Towns should be responsible for deer pick-up

Was the deer who came dashing across my path last week as I was driving on Route 520 in Marlboro on his way to a rendezvous with some lovely young doe? Just missing him, I stopped to again marvel at the carnal drives that energize deer. Presently a battle rages by three political combatants - Trenton, counties and their towns - all flinching at picking up the tab for the removal of deer struck and killed by automobiles and trucks on our roads.

The question as to who should be responsible for the costs for such removals is being argued by maneuvering the tired political metaphor "compromise" to solve the problem.

As a point for examination, Monmouth County has witnessed the greatest suburban growth of any of the other New Jersey counties, with home construction and commercial developments wreaking havoc with the natural habitat of the county's deer population. Each year the dangers increase as the movement to wider and more densely populated areas has created almost incomprehensible obstacles to deer co-existing with their human foes.

Calls to control and reduce exploitation by developers and builders have not been substantially restrained by overzealous planning and zoning boards of many township governments.

Based on a ratio equation of land usage, the most affected areas involved in reducing the habitat where deer can find refuge to continue their link to natural sequences of animal life are predominately controlled by local townships. The costs for deer animal removal should therefore be defined as being the responsibility of all township governments.

Herbert Resnick

Marlboro