Rare white deer in picture killed by hired county deer killers in previous hunt. Was beloved by visitors.

Unethical conservationists hired to tell hypocritical county managers what they want to hear and willing to sacrifice anything to protect plants despite popular opinion by public about deer killings.

Change of management is needed. Current managers obviously out of touch with majority. Old school dinosaurs are running things.

Waste of money. Supporters of this financial extravaganza can no longer be credible when complaining about taxes, jobs, recession. Please don't complain to the rest of us any more about spending.

This is about preserving the land so the low lying plant life can grow and stop soil erosion with out the deer eating the plant life in too fast way, This is about avoiding deer on car accidents. This is about controlling Lyme Disease. Other methods of population control outside of the hunt just are not effective or reasonably affordable. Going back to the way it was by having wolves in the wild in Essex County is just not realistic any more. In many area the county spend on unless things and does not work well. This an example of the county getting it right. This is about public health, public safety, and environmental protection or the things governments should work at improving. The deer eventually goes to the Food Bank of New Jersey and that is good for impoverished hungry people. This is better fate for the deer than being hit by a car or starving when the vegetation runs out. This is the right thing for the county to do and I applaud our county for doing this.

A. The deer kill is not proven to preserve the low lying plants in the reservations.
B. Streiter lights were installed to prevent deer collisions. Bad driver collisions far out number deer collisions. It is impossible to eliminate all collisions unless you eliminate all wildlife and all driving.
C. Lyme is spread much more through birds and mice (see Jan. 22, 2013 NY Times Environment article). Should we have a bird hut?
D. Eating wild deer could be hazardous to health. Would you eat an animal that survived on polluted water and pesticide laden plants? FDA is even limiting deer in pet food due to outbreaks of Chronic Wasting Disease in deer which is like Mad Cow Disease and can take 10 years to show symptoms in humans.

This is not about the public health, safety and environmental protection it is about people who live in the vicinity of the reservation making a lot of noise about the deer eating their shrubs. These people want the county to pay for plant protection when they chose to live near a reservation where there have always been deer.

Don't complain about your taxes and government spending anymore if this is how you choose to waste money. This was a financial extravagance in a time when the counties should be more fiscally responsible especially post Sandy.

@ Sunny Forrest - (1) The South Mountain Conservatory agrees with me that the deer are eating low lying plant at the harms the land in the reservation. When I was growing up in the 1970's in the deer were few vegetation was more and the erosion was less I have noted this change with my own eyes. (2) Look at the side of the road at the number of dead deer. I would rather deer go to food banks than become a road hazard. Even careful drivers can have an accident with these animals. The expression like a deer in the headlight makes a point. These animal don't have a healthy fear or understanding of autos and are in such numbers as to be a safety hazard and blinking lights have minimal success in this regard (3) Lyme disease is spread by deer ticks and was originated in Lyme CT a high deer population area. The very terminology of the disease and how it spreads explains it. (4) Venison is tasty and good for you. I wish I could buy some from the county or get it as a gift. I would eat it and feed my family with it. It is of more nutritional value and better for your health than a hamburger purchased at a fast food restaurant. I suppose like any thing else if you eat to much it has risks. Public policy in terms of deer management has changed. The deer did not roam free in the reservation back in the 1970's. Public policy has enabled the deer to grow in numbers beyond that which the land can sustain.

Mr. Kraemer, You obviously did not read the NY Times article titled Predators, Prey and Lyme published January 22, 2013. Dr. Taal Levi lead author of a study on Lyme disease in the human population which was published in the National Academy of Science and states: "They detected no significant relationship between numbers of deer and numbers of Lyme Disease". If you want to dispute the findings I suggest you contact the National Academy of Science.

I have seen deer pause many times on the side of the road before crossing. Whenever I drive through the reservation going the speed limit there is always some harried driver on my tail talking on the cell phone. Please don't blame the deer, they are much more cautious on the roads than the drivers.

The South Mountain Conservatory are extreme, misguided zealots who use unscrupulous methods to manage the plants at the reservation. They look at the reservation as their own private garden with total disregard to the concerns of others who frequent it's boundaries. I would not consider their opinions impartial when it comes to the animal occupants of the reservation.

