Never mind the neo-cons, what about the neo-puritans?

I've been indulging in a spot of debate via the letters page of the Scotsman over the past week or so. Maybe I'm just being paranoid but I saw more than some vague concern for animal welfare and tree regeneration behind the letter which kicked the whole thing off.
My initial response was printed a few days later, albeit in an edited form.
What really irked was the claim in the initial letter that

"The way to reduce our deer population is to ban shooting and protect sensitive areas by fencing."

Thereby condemning in the space of a few words a large proportion of Scotland's deer population to slow death & suffering from starvation over winter and probably into early spring. This would be exacerbated by the widespread use of deer fences that he so strongly advocates. Whatever message the letter's author wants to convey, this simplistic and naive proposal certainly manages to demonstrate his lack of knowledge on the topic. It seems all too easy nowadays for the apparently well-meaning to word their message as being motivated out of concern for something that is superficially compassionate e.g. stop shooting deer. This makes it instantly attractive to the vote &/or publicity hungry politicians/lobby groups/charities and before we know it, said activity is banned. Another victory for the neo-puritans.
The argument is continued though I don't think Mr MacMillan fully appreciates the relevance of the word collateral in my labelling the deer as "collateral victims".
A full week after it was submitted, my response finally appeared.
I'm currently reading "Nature's Keepers - The New Science of Nature Management" by Stephen Budiansky. It's relevance to the above debate?

"The almost religious conviction that nature is constant, eternal and self-regulating, except when man intrudes, is fundamentally wrong."

(quote taken from the book's back cover)