The PGC has all the proof they need to show that herd reductions were necessary to repair the habitat from decades of overbrowsing.
That is only true if the only goal of the PGC was to insure the regeneration of the commercially valuable timber stands that exist today, for the benefit of one group of stakeholders,the timber industry and DCNR. If their mission also included the interests of the stakeholders that pay for the privilege of managing the herd,the hunters, then they should be managing the herd based on the true MSY carrying capacity of the habitat.
Do you really believe that in 2003 the PGC had the proof to support their claim that 5B could only support 5 DPSM or that 5 C could only support 6 DPSM? Were they wrong when they said in 2003 that 2G could support 15 DPSM or that 2F could support 22 DPSM even though the forest health was rated as poor in both WMU's? Or, is the PGC always right , no matter how ridiculous their goals might be.