If qdm is based on balancing the herd with the habitat...which it is...then why would they admit they were wrong for supporting the plan??? One of the 5 biologists who did the audit said he feels the 25% herd reduction that has taken place was not enough to get desired regeneration (judging by the fact that the forest have yet to respond he's right), what's more, he said not only would the herd need to be further reduced, but that it would have to be held at that level for another 15-20 yrs. So why would qdma "admit they were wrong" when the dmp has made progress towards the organization's goals?