A very imotive subject here and one that I doubt we will ever all agree on.
Speaking of Scotland here, there probably were some places carrying more deer than perhaps they should have been but I'd say over the last 10 yrs this has reduced considerably to very few if any now. As for forestry, at the end of the day its a cash crop in the main so why would you want it eaten before you can get your crop. But on that note, I do think that it should be a stipulation if there are deer in the area that it is fenced properly at the very start, before planting. Deer from a wide area will congregate in an area during bad weather for shelter so if theres a forestry plantation nearby with easy access then they will go there. These may very well be animals from several estates if its the only shelter in that location. Another point thats been missed here are the so called sporting estates that have wiped out their entire populations of deer all in the name of Grouse repopulation. By all accounts these estates have re populated their grouse moors by using sheep as tick mops to reduce the burden of tick on he ground, whether this is right or wrong ie completely removing one population for the benefit of another more cash lucrative animal is debatable. I for one do not agree with this. I know of many estates that have both good grouse numbrs and a healthy deer populations. If they can do it why cant others.
Moving back to forestry plantations, surely after a certain time the trees will be large enough that any damage done to them by deer ie scraping etc would have a minimal impact in the overall health of the forest, perhaps even thinning it to allow better growth for surrounding trees, but surely there is a point when deer could be allowed back in.
We also have people that would have the entire north of Scotland returned to what they deem it should look like ie with the old caledonian Pines covering the hills. They have to realise that quite a few folk actually like the landscape we currently have, and some people actually think stalking on an open hill is far more enjoyable to woodland stalking. The thing is we have both at the moment and we seem to be doing fine. The natural regenaration argument is another thorn to argue about. We have seen the abject failure of what went on at Mar Lodge by SNH, which at the end of the day we as tax payers have paid for! I'm sure if you Ask Peter Fraser ex Invercauld how much their stalking chaged during that time period you'd here how managing land in one area certainly affects a far larger area and generally not to their bennefit and thats only one of the neighbouring estates to Mar.
In closing, all I'll say is this argument will never go away. In the main the word thats missed nearly always is ballance and thats a word that brings its own arguments also.