If Venison was that tasty they would be selling it at McDonalds. It is gamey. Would you eat an animal whose feed and water made you sick?

Finally, I find your lack of fiscal concern for the people who have to pick up the tab both selfish and harmful to your neighbors.

@ Sunny Forest -A few respectful retorts. I view the members of the South Mountain Conservatory as honorable citizens and environmentalists who care. I don't necessarily view the NY Times Science section as gospel. I have eaten lots of Venison over the years and I am in good health. I am a fiscal conservative but I see a need for government to spend money to protect the people and the land as a needed expense, maybe they could do this at a lower cost with less sheriff over time if that is your point maybe that point is a fair one.

Mr. Kraemer, The South Mountain Conservatory have too much influence and power over the management of everyone's reservation and I have to disagree that they are honorable I have seen them in action and they are ruthless. It is not the New York Times Environmental section that you need to have faith in, it is the National Academy of Science, who published the study. Killing the deer is not protecting people in any manner or form. Deer are harmless creatures who just want to be left alone and are being used as scapegoats for some selfish peoples personal agendas. The killing of deer to increase the undergrowth is experimental and money should not be spent on an unproven, experimental conservation effort to "protect" OUR land at a time when taxes are too high and jobs are not plentiful.

This is pure frivolity and a shameful way to spend money.

The front step of my home is about 50 yards from the South Mountain reservation. I have nothing against deer. I just think they are over populated relative to the lands ability to sustain them. I have seen the land change negatively. I have seen the problems on the road. I have seen my daughter and my neighbors get Lyme disease. I see the deer as part of the reason for the prevalence of this disease. I also see deer as a good source of protein for the poor. So we should do this.

Mr. Kraemer, you finally admitted that you are one of those people I have mentioned that live next to the reservation and are surprised that deer are in their yard. Your arguments are for your own private benefit and not for the benefit of the majority of the population in your county who do not live near the reservation, but would love to and would not complain about the deer if they did.

As I have mentioned, it has been studied and proven scientifically that the amount of deer have nothing to do with the amount of lyme in a given area. Please read the study in the National Academy of Science and stop repeating the same paranoid, incorrect assumptions about contracting lyme. I have spent my whole life in and near the woods and do not have lyme. I am sorry for your daughter's affliction, but don't take vengeance on the deer because of it.

The FDA would not approve the meat that is given to the Food Bank to be sold to the public for consumption because it has not been raised in a healthy environment and could have deadly diseases and bacteria that are not tested for. It seems cavalier to feed it to the poor who are naive to the consequences of eating it. It is not a healthy choice of food.

I also have seen the problems on the road but they were not due to deer. I wish people would drive more conscientiously.

I repeat, this is money spent to please the minority at the expense of the majority.

I pay significant taxes and I expect that part of my tax bill includes management of public land. The South Mountain Reservation is for all to use and enjoy as long at they don;'t harm other people or the land. This is not about the deer eating my shrubs or my neighbors plants. It is about public health and safety.

Everyone pays significant taxes, but not everyone lives in close proximity to a reservation and I would say only a small percentage of residents even frequent the reservations.

I would say the majority of the public does not think this impacts their health and safety and would not like their money spent in this manner.

@ Sunny - The people thru their elected leaders indicated they want this done. The Freeholders voted overwhleming in favor of this policy. I ran on the Republican Line for Freeholder in 2011 and lost. Had I some how gotten 28,000 more votes and won I would have voted with the majority. I don't enjoy seeing the majestic deer being shot in this way but it is the best way to deal with this sitatuion at hand and preserving the land and improving health and public safety. I will stipulate that I would like to find a way to do this safely at less cost to the taxpayers.

The people who live in the 6 towns that border the 2 reservations that are having the kills made the most noise and got what they wanted which was to clear the deer from "their" backyards. There are some 15 other towns in Essex county that are no where near the reservations or the deer. If you had actually asked them I am sure they would not want their money spent this way.

The county government is filled with old school thinkers who are out of touch. They are dinosaurs who have no idea of how the new generation thinks. They need to go.

This is not about health and safety it is about placating the self-serving wishes of a few at the expense of the many.

