RIVER VALE, N.J.—The township is not investing in another drone survey to gauge the local deer population and is backing off altogether on its idea to manage that population.
At least for the foreseeable future.
“Nothing has occurred and I do not see any action taking place regarding the deer. There is simply no place to hold a safe culling of the deer in this municipality,” Borough Administrator and CFO Gennaro Rotella told Pascack Press on Dec. 29, 2020.
We had been interested in the latest on the issue as it’s been one of the more emotional and divisive topics in the Pascack Valley in recent years, and certainly one that’s been in many hearts and minds in River Vale.
Approximately 18 months ago, River Vale’s then-embattled Township Council “paused” its consideration of a much-discussed deer hunt. The break followed nearly eight months of sometimes heated exchanges between council members, residents, and out-of-town protesters over the relative merits of a deer hunt or non-lethal alternatives to manage the deer population.
In mid-September 2020, the council briefly discussed conducting a second survey flyover, similar to one conducted over a year ago that found 96 deer per square mile, almost 10 times what most biologists consider sustainable.
Members took no action.
According to Sept. 14, 2020 meeting minutes, Councilman Ari Ben-Yishay said he had seen many more deer in town that year and felt that a second drone survey was prudent. Most council members seemed to agree.
That said, Councilman Paul Criscuolo noted that another deer survey would be moot if the council wasn’t going to act on its findings.
Councilwoman Denise Sieg noted a possible bowhunt was put on hold because officials couldn’t identify a suitable location for one She said that a hunt required buy-in from neighboring towns.
Rotella said Sept. 14 that Police Chief Sean Scheidle voiced concerns over public safety related to a possible bowhunt. Scheidle was to produce a related report for council in 2019. We filed a records request for a copy.
On Sept. 14, 2020 Council President Mark Bromberg said that a second survey could help the council determine if River Vale still had a deer problem. It was not clear what follow-up or action occurred after the meeting.
We reached out to River Vale’s three uncontested incumbent council candidates—Ari Ben-Yishay, Paul J. Criscuolo and John P. Donovan—for their views on local deer management in advance of the 2020 general election, but they did not follow up.
Similarly, we reached out to the other board members and Mayor Glen Jasionowski, and these requests went unanswered. (An email to the Animal Protection League also was not returned.)
Late in fall 2019, the council said no hunt would be held that year and declined to make any decisions about a 2020 hunt, pending Scheidle’s report.
In October 2018, Jasionowski told a group of Pascack Valley mayors that after much consideration it appeared a deer bowhunt seemed the only effective way to reduce overall deer population.
Through much of 2019, the council was fully behind Jasionowski in calling for a bowhunt to reduce deer numbers. After regular and significant pushback from residents and other activists, the mayor backed off a 2019 hunt, noting there was not enough time to pass local ordinances or get state approvals.
Then, of course, the pandemic struck, from March 2020 shutting down much of North Jersey. The region is only now slowly recovering with at least two Covid-19 vaccines being rolled out, although Covid-19 cases remain high in our area.
At one point during the long debate over bowhunt, Jasionowski said he received threats and complaints on social media over the proposal. He asked for civility.
Jasionowski previously said he never was a hunter and was not in favor of hunting but felt it was the only way to reduce deer population and prevent a fatal deer–vehicle collision.
Following a September 2019 meeting Jasionowski spent a half-hour speaking informally with animal rights advocates explaining his thinking. He said he would have preferred surgical sterilization to a bowhunt had the state approved such an approach. A state wildlife official had told the mayor they would not approve sterilization as it was not effective.
State wildlife officials declined a Saddle River bid for deer sterilization program, saying it was an “experimental” strategy.
Saddle River has now conducted three consecutive yearly deer bowhunts, 2018–2020, by a licensed bow hunters group. After much initial public opposition from animal rights groups and residents, it appears the hunts have helped to reduce deer numbers by 135 the first year and more than 200 in the second.
The third season ends in February.
Meanwhile, Animal Protection League of New Jersey is suing in Superior Court to stop the Saddle River hunt. A League spokeswoman presented to River Vale’s council in early 2019 and council members did not view the non-lethal options presented as viable.
