Allthough deer are herbivores and seem harmless, but those with day in day out interaction and conflic with the animals will argue differently, sheer numbers been that there is more competition for food, and deer are forced to spread further afield in the hunt for food, i noticed a comment further down mentioning the various herbivores roaming britain, what they seemed to forget is that there were various predators such as wolves and bears, other than man keeping the numbers down.

As humans have caused the loss of natures management teams, it falls on them to rectify the mistakes. if it means culling the animals then so be it. It is better to have fewer, but healthier animals, than lots but poor health.

Deer are the main wild large herbivore across Britain and it makes no sense to cull them. In the past we have had aurochsen, wild horse, and others, now all long gone due the activities of people. If we desire wild places then we need as full a representation of wild animals as possible. If deer are all we have left of large herbivores in our woods then we should treasure them - they help us to understand the impacts of large herbivores in wooded landscapes. 'Woods' are of course not 'natural' as they are enclosed and ungrazed, and have been exploited by people for centuries - their structure and composition reflect their management history more than nature, so having deer makes them more 'natural'.

People should be restricted to family size so we dont use anymore of the deers' land.pe

The word "CULL" is very emotive to some people, as it suggests wholesale slaughter !
I prefer to "harvest" deer, then the damage that they have done can be balanced against the meals that they then supply.
Deer do a lot of damage to young trees by browsing and by cleaning the "velvet" off their antlers when marking their territory. So anything that makes this damage tolerable is a help.