It appears in many of the things I have read on this up to this point, that the general consensus by the forestry community is that the 20 DPSM point is the threshold for noticeable browse issues. Given that fact, no DNR should then be opposed to having a DPSM goal of 18 in a Forest zone. Ag zones could likely even be a bit higher. I'm sure some guys in MN would be absolutely ecstatic to have a density that high. Do not let them tell you that 18 is too high for the ag guys either, we have many areas in WI that have twice that amount and we pay out a very minimal amount of ag damage claims even in those areas. As far as the insurance lobby goes, they can get bent, MY insurance rates are based on the fact that some uber-rich @hole thinks he needs to be driving around in a half million dollar RV and there is an off chance that I might hit him and cause damage to his precious toy, screw that! No DNR or forestry group should fight 18 DPSM as long as they have some accurate metrics to gauge fluctuations in the population to keep it from going too high or too low. Counts drop to 16 DPSM for more than 2 years would warrant minimal to no doe harvest until the density hits 18 again. Same the other way, count hits 20+ for 2 years running and everyone gets 1 extra antlerless tag, not 3, not 5! ONE extra tag, period, until the population is back down to 18! If the population doesn't come down to the accepted level of 18 after 2 years, then you force the doe harvests in trouble zones with rules like EAB, for 1 year at a time, not 3+ years running like the WI DNR did. Other than the fact that it is somewhat hard to accurately count deer in the wild, I think these guys are really making it harder than it needs to be. Just my .02