No the history of the herd, the harvests and the habitat prove he is right and you are wrong.
You have no idea what you are talking about and can not provide the data that supports your misguided theories. The fact is Elk Co. only had 21 DPFSM in 1991 because of the high antlerless harvests from 1988 to 1990. The herd then increased to 30 DPFSM in 1994, despite the fact that you and the PGC claim the habitat was overbrowsed for over 50 years. Now, the herd has been reduced to around 9 or 10 DPFSM as a result of many years where harvests exceeded recruitment. Even the SCS Report stated that an overbrowsed forest can support 40 DPSM at the MSY carrying capacity and you claim it has a hard time supporting 9 or 10. You simply have lost touch with reality and refuse to listen to the deer or to what the experts are telling you.
Fawn recruitment is still horrible in much of the state though it and the breeding rates have improved some in this part of the state. The recruitment rates are still almost completely influenced by the annual changes in the winter and environmental conditions for the year though.
That is exactly what the map and data I presented in the beginning of this topic proved even though you obviously weren’t open minded or intelligent enough to grasp it.
The PGC experts say that based on breeding rates , the herd is at it's target goal for herd health in all but one WMU,so once again you are just blowing smoke. The only reason recruitment is horrible in 2G is because there are so few OW doe producing fawns.
If fawn recruitment is as terrible as you claim, why isn't the PGC trying to reduce the herd even more in order to improve recruitment? Could the answer be that it didn't work in the past ,so there is no reason to expect it to work now?