I don't undertand how it is valid to include in your figures the meat and fishing industries (fishing for food I mean in this instance, not fishing for entertainment). They are ANIMALS. They are not humans. It is natural for us to eat animals (some of them, at least). Many carnivorous and omnivorous animals would eat humans if they were hungry and if humans were safe to hunt. Why shouldn't we eat them? The fact that we can survive as vegetarians doesn't automatically mean that we should, yet that is the impression I get from the figures you included in your article.

Now, don't get me wrong: I totally understand that our survival depends on ALL animals (our food-web/ecosystem support network)...and I abhor neglect, unnecessary pain-giving or abuse of animals (including hunting for pleasure). If we take animals out of their natural system (or breed them out of it) I think we have a custodial obligation to them, which does not exclude humanely killing them and eating them.

I think it is not valid for you to include the $160 billion meat industry and $70 billion seafood industry figures in your equation.

That leaves you with contrasting $76 billion hunting and fishing industry with $6 billion donations to environment and animal related organizations. That is a less dramatic, but more defensible, contrast.

I'd be interested to see an analysis of the relative priorities of donating money to protect abused/neglected domestic animals compared with protecting endangered species on which our ecosystem depends. Which of those two groups do we care more about?