Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates ordinance to restrict feeding deer, other wildlife; no final vote
Summary
Council members and staff debated a proposed ordinance to ban or restrict feeding deer and other wildlife on private and public property; members emphasized public education and public-safety and ecological arguments but did not adopt the ordinance this meeting.
Pompton Lakes councilors on April 8 debated a proposed ordinance that would restrict feeding wild animals — including deer and waterfowl — on private and public property, but the council did not adopt the measure and directed further education and review.
Borough Attorney Mark Samara framed the item as a state-template ordinance meant to update local code to cover private property as well as public land. He noted the state statute permits municipalities to regulate feeding of wildlife and that the draft refines the borough’s prior public-property-only language.
Council members who supported a restriction cited safety and ecological concerns. “You can’t put out 40 pounds of food and have 30 deer standing at your front yard,” Mayor Michael Sarah said, arguing that concentrated feeding attracts deer, increases road and disease risk, and can change wildlife behavior. Supporters also pointed to overpopulation and vegetation loss in borough woodlands.
Opponents and some council members urged a stepwise approach emphasizing public education before enforcement. One council member warned against immediately fining residents and asked for a clear outreach plan and timeline. Animal-control and health officials were identified as the primary enforcement authorities, with police available to assist in more resistant cases.
A straw poll produced mixed reactions: several council members said they support an ordinance in principle but want stronger education and enforcement details; others asked for more time to review neighborhood impacts and exemptions (for example, bird feeders were discussed as exempt in the draft).
Why it matters: Council members said feeding creates concentrated wildlife near homes and parks that can raise vehicle-collision risk and spread disease and that regulating feeding could reduce those risks while protecting neighbors’ property and public recreation areas.
What’s next: Council directed staff to prepare additional public-education steps and to return with a refined ordinance and enforcement plan; no final vote was taken at the April 8 meeting.
