I agree that dropping the 'entry fee' and adding multiple new seasons and weapon options probably aren't productive ways to increase hunting license and tag sales. In turn, decreasing the income for the DNR. That said, I honestly don't care if there are less hunters today than there were 20, 40 or 60 years ago. Actually, I see it as a good thing. I've got less competition in the woods and my children will too. Over the past 30 years, I've lost a good chunk of my private hunting ground to farmers who now lease it out to folks with deeper pockets than mine. Some ground has sold to new owners who hunt, so that went away too. Some ground has been turned over to a conservator and he only allows his family and friends to hunt all of the farms under his control, so it went away too. I'm down to mostly public land and a couple of private farms that I share permission with several other hunters on. So, again, I say GOOD! Those who enjoy hunting will continue to enjoy it, just with less competition. Those who are interested in getting into hunting, will get into hunting if they really want to. They've got plenty more options available to them than I did when I got into it. If they don't they don't. As for the DNR, if there are less hunters, then obviously there is less need for some of the services the DNR provides. Just my 2 cents.