The farm-based small business has been bringing its petting zoo to the University of Canberra's Stress Less Week events up to four times a year on a regular basis.

That was until it popped up on the radar of global animal rights juggernaut PETA (aka People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

When PETA's outreach and partnerships officer, Emily Rice, found out about the petting zoo visits she wrote to the university.

Ms Rice alleged, despite apparently having no proof the hand-reared animals were being mistreated in any way, the visits were cruel, the animals were stressed and they could not leave "when they've had enough".

She also claimed, again apparently without supporting evidence, petting zoos contributed to "a cruel cycle of breeding, abandonment and killing".

Instead of initiating an investigation into whether or not animals were actually being mistreated or abused, university executives made a unilateral decision to terminate their relationship with Noah's Ark. They have said they felt some of PETA's concerns about petting zoos in general "are valid".

That, as Noah's Ark co-owner, Cathy Rogers, told Fairfax, meant her business was given its marching orders because a third party disagreed with it on philosophical grounds.

"It stinks that a group that's never approached me can just ban me off something like that, (and) affect my business," she said.

Ms Rogers told Fairfax her animals were "healthy and so happy" and spent about four hours at the petting zoos before being returned to their paddocks.

"I shouldn't be stopped from doing what I do simply because somebody else has a different belief system," she said. "I don't think that's right".

A cynic might be tempted to suggest that UC's reaction was more likely to be motivated by concerns over a possible PETA protest, boycott or blockade than by any legitimate concerns over the welfare of the animals from Noah's Ark Farm.

PETA, which has 6.5 million members and supporters, almost 400 staff globally and reportedly generated $US65 million in donations in 2016, is known for its high profile activism which makes use of celebrities, nudity and grotesque and confronting imagery to attract media attention.

It's 2004 campaign against mulesing lambs resulted in a boycott of Australian wool by some clothing manufacturers and it has provided evidence that resulted in the successful prosecution of six Australian shearers for animal cruelty in 2016.

While much of the work that PETA has done to advance the cause of animal welfare, particularly in some third world countries where the barriers to activism are significantly greater than in western democracies, is commendable, it seems to have overstepped the mark in this instance.

The decision to target the petting zoo was driven by an ideology, not by evidence, and, if anything, UC's response has been just as disappointing.

Surely PETA's time and resources could be better spent than this.