(note: I have not read the piece in detail yet, but skimmed each section)

I think being able to explore this sort of topic is important – I personally think wild animal suffering is most likely very important, and the only reason I'm not more worried about it is that I expect uploads/AI to make the future a really weird place that changes the nature of what sort of "wild animal suffering" is useful to think about. In the meanwhile, concrete discussions of the world-that-is seem useful to explore intuitions and philosophy.

But I have a concrete concern, and a slightly vague concern.

Including Overviews of Considerations

Whenever I'm reading a piece on wild animal suffering, I start to feel antsy if I can't tell from early on what range of considerations an author is applying. (In particular, if they don't at least touch on things like "when predators are removed from a system, a default thing that seems to happen is that death-by-predator is replaced by death-by-starvation", and address that concern in some fashion. This essay touches briefly upon this, but I don't think delves into "how do you do population control without hunting?" I don't actually know the answer)

So the object-level thing is "I'd like to see those specific concerns at least touched on in wild-animal-suffering pieces", and the meta-level thing is "I think it's helpful for pieces exploring complicated topics to start with a brief overview of what considerations the author is thinking about." i.e. before diving into any one issue, just have a table of contents of the issues at hand.

This leads to a second concern:

Aiming to persuade, not Inform

AFAICT, all the major sections of this post are evidence in the "hunting is unethical" direction, and this raises a red flag – it's suspicious whenever a policy debate appears one sided. If I see a piece that only lists arguments on one side of argument, more often than not the piece isn't trying to do an evenhanded analysis of the situation, they're just trying to argue for their cause.

LessWrong 2.0 is specifically a place where "arguing to persuade" is frowned upon. Especially for frontpage posts in particular – the heuristic is "aim to explain, not persuade." Give people information, in such a way that they can evenhandedly form their own opinions about it. The line between explaining a concept and persuading is blurry, but this post seemed to cross the line in a few places - both in the one-sided arguments, and in the "Bambi" section towards the end.

I think there's an alternate version of this post that'd make sense for the frontpage, but as-is this seems more suited for your personal blog section.