The piece said that the habitat DIDNT improve, and in fact ever so slightly regressed.
That tells me the plan was a complete failure. Excessive reductions did nothing to aid the habitat
That tells me that in most areas the herd wasn't reduced enough to allow regeneration and aid the habitat. You say the harvests were excessive, I say in most cases they weren't enough. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? One question, if the reduction was excessive and we've killed way too many deer, why didn't the forests respond?