For one thing 2F has fewer steep rocky outcroppings where something can grow. Units like 2G could support more deer if things they could eat would grow on totally rock covered soil or if we could teach deer to survive by eating rocks.
Though both areas have about the maximum number of deer their individual habitats can support unit 2F inherently has better habitat types that will always support more deer then can be supported in the habitat types found in unit 2G.
There is nothing complicated about that difference, at least for those that are professionally training to manage the resources across the state.
Only a fool that knows little or nothing about deer management would make that claim. Both productivity and forest regeneration is lower in 2F than in 2G yet the PGC is managing 2F at a density that is almost twice that in 2G. That is totally irrational and makes absolutely no sense.