Obviously we are compelled to talk in generalisations when addressing this topic. Man has too many behavioural permutations to legislate per individual.
Keeping in mind the generalised context, I propose that the approach of the American and Australian aboriginal peoples is a model worthy of consideration.
They regarded themselves as an integral part of nature and the life cycle. Not above it, not apart from it, not as stewards of it, simply as participants within it.
They honoured and respected their neighbouring species as family. Taking only that which was required for survival, utilising each bone, hide and sinew, branch, reed and shell to provide shelter, clothing, tools and decoration and trade goods.
Anything worn, broken or lost was organic waste which would do no harm.
Throughout their philosophy ran an attitude of respect, gratitude, mutual caring and an acute understanding that whatever they did to the land and it's inhabitants they would eventually do to themselves.
These values became lost or corrupted as they settled into fixed communities, either by their own design or by imposition from invasive forces.
Under those circumstances they had to abandon the nomadic 'grazing' lifestyle, following the seasonal bounty, and be compelled to manage the surrounding landscape to provide for a fixed populous. At that point mother earth becomes servile to 'man' and her role is diminished in their eyes. Arrogance and greed soon follow and decline is eventually a certainty.
There was a logical ethic beforehand which was sensible and sustainable.
By accepting and respecting the whole you are best placed to cater to all.
You looked after all the number 1's best over the long term by not stripping the resources in the short term.
*May contain huge chunks of insomnia rambling and little tangible sense.* 
