The logical extension of this is what I refer to as "The Big Question": Which is the "most quintessential thing" about the hunter class: the ranged physical damage, or the pets?

I tend to agree that it's the ranged part, not the pet part. On that basis, it would certainly be cool if there were a viable no-pet option. But as it seems Blizzard 'wants' us to always have our pet out, if they ever did offer a no-pet option, there would be a penalty. It should probably not be available in BM as it would defeat the purpose, and in the other trees, maybe take away the pet and boost us by three quarters of our pet's damage (in aggregate, a 25% pet damage penalty).

I really don't think it'll ever happen, but it's fun to think about.

There would have to be a penalty, and a substantial one. They'd have to balance around the loss of DPS, for example, that we get when our pet dies. If they didn't balance it well, and there was a clear advantage to going pet-less, then that could result in almost no-one running with a pet, thus radically changing the Hunter class as a whole. (This isn't a new idea, of course, and as far as I know, Blizz hasn't shown any signs of considering implementing it.)

And of course as pets are the new buff machines you would lose a lot of raid utility by sacrificing your pet just so that you could like like a lone ranger :P