There's a problem with your first, and what you consider to be the most significant, argument, which is that you're assuming the whale hunting industry is trying to make whales the new cows, which is not the case.

The question people are asking is - why can't we treat whales like we do to, for example, orange roughy, which is a very long lived fish that reaches sexual maturity at 25 years, compared to just 6 to 7 years for this species of whale? Orange roughy is legally fished and sold to the market as a delicacy, and its take is closely managed to ensure that it never exceeds the replacement rate. Why can't whale hunting be like that?

For the answer to that question, I think your second and third arguments are much more significant, and in fact, that they form the basis for why the opposition to whale hunting has made a lot of public progress, compared to opposition to orange roughy fishing. People care about whales because they are seen as majestic, intelligent creatures that are fundamental to the ocean food cycle. By contrast, orange roughy is just a fish people see in restaurants and at the sea food market; so, why bother?

At the end of the day, both whale hunting and orange roughy fishing can be made sustainable. Give marine biologists a billion dollars and I guarantee you they can come up with a management plan for sustainable whale hunting. But they won't, because the value of whales as a cultural symbol exceeds the value of whales as food, several times over. People would rather marvel at their majesty, their intelligence, and their role in the ocean, than eat them, unlike orange roughy.

This is why there is an international call to ban whale hunting.