Bear Hunter:
Your distaste for and/or unacceptance of my varied experience aside, I will state some pertinent accountabilities in terms of GMU 14A moose, as follows;
Science is an evolutionary process, so of course science shall change over time. Computer models can tell scientists whatever they want to read. However, the development of science over time provides data which is applicable in future realms.
Anyway, the fact does remain that the current abundance of moose in GMU 14A is on par with what the carry capacity can sustain over long term. With that being said, the carry capacity has diminished over the past 50 years, but not because of biological mismanagement. Rather, reduction in carry capacity is and has been caused by societal displacement.
Going back to when I grew up in Alaska, moose were much more abundant because several federal programs - both societal and biological - created an atmosphere for overtly abundant sub-populations which turns out, wasn't healthy in an ecological sense.
In specific reference to GMU 14A, the current situation - long sense the establishment of statehood - is the result of things which are well beyond wildlife managers' ability to control. The leading constraint to having moose sub-populations at levels of the 50's, 60's and 70's, is that there's not enough habitat nor the potential for habitat to maintain and sustain that many moose.
Therefore, to keep sub-populations in check and to promote productivity as well as long-term habitat benefit, wildlife managers manage through a sustainable male harvest and if applicable, a sustainable female harvest. In the case of GMU 14A, the current bull harvest is and has been sustainable and, an appropriate number of female moose in the overall harvest has been warranted the past 10-15 years.
In terms of your self-assessed disappointment in what I've contributed in text on this nebulous website, I'm sorry that you're having issues with that. Hopefully over time it will alleviate.
You have a nice morning, as well.
Maverick
