> As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. A) Why do you imagine that? B) Wh

> As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. A) Why do you imagine that? B) Why do you think what you imagine is a fact that's relevant to this discussion? Our imaginations suck. This is just a fact. We can imagine a dozen impossible things before breakfast, and then fail to imagine a dozen possible things after lunch. This is why the discipline of science is so important: it forces us to test our imaginings before asserting they are interesting or relevant, at which point they are no longer just imaginings, but evidence. To the question at hand, hunting is, on the evidence, one of the most efficient, most effective, most humane ways of limiting the population of wild animals. As well as contributing to conservation efforts financially, hunters are a tool used by fish and wildlife departments to limit populations that would otherwise face periodic catastrophic crashes due to disease and starvation. There are other ways this can be done, but they are in general more expensive, less effective, and less humane. It's hard to kill animals like deer, and the fact that there are people willing to pay for the privilege of doing it is a boon to wildlife management.