But hasn't the gripe from PA always been that there's way too many hunters? Maybe things are just now getting to where they need to be. I personally don't think all the public lands of the nation need to be chock full with hunters. If you go farther off the beaten path, you're supposed to be rewarded right?all comes down to maybe what you want
this is a IMO a loaded question,
, as what one hunter wants another may not! so I am not answering it with my personal choice!
but the sport in itself, is where hunter numbers matter most !
as once you stop getting NEW kids into the sport, it doesn;t matter HOW many OLD Hunters you have, hunting "X" amount of acres!
as once there gone, without new blood to replace them, and to keep the sport THRIVING< things can go down hill fast!
as its LIC sales that FUND the game dept's
its there MAJOR income for things, raising lic sales will only go so far in sustaining things, as , prices rise, it also means MANY will STOP buying them, making matters worse! NO better!
SO< if you loose that income to the point they are unable to sustain things, and the first things that will go is LAND< , thru sales to afford things
SO< if one's goal is to have the woods to themselves, well you may view less hunters as a GOOD thing, for NOW!
but that will change as time passes as lis costs increase and increase to compensate for lost sales
will it happen tomorrow NO it won't
but loosing a few generations of kids from getting into the sport, doesn't suggest a BRIGHT future for a sport so many HERE i gather love!