If your definition of "higher land usage" means a single hunter using "several hundred miles of territory" and a city and farmland on equivalent land is equal, then we just have fundamentally different definitions and this conversation useless. I'm fully aware that Europeans and their descendents committed genocide against the native population, that's not what I'm trying to argue against. But the idea that archeologically a deer trail that a hunter may have walked on once a year and his home he shared with a village, made tools with, and sheltered in are somehow equivalent because they were both "used" is absurd.