It depends upon what you mean by better than before, Doug. If you mean that you stand a better chance of seeing a nice buck, you are probably right. I doubt that we will ever see the huge herds of deer we saw ten years ago. A healthy forest probably can't support more than twenty deer per square mile. If it gets much above that, there is damage.

Personally, I tend to agree with you. I love hunting and love to see deer. I also like to see wildflowers, tweety birds, and all the other stuff that grows in a healthy forest. It all comes together in a healthy ecosystem.
I got a copy of the report put out by the Pa. Habitat Alliance and read it from cover to cover. Being one who had training in the discipline of science, I can find little to criticize in it. What I did find was a bunch of people who are hunters and also scientists who contributed to it speaking with one voice. It grieves me no end to see folks who call themselves sportsmen bad-mouthing the idea that the forests should not be managed just for deer. It makes us all look bad. If that is what the USP had in mind, they are doing a wonderful job of it.

Merry Christmas, and remember the words of Janis Joplin.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/janisjoplin/mercedesbenz.html