You are comparing the peak harvest before CS and AR to the first year of results from CS, AR and HR. You cannot conclude anything comparing apples and ernges (oranges).
As I recall we had a concurrent season in 2001 and since we now know that the2001 anterless did not decrease the herd ,but instead the herd increased so the 2002 and 2003 buck harvests should have increased . Instead, due to AR ,not the concurrent season or HR, the buck harvest decreased by 38K and it decreased by 61K in 2003. Therefore my comparison is valid and not apples to oranges as you claim.
I would personally trade a 1:5 chance of success at a forkhorn or spike for a 1:7 chance at an 8 or 10 point any day week or year.
But that is not how it works. We traded a 1:5 chance to harvest any buck with 3" spikes or bigger for a 1:7 chance harvest 61K fewer buck with at least 3 points one side. AR only increased the number of 2.5 8+ buck harvested in 2003 by 4,000. So your odds of taking that 8 or ten point did not improve significantly and only 55% of the 2.5+ buck harvested were 8+ point buck.
If the herd is too big and produces that astronomical figure, we cannot reasonably expect it to continue status quo. We had our fun those few years and now we must get back to the business of herd management.
What you apparently can't accept is that the decreases in the buck harvest were solely the result of AR, since the PGC said we still have an all time record 1.6 M PS deer. Therefore, if and when herd reduction is successful, the buck harvest will decline even more