On page 27 of the report, I believe it estimates a total of 164,688 hunters in the field during hunting season.

Then, on page 28 of the report, I believe it estimates a total harvest of 150,766.

The at the bottom of page 28 of the report, I believe it provides the number of hunters via a calculation of the percentage in the category times the total number of hunters in the field. If my assumption is correct, then here are the following: (this then uses a total hunter number of (150,766)

Harvest........,,,, Hunter........... # of ...........,,..Total ....,,# Greater
Number.............. % ............,Hunters.........Harvest....Than 3
4.................... 2.4 % .........3,919............15,680......3,919
5..... .........,,,, .09% ........... 1,357.............. 6,784.......2,714
6 ................. .05% ...........,.,754 ..............4,524.....,,, 2,262
7 .................. .02% ............. 301............,.,2,107....... 1,204
8+ ...................06%............. 905.............. 7,240.........4,525
........................................................Total .......36,299..... 14,624 % of Harvest, Using Harvest of 150,766...... 24.1%....... 9.7%
Number of square miles in Indiana ...............X...........,. X
Impact per Square Mile ...............................,,Y............. Y
Number of Acres Of Deer Habitat in IN...........A .....,,.,,,,,A
Impact per Deer Habitat Per Acre...................,B ...........,B

Now, I used a harvest total of 3, assuming most guys would per angst at an available harvest number less then that number. It also would take into account that some of those in the harvest of 3 deer would have multiple bucks harvested. Of course, the numbers above would include both does and button bucks and if we had the % harvest of those two groups, we could apply that % to the above numbers to then leave the impact on the female population.

Everyone would have a different number that they would believe is "significant". And clearly, a localization of high harvest then can impact a certain geography very drastically.

Any, numbers are numbers and I could have looked at the report incorrectly in my very, very quick assessment. And yes, I do believe this was 2010 estimated harvest and hunter numbers from the DNR.

And, it is surprising that close to 43% of the hunters don't harvest a deer, which would generally lead me to believe that there should be a larger outcry about the deer numbers then there has been. Maybe there hasn't been because most feel like they don't have any real avenue to comment or affect change. That number should also be used "against" legislators and others who suggest we have too many deer from an overall standpoint.