Well.....pa has an estimated 1.5 MILLION deer. Mass has 100k. I don't think ma will hold a healthy herd of 1.5 mil. So your logic is a little splayed.
I wouldn't expect MA to hold 1.5 million. Its a smaller state. You have to look at it in deer density per square mile. Almost all states south and west of us, have better deer density than MA.
I might even argue NH has a better density in southern zones.
However, managed properly it could be better. Sure we may have a great deer density of like 20-30 per square mile where you can't hunt or in some small pockets. But where you can its 10 or probably less.....I will argue around me a lot less....like 5 or less. Even hunts like Blue Hill, where there was supposedly a 50+ deer per square mile, the harvest numbers just didn't show that was true.
A properly managed state tries to attain deer density in areas that are hunted to keep hunters relatively in the game. MA does not do that. The only reason we have deer in the east is because you can't get access to them. Meanwhile we mismanage in the western zones where the density could be brought up higher.
MA also does not have the soil quality of other states like CT and PA where more nut trees grow, and less farmland. So harvest in hunted areas really needs to be less. Take a look at the Quabbin for example. It took 60 years of no hunting at all to get the herd to 30 per square mile. They wiped it out back to 5-10 in about 3-5 years of regular gun hunting. I'm not sure why people don't see that as a perfect example of mismanagement. Sure they wanted to take the herd down, but they could have done it in 10 years giving many many more people access to quality hunting. And it doesn't need to 5 deer per square mile either.