I think the bias against introduced game animals is not proven scientifically in a lot of cases.

Rabbits, goats, pigs and buffalo are often mentioned as cases which have caused problems.

But realistically have sheep and cattle damaged the natural landscape more or less than say feral goats and pigs? The answer is an obvious YES! But they are domestic stock animals and valuable to the economy. Feral game on the other hand is seen as a pest and of no or little value to the farmer. But this is a philosophical viewpoint. That GAME is less value than STOCK. The same attitude could be used anywhere in the world, with the result of NO wild game.

Then people say it is an INTRODUCED pest.

Well just say the mantra,

INTRODUCED IS BAD, MUST BE DESTROYED

NATIVE IS GOOD, MUST BE TOTALLY PROTECTED.

When you say it enough times you may believe it.

The deer species are often claimed to be "bad for the environment" (another cliche term). Yet rarely is this supported by scientific evidence.

Now if you are doubting repeat the above mantra a hundred times .....

And when there is evidence of deer having a small amount of harm to the "natural environment", if you ask the question, "What damage to kangaroos do?" there is stunned silence. Kangaroos are native and do not HARM the natural environment, you Philistine!

But perhaps if examining damage to trees, bushes and grasses (or whatever) deer are not doing much more than untold millions of skippies in this country.