I sincerely hope either you or the panel was not serious about this, because I'm afraid it does not make sense at all. The notion that a risk you describe must lead to a near permanent, improved reward is irrational.

First of all, BM pets are not the most at risk. They are undeniably stronger than MM and SV pets, enjoying more hit points, more armor, temporary power boosts that put them even more ahead, and now also extra abilities. Logic and mathematics prove that it is the MM and SV pets that are most easily killed. While a lesser amount of dps depends on their pets, MM and SV most definately lose a noticable portion of dps when their pet goes down. This in no way validates any decision that allows BM hunters to output more dps than MM hunters.

Secondly, the idea that having to rely on your pet more than other builds being an excuse for allowing greater combined dps output is equally flawed. Only by willingly ignoring the tactical advantage of outnumbering your enemy can you accept that idea. For example, in PvP, while it is quite viable to practically ignore MM and SV pets in combat, doing so with BM pets is effectively hoisting the white flag. When up against a BM hunter, you have 2 worthy targets, not 1. Anyone who has played RTS games either understands this advantage, or recognizes it from experience. The risk of dividing power over 2 units already has its reward in forcing the enemy to divide their attention over multiple targets. To further reward it by increasing dps is the very definition of imbalance.

So, at the end, logic proves beyond doubt that the dps output of BM hunters should never be greater than the dps output of MM hunters under equal conditions (gear, level, skill, consumables, party and zone bonusses).