PACKET EDITORIAL, Jan. 8
By: Packet Editorial
The fate of Princeton Township’s controversial deer-management plan and of the 500 or so deer the township hopes to cull from the herd by the end of March could be decided as early as this afternoon in the Chancery Division of state Superior Court.
Judge Neil H. Shuster is scheduled to hear arguments today in the case brought by opponents of the plan, who charge that the use of high-powered rifles by sharpshooters endangers public safety and that plans to capture deer in nets and kill them with captive-bolt guns violates state animal-cruelty laws.
If Judge Shuster is persuaded that the township’s plan, although approved by county law enforcement officials and the state Fish and Game Council, runs counter to existing safety and/or cruelty statutes, efforts to reduce Princeton’s deer population could be put on hold for weeks or even months to come.
If, on the other hand, the township is found to be in full compliance with the legislation authorizing municipalities to adopt deer-management plans, and this legislation is deemed not to conflict with other laws regarding public safety and animal cruelty, the temporary restraining order imposed last week could be lifted as early as today and the township could proceed with its program by the end of the week.
Regardless of Judge Shuster’s ruling, it is clear that Princeton Township’s deer-management plan is running into trouble on other fronts. As The Packet reported Friday, the Mercer County Park Commission has rescinded its permit to allow sharpshooters from the wildlife-management firm White Buffalo to set up operations at Herrontown Woods, and the Trenton office of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is investigating whether the use of high-powered rifles by White Buffalo personnel violates federal regulations.
Meanwhile, the Township Committee’s decision to authorize the so-called "net-and-bolt" method in the second year of the deer-management plan came as a complete surprise to residents, including many who supported the bait-and-shoot method employed during the plan’s first year. We’ve heard from a number of people who applauded the committee’s earlier actions and defended them against the outraged cries of animal-rights activists that they are offended both by the manner in which the committee added the net-and-bolt method to the township’s deer-management plan (with no advance notice and no public discussion) and by the method itself, which would appear to be more appropriate to a slaughterhouse than a suburb.
At this point, the Township Committee may be more interested in proving that it has the legal authority to implement each and every provision of its deer-management plan than in placating the county park commission, the BATF and a growing body of concerned citizens. But it should be evident to the committee, even if it prevails in Judge Shuster’s courtroom or a higher tribunal, that its support is slipping, that its stubbornness threatens to do its cause more harm than good and that now may be the ideal time to show some flexibility in carrying out a much-needed but increasingly contentious and divisive deer-management plan.
Specifically, the second year of the plan would be a good time to consider placing deer reflectors on additional roadways in the township, to design and possibly institute a modest pilot program in immunocontraception and to look into the possibility of trapping, tranquilizing and relocating some of the deer rather than netting and killing them.
Any or all of these initiatives may prove to be impractical, but they should at least be investigated, perhaps by an appointed committee of responsible, prominent, unaligned citizens. This same body also could be charged with overseeing the bait-and-shoot and net-and-bolt methods, if both are employed this year, to ensure that they are carried out safely and humanely.
We can’t predict what will happen in court today. But we can forecast, with some degree of certainty, that the Princeton Township Committee will invite not only further judicial action but growing political hostility if it doesn’t recognize and acknowledge the ground it already has lost on the deer-management front, and start taking action accordingly.