I wasn't going to make a "part 4," but there still are a few more issues to tackle. The two main ones are 1) fur; and 2) the issue of "pain." I will get into those "two key factors" right away. As usual, whether via big industry or comfortable head-in-the-clouds city-dwellers, mankind has bundled this series of issues from top to bottom.
At no point in these related issues is there a nerve point quite like that of the issue of the use of "fur" by human beings. Certainly, humans have used fur for clothing and warmth throughout most of our history. I don't think that many would argue that this was necessary for survival. PETA, of course, has its ads depicting famous actresses and models nude, proclaiming that they would rather wear nothing than wear fur. Is PETA sexist? Anyway, the use of fur when other forms of clothing are readily available is a fair enough question. Personally I see nothing wrong with aligator shoes or racoon caps. Those two particular animals are not even the remotest bit endangered. For me, the real question is the degree of which "killing animals for their body parts" occurs.
One time on television, I saw aligators or crocodiles being raised for their skin in Papua New Guinea I recall. These reptiles are not endangered in the slightest. Actually, their numbers need to be kept down. This is one area where "animal management" is legitimate. Even if they were over-hunted, or lets say that very improbably they were made extinct in an area; unlike many other animals, they could be reintroduced and bounce back right away. Somehow "reptile suffering" doesn't concern me very much. I admit it. So I just don't take issue with reptile-skin products.
Racoons, of course, are mammals, and it's fair to say that "human arrogance" in regards to them should be of greater concern than reptiles. Also, the degree of which "mammal fur products" are cultivated is a real issue. It's a fair question. Personally, I think it's needs to at least be kept in check. If not, pretty soon the "typical fur" wouldn't be good enough anymore, and "more special fur" would be required by many. Fur from say... big cats, for example. It's just as much a question of "human arrogance" as anything else. That human arrogance could also come in the form of a person telling another person that they can't go out and shoot a duck for its meat. Perhaps if we look at it from this point of view, it might make it easier to form a logical consensus in the future.
In China, the dust from grinded rhinoceros horns is widly used as an aphrodisiac. Rhinoceros' are very endangered, and it's hard to believe that something so absurd could be at fault for the poaching of these rare animals. The White and Black Rhinoceros are much more rare, yet this black market product no doubt has caused them to be poached too. The "human arrogance" level reached here is stunning!
All dietary rules listed for Hindus apply to Jains, in addition to which Jains must take into account any suffering caused to plants and suksma jiva (Sanskrit: subtle lifeforms; refers to what would later be termed "microorganisms") by their dietary choices. They are forbidden from eating most root vegetables (e.g. potatoes) and deem many other vegetables acceptable only when harvested during certain times of the year (fact-index.com).
This is the flip-side of "human arrogance." If a human being can't sit down and eat something that was cultivated via the suffering of plant life, then perhaps God or Mother Nature would have preferred not to have granted these individuals life in the first place! What are you going to eat! Dirt? As stated in "part 3," plants do indeed suffer. Upon part of a plant having been cut or ripped off, they emit a sound frequency. In other words, "they scream!" So, does PETA endorse the scientifically-proven reality of "plant suffering?" Even the strict vegetarian Jains must decide exactly which plants need to be "spared" and which plants need to be "butchered." I recall one time someone stating the following: "Some of the most dangerous people are the ones walking around all the time feeling that they're just so GOOD." The important fact to remember is that plants do indeed experience "pain"; therefore vegetarians do engage in a type of butchery of fellow life forms.
Nature's Way: Struggle
Naturally, we were geared for "struggle." A soft, comfortable, head-in-the-clouds, person--horrified at the thought of "animal suffering"--would simply have been weeded out during most of human history. Actually, their fellow tribal members would probably have done them in. Now that the human population is at the level that it is, along with the related factors of food, industry, and technology, we pragmatically need to revise some of the ways in which we do things. I don't think that anyone questions that. A new "balance of nature" has to come into being as far as how we affect nature.
The rats, which equal or outnumber human beings in the world's large cities, are intelligent animals with complex systems. In other words, they are very capable of experiencing "pain." Yet, even the most well-intentioned, city dwelling, head-in-the-clouds, animal rights loving people; if they somehow could press a button to make these massive colonies of rats living in the sewers and urban underground just disappear, they probably would. However, some wouldn't.
There is an organization called "Rat Rescue." I believe that this is a very insincere endeavor, which is in total conflict with nature and spirituality. "False morality." If we can extinguish the lives of so many of our dogs and cats out've necessity, why would we "rescue" rats? With all of the problems facing us, apparently some people are too busy worrying about "rat suffering." Unlike other animals, rats are somehow able to endure living in filth and disease. There are many well-to-do people, who live the easy life in suburban comfort, who are so far from nature's struggle that it takes the breath away! For whatever it's worth, as far as I can see; rodent species, beyond rats and mice, fit very nicely into the natural world with humans.
So far we haven't done very well in dealing with the issue of human population control. The United Nations was founded by international banking interests (The Vatican, British Royal Family, House of Rothschild, etc.), so giving them too much power merely because they have most of the money, made most often via "usury," doesn't make much sense. They artificially create problems, then come forward with "the solution," which always means more power for them. We sometimes get clues as to their real attitudes. For example, some years ago, an official with the UN's wildlife fund was recorded referring to people living in a particular area as "human refuse." However, this gets us into some greater issues and concerns that we aren't ready to tackle. There are too many people in the world, but the moral imbalance of the "global elite" (Maurice Strong, Lord Carrington, Javier Solana, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Zbigenew Brzezinski, David Rockefeller, the Pope, etc.) aren't the ones I want to solve this. It's quite a dilemma.
Getting back to hunting and land/animal management, we don't always need to be defeated by "bad politics." I don't think that many would argue that there weren't problems in the past with "out of control hunting." I'm referring to the era prior to this human endeavor being organized and regulated, at least in the West. People with slanted viewpoints often have no real sense of right and wrong, or even genuine morality. Unfortunately, "caretaking" can easily develop into "dictating." The vast majorty of humans are meat-eaters, even if they do avoid thinking about how the meat got on their plate; therefore, we can develop a logical consensus. This issue, although a fairly hard one, absolutely does not have to be put into the typical "Hegelian Dialectic" in order to be problem-solved. It's very solvable.
One last issue, which needs addressing, is the issue regarding "factory farming." There are many parts of this issue. For example: animal suffering, animal waste, water polution, etc. I think we all know that there needs to be improvement in these areas, so I will skip that part. However, when animals are slaughtered, their extreme fear causes their bodies to release certain types of enzymes which are not healthy for humans. Needless to say, that's a health problem that needs to be addressed soon.