I think it's significant that Travers' is the only one to say he'd been familiar with the place since he was a child.
How likely do you think it is that Crump told Travers, and Travers alone, that he hunted on this specific parcel of land all the time when he was a child? I think it's much more likely that Crump spoke of spending countless hours hunting through the pine and scrub which would have been everywhere in those days and Travers romanticized it a bit by saying he "traversed every foot of the sandy soil"...do you think he actually traversed every foot?
Maybe we are reading different reports but I don't read the Travers statement as being entirely inconsistent with the various accounts him becoming familiar with the land while hunting, shooting, riding, etc. The Travers description is more specific and goes further back in time, but I don't understand where you guys get this idea that he definitely just started hunting on the land in 1909? The Travers description is much more detailed, and I don't think it reasonable to knock it because it contains details the others don't go into. If anything the detailed and personal nature of the story lends credence to the account, and I find it very strange that you guys read it as distracting from the veracity.
I think this notion that Travers was romanticizing the story is just wishful thinking. I don't understand the basis for it, other than you guys apparently don't want what Travers is saying to be true. If he were corroborating AWT's account you would read it differently I am sure. I think the Travers version pretty much settles the issue; or at the very least if it were a close call without the Travers passage, it isn't a close call now. I still don't care one way or another, but if the best you guys can do is portray the Travers account as too romanticized then you don't have much of a leg to stand on, especially when we compare it to the evolving accounts of AWT.
You ask how likely it was that he told Travers alone about hunting there as a kid. This is a loaded question and contains an unsupportable assumption on your part. Crump may have told
many people about hunting the land as a child, and it just may not have made it into every history in its unabridged form. The story may be at the root of every one of them except for AWT's. It fits with what we know of Crump, it provides an avenue to make some sense out of stories with mistaken elements, such as the one about how it was his family's hunting grounds-- in may well have been his family's hunting grounds in the sense that it is where they hunted. It would explain why so many accounts seem to evolve around hunting or shooting or riding. It even puts the apparently the far fetched references to the Leatherstocking Tales into perspective.
And Travers apparently ran in the same crowd as Crump. According to the Clubs and Clubmen column in the Inquirer he was close friends with Cameron Buxton, a founder and board member of Pine Valley. (Buxton was also an important member of Huntingdon Valley and was the club president or something.) As Tom mentioned Crump's closest friends were the founders of Pine Valley, and judging from the social pages, Buxton and Crump golfed and socialized together often. While Travers was not a founder of the club, he was apparently in the same social group, and apparently quite fond of not only Pine Valley, but also Crump.
So, with all of this, it is a hell of a lot easier for me to believe he conveyed that he hunted over the land than it is for me to believe that he had no idea there were giant sand hills a dozen miles from where he grew up until he "chanced to glance through the window of a rapidly moving train." The guy was a outdoorsman and a hunter for goodness sake, yet we are supposed to believe he had no awareness of what was probably the closest really interesting land to his home?
As for your question of whether I believe he "traversed every foot of the sandy soil," I think the question itself is pretty telling of the weakness of your position. It is a figure of speech meant to convey a close familiarity with the land, and if Crump had been hunting the land for his entire life then no doubt he felt a close familiarity with the land the same way a golfer might feel about a course he had walked several hundred times. So whether he and actually "traversed every foot" it probably felt like he did.
______________________________
All that said, I again think it important that at some point we distinguish between Crump being familiar with the nature of the land and Crump realizing that such could be turned into a premier golfing spot. Given the state of golf in and around Philadelphia before 1910 it is entirely possible that Crump was very familiar with the nature land but didn't realize its full potential for golf until he traveled abroad and saw some of the courses over there, particularly heathland courses which might have required major clearing to fully expose the potential for great golf. Even then it is possible that he first searched for land which required less start up effort to bring the courses into fruition, for PV had some major obstacles to remove.