[jf22]

I'm sure deer populations have been higher in the past and the forests survived.

[somehnacct3757]

In my area there are over 120 deer per square mile currently. This number was historically 10, when predators existed. Studies have shown that around 30 deer per square mile is when biodiversity starts to suffer.

I live in the forest and manage my lot with guidance from foresters and nearby park rangers. It may take a hundred years for these current trees to die, but there's nothing to replace them. You can walk the understory and see knee-high trees that can't grow further because the deer prune their leaves.

[bjoli]

120 deer per square mile?!

In thought the moose problem in Sweden was big. That is just ridiculous. We have a moose population that is waaay higher than ever before because we killed most large predators, and the people responsible for keeping the population down (hunters) want a much larger population than is environmentally defensible.

[zz865]

There used to be Wolves and Mountain lions to keep the deer under control.

[giantg2]

There have been times of higher deer population. The population was much higher in PA when my dad was a kid. It currently sits around 30 deer per square mile, which 3 times higher than pre colonial times.

[echelon]

There's nothing unethical with culling an overpopulated species. We do it to deer, wolves, etc. all the time via hunting permits.

As long as wild biology subsists on killing and eating, there's no problem with humans doing the same in order to restore balance.

It also helps to reintroduce natural predators when possible. But in absence of that strategy, humans can do the job too.