This should help any objective person see that unit 2F has always had more deer and also that neither unit has had excessive antler less deer harvests during any recent years compared to the harvests of the historic past. That also lends more significance to the likelihood that it has been trying to carry too many deer in recent times that caused the habitat decline that then resulted in the population decline.
So you are saying that the PGC has managed 2F at higher DD than should have been allowed and are still managing 2F at higher DDs than 2G resulting in lower regeneration rates and lower productivity. Whether you know it or not you once again,just supported what I have been saying.
The quality of the habitat, including the availability of mast, is a great deal of what influences the herd health. The quality of the habitat, (that is regeneration since you don’t seem to know that), is entirely what influences the measure of the habitat health. Both of which are used for determining the direction for managing the herd within the quality of the habitat available to the deer within that unit.
The quote I posted from Brett Wallingford said specifically that herd health is independent from forest health. All but 1 WMU is at it's goal for herd health,so 2f and 2G are being managed based solely on forest health and forest health is lower in 2F than in 2G ,yet 2F is being managed at a higher deer density and you can't explain why that is and neither can Dr, rosenberry.