They have further stated that using animal tested products is 100% morally wrong. Except, of course, for Special People which are 'in the fight'.
This is far different from saying "We need to work to end animal testing".
Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?
> 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?
You cannot oppose all animal testing, say it is morally wrong under all circumstances, then ... because you're fighting to end it, say in your special little case -- it is OK.
PETA representatives have often said that killing animals, is not worth saving one human life.
Such broken logic indicates that this person thinks that they are special. They aren't, they could die tomorrow, and some other pro-PETA person could become VP. They are, quite literally, saying it is OK for countless humans to die, due to a lack of animal testing, but that for them?
Special little them?
It's OK.