Whoever owns the habitat has the best ownership claim to the wildlife that inhabits it and should be free to manage those animals as he sees fit. If a landowner wants wildlife on his property, it's up to him to figure out how to achieve that...either contain them or attract them. If a landowner wants to use every square inch to grow crops or raise livestock or develop housing and wants to keep wildlife out, it's up to him to keep them away. Practically speaking, containing wildlife would be physically difficult and prohibitively expensive for most individual landowners, although high fence ranches do exist in some places (not sure I consider animals within a high fence true "wildlife" even though they might be of the same species as free ranging animals). Individual landowners with adjoining properties could band together and agree to common wildlife management objectives, which would essentially be a micro version of what is currently done at the state level. Bad actors could be fenced off or bought out. The larger the natural range of an individual animal/species, the trickier the issue becomes (e.g., migratory ducks), and it may be that the best management strategy is to delegate authority to the state or federal level. But for many terrestrial species, wildlife management is possible at a much smaller scale than statewide, probably down to individual landowners in many cases.