How are they to be controlled? Control is certainly necessary when a carnivorous animal which has no natural predator is allowed to breed freely.
Apex predators, who themselves have no natural predators, do not need human intervention to control their populations. They managed well enough by themselves before we appeared on the scene.
Some predator species, like fox and wolf, have their population levels limited mainly by their territorial behaviour. In other words, each animal or group of animals establishes a territory, an area of land, from which other animals of the same species are excluded. The food resource in that area is thus monopolized. So even when there is a surplus of food, it is the availability of suitable habitat which limits the numbers. Not all territories are exactly the same size, and they can change over time e.g. if an animal dies or is killed. That explains why killing a fox may in some cases lead to
more foxes occupying an area of land locally - the territory can be split in two, allowing twice the number to live in the same area.
Other apex predator species, like polar bears, are not territorial, and their numbers are regulated by availability of prey animals - seals in the case of polar bears. They too do not
need humans to control their numbers.
Of course, if humans decide there are too many of a species, e.g. because the economic impact is considered to be too great or tigers are eating too many villagers, then more may be killed than would naturally die. This may reduce numbers, but sometimes it has a counterproductive effect - as my uncle, an expert on pest control back in the Ministry days, discovered when he was sent over to troubleshoot a big cat problem in an African country (can't remember which, I think it may have been Tanzania). It turned out that shooting these apex predators was splitting otherwise stable territories, leading to population
growth over several years and a worsening problem!
Anyway, the point is that it is not
always necessary to control carnivores with no natural predators.
Poison, shooting, traps, snares? - or do we leave it to Mother Nature to do it her way, with mange, distemper, parvo and starvation? Perhaps we ought to consider - at least in the suburbs and cities - live trap, and spay/castrate and release, as is done with feral cats ...
That may be an option, if everyone agrees there is a problem. In some cities, such as Bristol, numbers have already declined due to sarcoptic mange, while in other, like Glasgow (where I live), numbers have increased in recent years.
I don't notice any antis protesting about the wholesale slaughter of RATS in a myriad of ways - a very intelligent animal with a highly-developed social structure - why the species-ism?
Indeed, and many people would no doubt be quite upset if they realized the suffering that we cause to rats in our attempts to get rid of them. The fact is rat killing is not a highly visible activity, so it doesn't impinge on the public's psyche to any extent. Out of sight, out of mind. I think if horses and pack of hounds were involved in a ritualized chase and slaughter of rats, and if people got the idea this was being done for sport or fun, there would be more in the way of protest (though probably less than over fox hunting, because foxes are 'cuter' than rats and don't invade people's houses).
but I will one day when I have my own hoss again. I would be going because I would enjoy the galloping across country and the traditions and everything. However, I am not squeamish and would not look away if the final killing happened to occur in front of me. I would not be going only to see that but it is part and parcel of hunting and therefore I would not hide away. 
