Btw, thanks for the tabled data gino. I had been interested in getting that for a while. Helps tons in comparisons, especially with current situation compared to previously when we were under the county based system. County square miles were known. Wmus werent. With both known comparisons can be made that werent possible previously.

Also depicts exactly what i was saying about 2A. 95.8% deer habitat in the form of forest + agricultural lands. Only 2.7% developed.