if all sorts of wildlife abuse were to stop then there would be an increase in the wildlife population this however may be true in some cases and false in others.
To support this statement let me tell you that when there is any disturbance ( abuse whatever?) the populations in general decline. for example if you hunt down tigers then the population of tigers declines however the population of its competitors would increase, and also if there were no competitors then the population of the Tigers prey would increase.
So when we stop all sorts of abuse on wildlife we tend to either increase numbers of few many species or we tend to lead to extinctions of some, this is because if we stop abuse on tigers then the population of tigers will exponentially increase, and due to this the populations of the tiger's prey will in relation decrease and sometimes this results in extinctions of some species.
another good example is the occurence of natural disasters, the occurence of natural disasters have a pruning effect on populations which means that all are affected and all species remain within the carrying capacity of the environment.
Wildlife abuse works in a similar way too much of it leads to extinctions and totally stopping it would also result in some extinctions (we have to take note that these processes have temporal scales)
