PETA transfers healthy and adoptable animals to a shelter that kills 82% of the animals: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552518/Animal-house-horrors-Investigation-reveals-PETA-killed-nearly-2-000-shelter-animals-2013-alone.html
(I am not support CCF just because they are mentioned in these articles. Facts are facts. I don't agree with all statements made in the article.)
That of course is morally acceptable. An "animal rights"-organization would take care of the animals with their budget, not send them to a shelter to be killed.
That would be like a human rights organization sending healthy and adoptable children to be killed because that there are millions of children on the street that are suffering and starving.
Just because that the facts were gathered by an immoral organization doesn't mean that the facts are wrong.
In this video posted in 2010, Newkirk admits that PETA kills healthy/adoptable animals:
A person wrote:
" I provided the financials for you to do the math and let us know how they can support and care for 4 million dogs and cats each year. I'll help you out by saying it costs a minimum of $100.00 per animal to spay/neuter and vaccinate. Then we need shelter, food, employees and money for whatever other medical the animals will need each and every year and then we need money to do it all over again for the next 4 million. Let us know when you have the budget for us to look at."
Say we have an organization for homeless people. Supposedly they should exist to care for the homeless. But this organization selectively kills a great amount of homeless people.
Then some supporters of this organization come and say: There are tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets. What do you propose they should do? How can they take care of all these homeless people with their budget?
I didn’t say they should take care of all homeless people. I only said that they shouldn’t exploit, harm and kill the homeless people that they are supposed to help. Killing is never right. They have the budget to rescue each animal that they now kill (except for some exceptions that are terminally ill and want to die). This is what they should do.
Now PeTA are only promoting speciesism and the notion that animals don’t have any interest in a continued existence and can be used for our purposes. I don’t demand that PeTA should help every single animal. I demand that they should opt out of all animal exploitation, opt out of promoting “happy exploitation” and cooperating with industry to promote “animal welfare reform” =”animal exploitation reform”; and to cooperate with Whole Foods to promote “happy meat” and other “happy exploitation”.
More to learn: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism/
More moral problems with PeTA:
I absolutely agree with GF that the animal welfare groups are hindering
progress. They often endorse humane meat (which as you said we all
agree is wrong), and have huge conflicts of interest. You don't really
have to look too hard to find them. This website details all these
conflicts of interest, I hope you have a read. http://www.humanemyth.org/magicalthinking.htm
Let me give you a few example:
1) HSUS director sends pigs "raised like children" to slaughter. http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1413.htm
2) Letter from 17 Animal Advocacy Organizations Endorsing Whole Foods' "Animal Compassionate" Standards http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1009.htm
3) Peta have sexist campaigns, and kill shelter animals after a year: http://rt.com/usa/peta-shelters-animals-killing-975/