BB,it's not my opinion that the forests of 2G have suffered greatly do to way too many deer.That's a fact and can be backed op by reams and reams of evidence.Reagrdles of how healthy or unhealthy the deer are,the habitat was not.That's also a fact.
No ,it is not a fact ,because the health of the habitat is based on the subjective criteria used to define the health of the habitat. If the health of the habitat was based on the same criteria the deer use, the habitat was healthy prior to the current push for HR. If the criteria is based on the Audubon goals of managing the habitat for the maximum biodiversity, that is a totally subjective opinion based on the goals of that individual stakeholder. DCNR and the forestry industry would base their criteria on the regeneration of commercially valuable timber,which is also highly subjective and may be at total odds with what Mother Nature says should be happening at this sage in our history. All three opinions of what the habitat should look like are valid for each individual stakeholders and the opinion that wins is the opinion with the most political clout.
Less deer will certainly cause a certain number of people to quit but it's a dying sport,regardless.
Deer hunting will still be around long after you and I are pushing up daisies . It will remain the only viable method for controlling the herd for the foreseeable future. But, the question remains as to the point when we we no longer have enough hunters to get the job done.