As I do every year I have calculated the 2015-2016 deer harvests by square miles of landmass. The following chart arranges the WMUs in descending order from highest to lowest antlerless harvests per square mile of landmass.
It has been pretty much the same units at the top and bottom each year for over twenty years now. I find it interesting that the units that keep harvesting the most does seem to have stable or increasing deer numbers. I find it equally interesting that the units that keep reducing their doe harvests seem to have declining deer populations.
I wonder if you could do one for counties and then by townships in the WMU's
Harvest data is no longer released by County or township. There isn't enough data available to have any confidence in the township data. It is my experience, based on checking thousands of deer tags that a high percentage, perhaps even the majority of hunters, don't have the correct township on their deer tags. Most hunters have something on there that isn't even one of the County townships so the township data would be pretty much useless.
Not sure what you mean, all the bottom WMU'S have stable populations same as the top WMU'S. Except 2D and that should be stable as of this yr.
Sure the WMU deer populations are stable.
The point was that those WMU where they have harvested the most does over the past twenty years or so are stable at higher populations, in fact much higher populations, than where they keep harvesting fewer and fewer does thinking it will result in more deer in the future. Harvesting fewer does hasn't worked out as hunters claimed it would. In fact it seems that it might well be having the opposite affect of what the hunters believed would happen.