to clean up those housecats that keep attacking birds at my feeder, though.
The last thing PETA wants is any intellectual debate about their position, since they have no legs upon which to stand. It sounds very good when they are anti-fur, anti-trapping, anti-cruelty to animals. It would be interesting if some enterprising journalist could find how many of them had been sick as a child, and saved by medication tested on animals.
I could go on, but I won't, just respond to earlier messages. My senior black lab is telling me he is being repressed, and wishes to have me open the door for him.