DougE, the problem with what you just said is that when they did the old dpfsm goals they assumed 0 for the rest. (Something that made no sense to many of us) so if you had a DMU that was, say 50% forested and 50% crops, reverting farms, parking lots, streets, backyards, golf courses, whatever, the other 50% just didnt count at all unless it was forest.

Now, isnt it more feasible to include nonforest land that can support deer in estimating overwintering capacity? IE: a county that is 50%forest, 50% crop, brush, reverting farm that had a density goal of 24 dpfsm would now have a goal of 12 dpsm with no actual change in deer population. (I have left streets, buildings, parking lots and yards out of the mix for this example only)