You are forever taking things out of context. Your above statment is not correct, however one simple word would make it so. If you had said....
The carrying capacity of the habitat is based on the number of deer the habitat can support and that number is determined by the deer ,not by man.However, forest health based on regeneration is a totally subjective criteria established for the benefit of one group of stake holders and does not accurately measure the carrying capacity. That is why the habitat in Elk Co was able to support over 25 OWD PSM from 1982 to 2002 and now the parts of Elk Co. in 2G are being managed at around 8 OWD PSM, because the PGC is basing the deer management goals on regeneration rather than on the true carrying capacity of the habitat.
You would have been correct. But then, the differences between deer density management in 2G and 2F and RSB's explanations of same would make sense and that wouldn't fit your agenda now would it
Actually it makes no sense whatsoever ,because no matter what the reasons might be for the poorer regeneration in 2F the only factor the PGC controls is the number of deer and they are allowing 2F to carry more deer even though it has poorer regeneration.