While unsustainable human exploitation endangers many mammals around the world, some large native or introduced herbivores can reach high abundances and stress ecosystems, particularly in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. In the United States, high deer populations can negatively impact environmental and human health but reducing populations through lethal management often faces opposition by well-organized advocacy groups representing animal rights/welfare or hunting interests. The end results are political stalemates and ineffective management that do not reflect preferences of residents regarding desired conservation or human health outcomes. We used an online questionnaire to measure perspectives (N = 4830) of lethal deer management and predator acceptance in four regions of the United States (Northeast, Midwest, Intermountain West, and Pacific Northwest). These regions differ in deer species, habitats, land-uses, predator assemblages, and socio-economic and political orientations. We expected large differences in perceptions of deer management and predator acceptance between residents in liberal-leaning coastal regions versus residents in conservative-leaning midwestern or intermountain states. Instead, we found overwhelming support (>66%) across regions for lethal deer management if this would promote human (reduction in Lyme disease, road safety) or environmental (protect native plants and animals, increase forest regeneration, or reduce effects of climate change) health. In contrast, we found generally low acceptance (<30%) of predators (wolves, coyotes, cougars) to help reduce large deer populations, although acceptance was slightly higher in the West compared to the East. Ethical concerns regarding human and environmental health and safety were stronger predictors of deer management and predator acceptance than sociodemographic characteristics or social identities. Self-identification as animal protectionist, hunter, or conservationist had minimal effects on respondents’ acceptance of lethal deer management. Similarly, we found no difference in respondents’ attitudes towards deer management or predators regardless of whether they lived in rural or urban areas. We document large common ground regarding lethal deer management to improve ecological and human health among residents in different regions across the northern U.S. Currently, this consensus is not acknowledged or incorporated into decisions guiding deer management but may provide opportunities for socially acceptable management that avoids polarization amplified by special interest groups.