Final-Fan said:
|
For point 2, the primitivist (who wants to live subsistence lifestyle) would argue that because it was not the hunter/gatherer lifestyle which limited animal populations, but rather industrialization, it shouldn't be the hunter-gatherers who concede in order to preserve animals, but rather those who live a lifestyle based on industrialization (note I don't necessarily agree with this) but that is how the primitivist would argue it. They'd say that if it weren't for industrialization, hunting and grazing would be sustainable without a disastrous environmental impact.
The hunting number was the low-hanging fruit really. I did that to emphasize that it isn't a simple as population size or density.
Governments already control whether or not you can kill certain species of animal on your private property. For example, you can't kill an owl even if it is on your property. Do I personally think it is the best solution? Nope. But it is certainly possible for the government to set restrictions without outright owning the property. Furthermore, it is possible for it to be permissive of those few people who choose to live a subsistence life style pursuing it on what are suppose to be "public" lands.