I realize there is a budgetary consideration. I think it behooves taxpayers to pay an extra $1 each to ensure they're not maiming animals. I'd pay for that much more gladly than I'd pay school taxes to build out kids another swimming pool.
Then, of course, you have to figure in that 2 of the 3 major gas chamber manufacturers have had severe malfunctions in their equipment that has lead to injury and death of ACO personnel. Now is the money worth it, now that it's a person's life, and not just a bunch of dogs?
As far as ends justifying means....
I don't think you can make a blanket judgement on that. For some things, yes, and for some things, no. I don't know the whole story on the people from Peta, only what the news reported. There are two sides to a story. I'm not going to jump behind them just because they were working for the animals like many people. But on the other hand, I'm not going to start slobbering on myself and going 'OMG ITS PETA TEHY ARE SO BAD I HATES THEM' without even hearing their side.
Though I tend to dislike Peta as an organization, they have many initiatives that I do agree with. Just like, though I disagree with ARBA and ACBA (guinea pig and rabbit breeding assocations) they do have some positions that I agree with. Very few things are black and white. I try to look at both sides and evaluate things individually.
We are as gods to the beasts of the fields. We order the time o' their birth and the time o' their death. Between times, we ha' a duty. - Terry Pratchett.
"Men have forgotten this truth", said the fox, "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry