I do however,support the basic fundamentals of balancing the herd with the habitat
But that was not the goal of this plan and it hasn't been the goal for the past 28 years. The goal has been to reduce the herd to the level that allows the preferred amount of regeneration of commercially valuable tree species. If the herd in 2G was being managed based on the long term carrying capacity of the habitat , it would be managed at over 20 OWD PSM instead of 8 OWD PSM. The data I posted for ELK Co, shows that the long term carrying capacity of the habitat was over 24 DPFSM and the SCI Report stated the MSY carrying capacity of northern hardwoods was over 40 DPSM.
Still,I have confidence that the necessary adjustments will be made everywhere when needed.Is it perfect?Nope but it was far from perfect before.
Then why haven't they increased the allocations in 2F to reduce the herd to 8 DPSM like in 2G, since regeneration is worse in 2F and productivity is lower.