Advocates for non-lethal measures lacked data on annual reduction rates.
In the township, where mayor and council enthusiasm for a deer bowhunt was strong, the issue all but disappeared from council consideration in 2020 except for September’s discussion.
Deer aplenty in spring 2019
In spring 2019, the council approved a contract to hire a college biologist to conduct a drone study of deer population.
The study, by Raritan Valley Community College biology and environmental science professor Jay Kelly, found 546 deer on 5.6 square miles, for 96 deer per square mile.
The report noted that a goal of about 10 deer per square mile is optimal for towns to maintain healthy ecosystems and minimize social and economic costs, although there is debate among biologists over what maximum number is sustainable.
Kelly, a director of the college’s Center for Environmental Studies, said then that getting to 10 deer per square mile “depends extensively on what methods are used, how much access there is to hunting, and how much the town is willing to invest/persist over time.”
Kelly recently joined with Emile DeVito, science and stewardship manager for New Jersey Conservation Foundation, to urge elected officials statewide to “identify a science-based strategy to get our deer population under control, and allow the Garden State to heal.”
Kelly and DeVito wrote that “about five to 10 white-tailed deer per square mile is a normal healthy number. But in some areas of New Jersey, the population of deer has swelled to 20 times that amount or more.”
They wrote that the deer “have almost no natural predators, and the state’s landscape—its forests, farms and gardens—is like a smorgasbord. These deer herds are eating New Jersey alive, and destroying its fragile ecosystems,” they wrote.
Throughout 2019, Pascack Press interviewed county parks officials, who felt deer were not a problem countywide. Other officials, such as Suez’s watershed manager, told us the forest understory in watershed lands around North Jersey reservoirs had been decimated by deer browsing. Most relevant scientists, including Kelly, urged action in 2019 and 2020.
“You can’t drive down most highways without spotting at least one deer lying on the side of the road; they are involved in more than 30,000 car collisions in New Jersey alone,” wrote Kelly and DeVito. Kelly said the statistics are released yearly by State Farm Insurance Co.
Kelly said last year they did deer drone surveys in Closter Nature Center, Celery Farm in Allendale, and Flat Rock Brook in Englewood. All told, he said, he surveyed about 65,000 acres in 79 nature preserves or towns.
“The worst areas tend to be south of Route 78, where the average deer density is about 112 per square mile. North of Route 78, it is about 70. However, most of our surveys so far were in the more forested areas west of Route 287, which have less edge/residential areas (i.e., less supplemental food resources) making for fewer deer,” Kelly said.
“At the local level (individual preserves) we have seen deer densities exceed 200 per square mile, more than 20 times the natural carrying capacity of forests to support them,” Kelly said.
Asked about non-lethal deer options for North Jersey towns, which generally prohibit hunting, Kelly said “None make sense at this scale unless you include reintroducing natural predators… Non-lethal options tend to only make biological and/or economic sense in controlling reproduction in captive populations (zoos, game farms),” he said.
Kelly said, “I have heard about new generation contraceptives being developed, but none have been approved by the state government for use in New Jersey. I have also heard about experiments involving surgical sterilization, which again is not feasible at large scales and is hardly more humane in my opinion. I have not yet seen the results of those studies.”
Kelly said, “Again, the only other viable option is natural predators, which is unfortunately not likely to be politically realistic in this setting (due to predation of pets and farm animals that would likely also result). There is also some question about its biological feasibility (at least as concerns wolves), given the risk of picking up diseases from domestic dogs, interbreeding, etc.”
Pressed on what options exist beyond hunting, Kelly said loss of species diversity caused by deer must be recognized and addressed.
“The fact is the overabundant deer population is causing catastrophic losses of species throughout forest and other ecosystems and needs to be addressed. It is an equally (or more) important ‘animal-rights’ issue that is rarely adequately acknowledged by people who claim to espouse such viewpoints,” he said.
He added, “The reality is that death is a part of nature, a part that makes more life possible, and far greater death and destruction is being caused by present deer populations than it would take to effectively bring them back down to more sustainable levels.”