[Many of the examples that you cite actually apply to the killing of animals, not necessarily to the eating of animals. For instance, if whalers were out there killing whales for oil and baleen, as in the 1840s, I'm sure we'd see the same protests that we see right now. Anti-whaling groups primarily object to the eating of whales because it leads to the killing of whales. The eating itself is a secondary consideration.
The ethical considerations regarding the killing animals may be very different from those regarding the eating of animals.
I think you are making a distinction here that has, at best very few meaningful applications. If, for purposes of discussion, we completely exclude the eating of live animals or those that have died from natural (or external causes) - both of which certainly apply in all cases under active discussion, then the eating of animals necessasarily implys killing them and whatever criteria you apply to killing them must also apply to eating them. One may apply attitional criteria to eating them, but certainly not fewer. This doesn't appear to be consistent with "very different".
My impression is that the anti whaling folks are opposed to killing whales for any purpose, and that, as you suggested, their opposition to eating them is at best incidental to that.
Indeed we are quibbling about esoteric, mostly meaningless distinctions that would only interest a lawyer or Medieval theologan. Oh, I forgot you are a ....