Apparently you have a short memory and a very selective way of viewing the evidence. you predicted breeding rates would increase as the herd was reduced but, instead they decreased. That alone proves the herd was below the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat in 2000. If the harvests hadn't exceeded recruitment over the last 8 years elk Co. would still have over 25 DPFSM instead of 8 or 10. To show you I am right the over browsed habitat in 2F was still supporting 22 PS DPSM in 2005, 3A had 32 PS DPSM,2E has 32 PS DPSM2C had 20 DPSM and 4D had 21 DPSM. Isn't it amazing that all the WMUs surrounding 2G can support almost twice or more the number of deer as 2G.
Explain that one if you can.
It has been explained to you time and again.
You just don’t like the answers so you continuously pretend the answers don’t exist or are incorrect.
What is incorrect is you and your wanting to cling to those past management practices, including those estimated numbers, that have been proven to be a failure because they didn’t work to have sustainable deer habitat or higher deer populations.
As for the deer numbers in the units around 2G that too has been explained. All of the units have different habitat that supports different numbers of deer. All of those units also have a management goal and objective that fits that unit, instead of just one management objective for all units.
The deer and their food supply provide that management direction in each unit, just as it should be.
So for over 80 years the habitat supported 25 DPSM and now you are claiming the habitat suddenly decided to control the herd ? Try again.
In some areas the habitat is supporting far more then 25 deer per square mile. In other areas it is very obvious the habitat doesn’t support any way near that number of deer, and the deer themselves prove that too.
R.S. Bodenhorn