Why Didn't Native Americans Wreck the Americas?

There were settlements of tribes in the Ohio country for a long time before european setttlers moved here in the early 1800s. The serpent mound in southern Ohio dates to hundreds of years BC at least and there were settlements all up and down the rivers of what's currently Ohio. When Europeans arrived in the Americas they were amazed at the abundance of trees and wildlife, but then basically stripped the land as fast as they could when they moved in.

Did the native americans "manage" the land in a way that was more sustainable, or were their cultural practices just not as destructive since they didn't have horses or all of the tools european farmers and settlers did? The only book I read on this topic that seemed to be thought out in a non-political way was Guns Germs and Steel.

My question is--could the "Europeans" (a loaded bullshit collectivist term) have adapted to the americas if they had spent more time integrating with the native tribes rather than confronting them as minions of a system? It's a loaded bullshit term because the settlers from Europe had varied experience and relations with the natives of the continent.

It seems like the main cause of the depletion of the north american continent was its monetization. (A really good depiction of that is in the Netflix series Frontier about the Hudson's Bay Company.) It's pretty instructive to read about the land deals of the time, which were basically financial schemes to enrich east coast establishment families. The monetization of millions of acres of land were based on claims of ownership by this or that group based on paper thin frauds.

One example of Indian tribes did wreck the environment the way the settlers did is provided by the extirpation of beavers in the Hudson Valley by 1640.