We have many areas with excellent habitat that feed a lot of various kinds of wildlife, including both deer and pheasant. But, we also have a lot more area with very poor habitat that can’t support many deer, pheasants or much of anything else.
WE will always have a lot of areas with very poor habitat because 50-60% of our forest habitat will be in the pole timber stage and I think we all age that pole timber will always be poor habitat no matter how many deer we have.
It isn’t enough just to have some good habitat, you also have to have that good habitat in the right places or is still can’t support much wildlife. We have tons of excellent deer habitat and food on the tops of the ridges and the plateau but when we get a hard winter with deep snows the deer can’t live there so that excellent habitat is as inaccessible to the deer as if it were on the moon. In these northern tier mountainous areas if you don’t have enough prime wintering grounds habitat you can’t support more deer during the hard winter years.
But you have always claimed the poor habitat in 2G was controlling the herd, rather than the increased doe harvests. Now you claim 2G has tons of excellent deer habitat on the ridges and plateaus that is available to the deer around 9 to 10 months/yr. So just how is that excellent habitat controlling the herd?
BTW, the habitat in the valley wintering grounds isn't going to recover unless the areas are cut and since many of thhose wintering grounds are located on the flood plains they are not likely to be cut anytime soon.