It would have been nice if the data on this map was explained. If anyone knows what formula was used in collecting this data please share.
I've always found these maps interesting, yet somewhat misleading. Take a look at IL for example. It shows 2-3 bowhunters per square mile, which is simply an average for the entire state. The trouble is that much of the state is all but barren of any real huntable timber. The majority of IL is made up of agricultural fields and fence rows with small pockets of woods here and there, much of which isn't hunted or hunted very sparsely. Only along the Mississippi and the far Southern portion of the state do you run into large blocks of timber. This crowds all of our hunters into these specific areas and accounts for a much higher density than this map leads you to believe. I'd be more interested in seeing the number of bowhunters per square mile of timber, or perhaps bowhunters per county/region. I think you'd see a much different picture for places like Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and other areas with a lot of prairie and ag land.
Justin is almost right as often as Dan. Illinois used to be 60% prairie (22 million acres) and now features 2,500 acres of prairie. Our state nickname should be the anti-prairie state, but some how it is the prairie state which could be very misleading.
Looks like OK is in a good place on the map. Looks about right to me. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
Good point. Same can be said for NY, our Northern zone has no were near the density per square mile that the map represents and that accounts for a sizable portion of the state. Now on the slip side our southern tier and Hudson valley has a higher density then is represented. While I think this map tend to over generalize I still think it represents a generalization that is indicative to each state.
Your reply is what was on my mind when I posted this asking if anyone knew the criteria used to calculate the map. To many states with a lot of hunters seemed low. Illinois and Michigan specifically seemed way off.
I know WI posts (or used to post???) densities of deer per square mile of "deer range". It would be nice to know if this QDMA map is of total acreage of each state or if it is the deer range. If it were the hunter densities of the deer range per state it would be much more accurate as Justin mentioned above.
My hat is off to anyone that can stand to hunt in areas where hunter density seems to outnumber the deer. I am pretty sure that I would find a new hobby......like smoking crack.
Pretty useless map in that in NY the state average is 5.54 bowhunters per sq.mi., but in far southeast NY it is more like 554 bowhunters per sq.mi. On the other hand, in the Adirondacks you could go years before you see another bowhunter, even on state land.
Still think is shows over all what states get hunted harder then others. Im assuming it goes by licenses sold vs total sq miles of the state. Im curious though if it also considers out of state hunters, as that would change it a lot in states like IL, because of the amount of outfitters and big buck dreams.
Illinois is definitely waaaaay off. For a couple of years I hunted a place that had 80 hunters on 800 acres of timber on opening day. So I started hunting a place with much, much less pressure and there could still be at least a dozen hunters per square mile out there. Out here in UT there are vast expanses of sagebrush and deserty rocky areas where the deer are scarce. So the hunters are going to be concentrated in the more deer/elk friendly areas. But then, there are only two people per square mile out here........
Absolutely misleading when looking at NY. Due to a lot of variables not outlined on that map the info is not very relevant. As trial153 outlined the Adirondack and North Country in NY has something like 3 million acres of public land that is 99% standing timber. I've spent a LOT of time up there on public property and can count the number of times I've seen someone else (that I'm not hunting with) on one hand. Southern zone though is a zoo, just like PA. The public ground is a warzone, and 99% of the private ground is not much better with a culture of family hunting camps with 10+ guys on 100 acres of land all driving deer and shooting everything that moves (literally). The misleading part on the midwest has already been outlined by several so I won't even comment on that. What I will say as the new guy out here is that while there are bigger deer, and due to the lack of standing timber it's pretty easy to know where the deer are................getting access to hunt is MUCH more difficult out here than back home in NY. Back home it's not terribly hard to find access to at least a mediocre hunting spot close to home. Out here it's next to impossible even if your willing to spend really good money. I'm pretty sure even if I was willing to pay $3k for a 100 acre lease I couldn't find something within a half hour of my place out here in IL.......the lines are long and the pockets are deep out here when it comes to hunting access.
I would say Justin hit it spot on. Even more so with Kansas. If they based their average on 1/3 to half of the state their numbers would be more accurate.
I would actually say that in PA, it's pretty spot on. Oddly enough, some of the better/bigger bucks are in southern/SE part of the state (Western PA aside which in spots is as good as parts of Ohio). Access is the main limitation in that part of the state. Then there is Northcentral, PA where I'm at. The my WMU has one of the highest does allocation allotments year after year, and historically, it's one of the first (if not THE first) to sell out completely. It's largely private land, or group owned family hunting cabins in my section of the county. Opening day of rifle season can often mimic a war zone.
