Uh, the best 16-17 year olds are in juniors, but it's only two or three per team. Average age is well over 18 (sources:
USHL Draft & League Guide,
Elite Prospects - United States Hockey League (USHL), and it's just freaking common knowledge).
You're certainly confusing hockey interest and capacity and capability to support free-to-play junior hockey. Massachusetts has exponentially more interest in hockey than California. Many more teams, more fans, more people playing, and so many more rinks per capita than California, and yet zero Tier 1 teams and only one Tier 2 team that has actual attendance in the double digits. Michigan is in the same boat as Massachusetts, and yet only one Tier 1 team and zero Tier 2 teams. New York also, only one Tier 2 team and one Junior A Canadian team. Iowa has comparatively fewer kids playing with less state-wide hockey interest, and yet five Tier 1 teams. Nebraska is in the same boat as Iowa and yet has three Tier 1 teams. North Dakota is in middle, and has a Tier 1 and 2 Tier 2 teams. See the difference? It's a huge one.
The WHL is major junior and in a pretty big turf war with USA Hockey's USHL, they wouldn't be leaving to join in. Those are occupied markets. Wenatchee left the NAHL after fighting with USA Hockey for years to go to the BCHL, so they wouldn't be leaving to join in. There's no markets that already host hockey that would join any West Coast free-to-play junior league.
There are more AHL teams there with good support than bad. Ontario and San Diego are #3 and #4 in the league for attendance. Bakersfield is around the middle, Stockton has decent support considering the fanbase has been actively getting bent over. San José doesn't even try for attendance, they shouldn't be counted as a marker of hockey interest.