Hmmmm .... it seems like someone is conflating Essex County's deer management program with what surrounding towns are (or are not) doing? As far as I know, the County is only conducting the sharpshooting program on their own land -- the Reservations. West Orange, Montclair, Verona, Cedar Grove, the Caldwells, etc. already have large resident deer populations, and those towns are free to manage them as they wish. The County, based on input from scientists, has determined that the many deer currently browsing and reproducing in its reservations are having a major negative impact on what remains of the forest in those parks, and has implemented a program to bring the overall population down to a number in balance with the habitat. This in turn will allow the forest understory to regenerate to the point where it once again can support the many birds, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects that should also be sharing the same ecosystem. Otherwise all you have is a stripped-out, feces-filled deer paddock, instead of a thriving nature preserve .....

You are a little late to the party, E Hiker. The County revenue comes from Essex county resident's taxes and therefore how it is spent should be something all residents, from all the towns that make up the county, feel is worthwhile.

There is no proof that the understudy is or will regenerate if you kill all the deer. How did the Reservation survive all these decades and don't tell me about predators, there haven't been predators in these areas for centuries. This is an experiment at the expense of the deer.

"Conservationists" who want to preserve the Reservation understudy but drive gas guzzling SUVs and own energy sucking oversized homes are just hypocrites and cannot be taken seriously.

How is your carbon footprint?

Essex County residents have spoken out on this topic -- there is a petition requesting continued deer culling at change.org. Looks like more than 800 of our fellow citizens want deer numbers to be brought down.
The proper word is "understory", the layer of the forest from ground level up to about 5 feet, which is also the deer browse line so visible in our area. A mistake that someone who studies forests and wildlife for a living wouldn't have made. Man fulfilled the large predator function with subsistence and recreational hunting from about the turn of the century until the 1970's, around the same time that suburban development really took off in New Jersey. So man created the perfect predator-free, food-filled environment for deer numbers to explode. And they did. Our state now has 50% more deer than existed before European settlement, even with 8 million more residents. Development has negatively impacted the large predator function in the ecosystem, removing the natural population control function for large herbivores. This concept is taught in middle school (8th grade) in New Jersey, so it's not new or radical in any way.
There are tons of great text books, courses, scientific degrees and subject matter experts in this field -- there is plenty of proof, but one needs to want to learn.

I don't think 800 citizens is representative of all the people who live in Essex County (how many people live in Essex county?). Many have not been counted.

You are correct in the assumption that I don't study forests professionally. I have spent a great deal of time in them and therefore am familiar with their environments on an intimate level. There was never any recreational hunting in Essex county in the last century nor were there predators and somehow the Reservations survived despite the deer.

8 million more residents and you are want to blame the deer for the destruction of the natural environments in New Jersey? I would be interested in seeing studies done before the European settlement. What kind of scientific methods did they use to count deer back then? Did they count them by hand?

@SunnyForest -- I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have spent much time studying deer biology, reproductive capacity, browse habits or impact of deer overpopulation on forest ecology or the many other wildlife species that need to share the same space. So you're not qualified to suggest species management policies -- that's not meant as an insult, but it's no different than me saying how a bridge should be designed when I'm not a civil engineer. You mentioned "carbon footprint" in an earlier post; the irony here is that you appear to be following the same anti-science approach that global warming deniers have used -- and look where we are with that issue. If you ever get to the point where you welcome peer-reviewed research, textbooks, authoritative and unbiased sources of information, do let me know, and I can refer you. Otherwise, this is no different than someone claiming a single cold winter is proof that man's fossil fuel- and conspicuous consumption-based lifestyle is not responsible for climate change, and will have no impact on future climate events. Good luck.

Well Hiker I guess you and I have different ways of looking at forests and wildlife. You observe it as a scientist and believe that it needs to be managed and controlled to the extent of using lethal methods. I on the other hand believe that if you truly love nature and wildlife then it is wrong to kill the forests creatures that have just as much a right to be there as you and I. You may be familiar with the founder of the Sierra Club, John Muir, who also did not believe in killing wildlife for any reason. I think you need to read fewer science textbooks and broaden your horizons to philosophy and ethics readings.

It is wrong to kill in the name of conservation especially if there are non-lethal methods that would obtain the same goal.