"...if they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population".
This is a quote from old Scrooge himself in the classic tale, A Christmas Carol, published in 1843. It is the story of a wealthy, miserly man who comes to the realization that life is a gift. Questions about the world being overpopulated have existed for decades, even 174 years ago when this book was written.
The initiatives, which are the driving force behind getting wildlife overpasses built, are very focused on the world being overpopulated, expressing concern about the numbers being several billion higher in just a few short years. That is part justification for scrambling to place very piece of dirt and animal into conservation for "future generations", restricting growth, and controlling land use. But they haven't thought of anything unique when it comes to overpopulation, that fear previously existed with other individuals.
One such individual was Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). "He argued that increases in population would eventually diminish the ability of the world to feed itself and based this conclusion on the thesis that populations expand in such a way as to overtake the development of sufficient land for crops." Initiatives, NGOs, and other individuals believe the same, development will overtake the land and must be stopped for wildlife survival, but not food production.
This is predicated on the belief that survival of wildlife is under pressure from land development by humans which necessitates placing as much land as possible into some form of conservation for the wildlife. For land that is already developed and not in conservation status, restrictive regulations must be put into place to protect remaining land from further development and force humans to use current developed land as if it were in conservation status.
The caveat here is Malthus was warning about potential famine, land would not be available for crops, while the current agenda is taking land for wildlife preservation. At what point will this thesis spread to the idea that land for wildlife cannot be used for human food production? Or that wildlife itself cannot be used for food by humans? If their prediction is true, that humans will continue to force wildlife out of their habitat unless it is conserved, what concerns are expressed over the loss of that land to food production? Cattle have long been targeted for elimination, reduced grazing, and alleged contribution to climate change. Farmers have also been impacted in their ability to grow crops.
Overpopulation has been an irrational fear by an infinitesimal number of individuals over time, each having their own twist on solutions. If we were to believe Malthus, we would have all starved to death by now. Just as the current population has not expanded to the point of overtaking land for crops, land development has not taken over wildlife in Island Park either. The Island Park community should make decisions about their own land regarding wildlife, and not base those decisions on the earth's assumed overpopulation in 20 years as do the initiatives.