"Funny how 2G and now 2A are used as the examples."

Im sure we could pick out more. Plenty to pick from.
Id imagine people post about the ones they have the most interest in? I seem to recall bb making mention of data from others as well.

"Tags are at the lowest levels in a decade per quare mile yet some hunters still blame the doe tag numbers. Obviously something else is going on up there."

They have the herd so low that predation + far fewer doe tags is holding the herd low. All need be done to hold a herd stable is have the harvest equal recruitment. Not hard to have the harvest equal recruitment when that recruitment is coming from a herd of less than 10 dpsm. Even productive doe doent exactly have 10 fawns apiece.

Theyve accomplished their ecoextreme goal there. On to the next wmu for them.

"As for 2A, the deer density numbers there are right up with the highest WMU's in the state."

As they should be. The entire state, on a wmuwide basis was raped basically. 2A had a higher cc than many. Had more deer to start with also. i dont see where that has a thing to do with what any wmu SHOULD have as the deer density.

"EHD did have some localized effects, some isolated spots were decimated (why we need smaller WMU's) but overall, the effect was not significant across the whole WMU."

The herd was reduced prior to the ehd outbreak. That just took the herd lower yet in areas. Even if it had never occurred the herd had already been reduced completely according to pgc. Only "nonplanned for" and slower rate of reduction has occurred since.

"Maybe 2A is now seeing a regeneration crash like 2G saw several years back. "

In one years time? And coming off of TWO trends that wouldnt lend themselves to that conclusion? Leading up to this "event" the previous years we were on an INCREASING regeneration trend and the herd as stated was on a reducing trend. Not only that, the "improvements" to the understory etc. are easily seen by anyone whos lived here and hunted very long. It makes no sense.