Using Carrying Capacity to manage rangelands -- Right or wrong?

Carrying capacity was completely a Western concept in rangeland management based on economic measurement of grass productivity and consumption of livestock.  As the Western management system was introduced to China, this concept is also prevailing in China's decision-makers' mind.  However, some argue it is not the appropriate approach to determine rangeland management policy in Tibet, because the natural disasters there require pastoralists to maintain mobility and increase the size of the herd whenever possible.  A settled range and given carrying capacity will leave the pastoralists vulnerable to natural disasters.

Even so, carrying capacity approach is employed in many places over Northern China.  Past records also show that Tibetan nomads use a similar system to regulate the number of sheep and yak.  But I am against using Carrying Capacity simply on Tibet's pastures.  In the past pastures are allocated every a few years, and the number of livestock is dynamically determined.  Western Carrying Capacity is based on industrialised management of rangeland, so presumably the rangeland will keep the productivity in a longer term.  Today's pastures in Tibet do not have either of these conditions.  Natural disasters or mismanagement may change the conditions of the pasture so they cannot maintain their productivity.  Thus it may not prevent degradation from overstocking.