Using methods from 20 years ago is what got us here. Under the present circumstances, the antlerless kill is very relevant. It only stands to reason that if too many does are being killed, eventually the doe kill will crash.
The article by DR. Rosenberry was not from 20 years ago it was from 2002. But , you are in denial and i really don't expect you to accept anything that disproves your biased opinions.
But, for the benefit of the few that still have open minds on the subject of HR, here is something to think about. With 1.6 M PS deer ,we would have approx. 250K antlered deer and 1.35M anterless deer. Prior to AR hunters would harvest 80% or 200K of the antlered deer , but only 300+K or 22% of the anterless deer. So even though there are 5 times as many anterless deer as antlered deer we harvest a relatively small percentage of the anterless population. If hunters increased the harvest rate for anterless deer from 22% to 50%, it would only require a PS poulation of 600K anterless deer to produce a harvest of 300K. So the PS anterless population could decline by more than 50% ,without decreasing the anterless harvest at all.