Log homes (not exactly cabins) are still somewhat popular in some places in this country as well as in the northern parts of Europe, particularly Scandinavia, Russia, Germany and even France. My boss grew up in Northern Rhodesia and uses the word "bush" but I wouldn't ask him anything about bushcraft, partly because once he starts talking, it's hard to get him to stop.
It is ironic, I think, when you realize there is more forest now than a hundred years ago (here). Much more of the countryside was cleared for grazing and agriculture and more people lived on farms, like my father. At one time I suspect the forest was seen as an enemy and all the trees had to go, although even in American colonial times, some were appalled at the waste. Can you imagine walnut being used for fences?
i don't think woods are necessary for bushcraft, whatever it might be. Just the same, there are groves of trees here and there in an otherwise barren land, just like the oases in Africa, and life tended to congregate in those places because that's were the water was, not so much because of the trees, although the shade is nice. Anyhow, outdoor activities, bushcrafty (so to say), are carried on in those places, too, only differently, in the same way that they are in tropical rain forests, formerly known as jungles, and again, differently. Likewise, outdoor activities in the North (and I don't mean Scotland) are still possible in the land of ice and snow and long nights.
It's all in the attitude.