Actually, this is in reply to Jimmy the foot's question.

If those were the only choices, perhaps your question might have some merit, but they aren't. Perhaps you might have phrased your question in this way:
"What is more important to you; having healthy forests or seeing lots of deer?" If your only concern is making deer hunting easy for you by having lots of deer so it is easy for you to find one to shoot, why then it is more important to you to have lots of deer.

Since us hunters have long cast ourselves to be the premier force for conservation, we need to take a different view than what makes our hunting the easiest. Conservation is not simply providing game for everyone to hunt. Conservation means making sure the resource is sustainable and that the ecosystems in which we live are healthy. If you don't agree with this, you aren't interested in conservation, but only in killing.

While there are those few and lonely voices in the state that blame the forest devastation on such things as acid rain and attempt to hold the overpopulation of deer that we had in the past blameless, those aren't credible. Acid rain doesn't produce a browseline. Acid rain doesn't allow lush growth inside a fenced area and a browseline outside of it. Acid rain doesn't eat all the underbrush and reduce populations of indicator plants and animals outside of fenced areas and allow them to florish inside.

As usual, you tend to oversimplify a complex problem. We had too many deer for our forests to support. That is a fact. Deer hunting in Pennsylvania has changed. That is a fact. In nature there is a maxim: Adapt or die. Us hunters will either have to adapt to the new situation or quit hunting. It is as simple as that, if you like simple choices. If you do quit hunting because it isn't as easy as you would like, you weren't much of a hunter anyway. Just my opinion.