Not a fair comparison. With the introduction of modern firearms in the mid 1800's, Europe pretty much eradicted its game populations (much like we almost lost the American bison and wild turkey and had a few other species on the teeter totter, including white-tailed deer) and they never recovered in sufficient numbers. With nothing to hunt, people quit hunting and it is no longer part of their life-style. The US is a huge landmass and was sparsely populated when the concept of wild-life manangement came into being (1930's or so). There is $$$ in keeping stuff to shoot at. Like it or not, money talks.
I agree with the money, if it were not for hunters big game would not exist today. Peta and the humane society contribute zero to habitat preservation or construction, it is the hunters that pay the bills.
Huge landmass is relative to how intensively it's used. PETA and the Humane Society are focused on other priorities I believe.
Hunters pay for and support wildlife management in a primarily quid pro quo arrangement. Save the ducks so we can hunt them. Pay to kill the wolves so we can hunt what wolves naturally eat. I have nothing against hunting, but the reality is that hunting dollars are aimed at preserving hunting first and foremost.
There are two facts that will push the US toward looking very much like W. Europe: population growth and habitat loss.
The (recently revised downward) US population growth projections put our population at 400 million in the year 2050-51, 430 million in 2060. We certainly have some sense of what it meant to habitat, hunting and wildlife in general, for the US population to go from 181 million in 1960, to 317 million now. That time span is within the lifetimes of many TBN members. Or, use 250 million in 1990 for younger member's comparisons.
With population growth habitat loss is practically a given. We are doing very little, practically next to nothing, to lower the impact of rising population on habitat. There is no grand plan or consensus. No nationally identified priorities of what can be saved where, and what cannot. We are on auto-pilot for the most part. Not to mention the many who resist any form of national direction as an imposition on their 'freedoms.'
If there is no plan or forsight, then how do you know where we will end up, or that a comparison to W. Europe is unfair?
Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S. | Education - Seattle PI
The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land, albeit at a different successional stage. So the deforestation here refers to lands that are converted from forest to some other purpose. Deforestation could increase in the future because tree pests and diseases such as bark beetles are becoming more prevalent in the face of climate change.
Look at any type of habitat in the US and you find outright loss due to development, agriculture, mining, energy development, water management, fragmentation, invasive species limiting the usefulness to native wildlife, and deterioration and disease caused by other human activities.
Hunting dollars are not stopping that. Hunting interests certainly can and do exert some persuasion, but they cannot do it alone. It requires a coalition of groups with similar goals, that are willing to bend a little for the sake of unity. The people who wish to preserve wolves, maintain healthy forests, set aside conservation lands, and restore rivers are the best friends hunters will find.