Again, if we were to let the problem work itself out, it would. Too many deer means not enough food. Not enough food equates to starvation, and starvation is death.

Man has been hunting deer for a long, long time. But the deer population has yet to be "corrected" or "fixed". There is still an over population. Deer reproduce whether or not hunting season is in, so the logic is almost entirely flawed. Because we do hunt deer, the struggle for food isn't a very intense one. If we simply let deer fight for their food, it's going to do a hell of a lot more to permanently reduce the population than the gut-driven conclusion that we should just go around hiding in trees and bushes, wiping out whatever comes out way with firearms. Like any alteration made to any species, it's going to take a while. We're going to get there eventually, but going around taking out deer isn't going to help anymore than simply letting the species enter a sort of Darwinistic challenge, so why go about it that way anyway?

I'm not going to tell someone not to go hunting. If you want to hunt, fine, hunt. I just think it's a tad idiotic to attempt to excuse it as simply keeping the population in order. Most people want to go out, kill a deer, mount its head up on a wall, and maybe eat its meat... I can't help but think that someone running through the woods with a semi-automatic weapon trekking for deer doesn't really care if there is a surplus of deer. It just doesn't make sense.

And for the record, man is so advanced on so many fields, we shouldn't have to be the "predator" of anything. We stopped being predators the moment we traded out linen clothes and spears in for designer jeans and TV dinners.