Summation of the December 20th meeting of the Borough Council The recent controversy regarding the town's deer management policy completely dominated the meeting. The mayor started things off by suggesting the council needs to resolve the issue of when deer culling/hunting can take place in India brook Park, and needs to address how the publics safety will be protected. Councilman Stanley Witczak was first to speak on the issue after presentinng council members with a memo he produced addressing concerns regarding the accuracy of a recent Observer Tribune article. As Mr. Witczak began reading from the apparently prepared text the mayor interrupted to point out that the issue for discussion is the narrow issue of India brook policy. Mr. Witczak basically defended the relevance of his historical review of policy and made a rather lengthy statement basically defending the borough's deer management program-- and his management of that program. In summarized overview Mr Witczak gave his rendition of the history of the four year-old program and emphasized that it is a bow hunting only program, that is safe and very effective. there was a smattering of "factual" assertions. He stated that the bowhunting program is effective and necessary to fight lime disease and overpopulation. He stated that 15 to $20,000 of traceable resources have been spent on the program. He mentioned a 500 signature petition in support of the program. He also mentioned that in the past Borough employees have been paid overtime to kill deer (approximately 10 deer). He stated that other management approaches were not cost-effective and provided the example that 60 percent of the deer die in-transit using relocation programs. He stated that it cost $100 per head minimum, to reduce deer populations using other available techniques. He asserted that the registered group of bowhunters, is using "science and technology" (bate) to enhance effectiveness and safety. He stated that deer are "frightened off" by people using the park implying that there is therefore no safety issue. Next to speak was Councilman Dolan who basically just said the culling program was successful and in the public interest. Councilman Haverkost was pretty assertive in his defense of the program.... even implying that some Hunter incursions into public land from private land was acceptable. He emphasize that shotgun season is only open for two weeks and is now closed. He was very supportive of property owners allowing hunting on their property. He also made some anecdotal assurance the program is working. Discussion was pretty unanimously supportive of the bowhunting in public parks deer management program. In further remarks Councilman Witczak reported these deer "accident figures" as evidence that the program is working.
2001 -- 29 reported traffic accidents It was the attorneys position that permanent ladders would present a liability implication. The attorney also recommended that the parks be closed during all periods of active hunting to mitigate against town liability for hunting accidents. In the ensuing discussion the mayor expressed some frustration with the council and its inability to coalesce opinion into a formal motion. Eventually the council agreed on a resolution stating that the parks (with the exception of India brook?) are to be posted from September to the end of February with signs indicating that the park is closed to the public from sunrise to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to dusk. Later in the "public comment" section the issue was again raised. A half-dozen or so "members of the public" expressed their support of the program and the council's action. A police officer from another town identified himself as a program coordinator and explained how an "accident would be a impossibility" and repeated some earlier silly distinctions between real hunting (where you track and kill a trophy buck) and culling were you bate mommy and baby deers and shoot arrows through there eye, or there neck, or their pancreas..etc. The assertion was that culling with primitive weapons was safe and efficient. Some woman who was apparently the force behind the earlier mentioned 500 signature petition-- emphasized universal public support and expressed assurances that the program was effectively reducing the public's risk of contracting lime disease among other health risks. Barbara Stanton one of the soon-to-be new members of the council provided her opinion regarding how the latter liability issue could be resolved. Although she confessed some ignorance regarding what's involved ...she basically endorsed the close-the-parks (the practical effect) to the public for half the year so we can crudely slaughter 50 or 60 deer out of a state population of like 160,000. The meeting was basically a slam dunk victory for the Mendham chapter of Deer Murder Incorporated... and in typical arrogant overkill Cop style councilmen Witczak made a --just before the ending of the meeting --Rub-it-in gleeful appeal to the public for more property owners to permit hunting on their property. [my 2¢ ... as previously stated I believe bowhunting is disgustingly inhumane and we shame our intelligence to permit it. The underlying facts that prove this deer management program to be a failure are these. Nearly one-third of the total deer population in New Jersey is killed every year... consequently most deers will not reach maturity let alone old age. As in human populations, mature animals are less prolific and in turn mitigate against overpopulation. It may sound strange, but it is an absolute fact, that almost every deer in New Jersey will be killed by a hunter-- eventually... it's only a matter of time. In practical absolute fact deers "managed" in this way are not living anything like a natural life-- they are in fact being farmed for the entertainment that can be derived from the fun of killing them. We don't allow people to "hunt" cows in the pasture-- and we in fact enforce laws mandating a humane slaughter ... why is a future hamburger entitled to better treatment?... The fact is, current Deer management policies impose a perpetual and unrelenting genocide on the deer population. I say if we are going to eventually kill every deer in the state-- let's just get it all over with and exterminate the population all at once -- and end the perpetual cruelty we are imposing... or you can pet the family dog and just pretend you're not a crule disgusting duplicitous hypocrite.] (MORE) There was mention of the fact that a sidewalk repairs have been more expensive than anticipated-- the administrators explanation was that the new --low bid-- contractor was more expensive??? permanent link: Dec.20 meeting, InMendhmm 12/20/04 |
Summation of the December 6th meeting of the Borough Council The First item discussed was Board and commission assignments for 2005 -- the subject was apparently too bor..ing so there really wasn't much discussion. There was additional discussion regarding the possibility of installing a tree at the Phoenix House. A concern expressed was the problem of the tree growing too large for the location... was suggested that there are varieties of evergreen the do not grow beyond a fixed size. There will likely be future discussion on this issue. [I think a good quality artificial tree would be the more sensible approach] The mayor, Councilman Neil Henry and Stanley Witczak were in my opinion impolite, and gave resident concerns very short shrift. Considering that the meeting was barely an hour long and that there was no executive sessions scheduled, there is no honorable justification for the Mayor's interruptions and his unwillingness to allow residents to completely express their concerns. The meeting adjourned less than two minutes after the mayor shut off discussion regarding the issue. [shame shame] These two sound clips tell the story of council duplicity. [Sound byte-85k ] [Sound byte-88k ] These auto load scripts are not very browser compatible [any more] so you might have to click these actual files and select open. 041206a.wav 041206b.wav [ I suppose the reward for writing this stuff is that I get to add my 2› -- unlike the Borough residents who brought their concerns regarding the town's deer management plan to the town council. Safety is not my primary objection.... bowhunting is cruel and barbaric, and in practical effect it is probably more cruel and barbaric than just clubbing deers to death.... It would in fact be more humanitarian just to ask people with old vehicles to run them down on our streets. On average this stupid deer management plan kills about 50 deers a year. It's not gonna fix the local problem when the state population is hundreds of thousands in excess of what is needed to maintain a "wild" population. Hunting is essentially the farming of Deer, it doesn't control population, it just provides perverse entertainment for intellectual midgets too stupid to realize there are about a thousand better things to do with one's time than fuck over --for the fun of it!--some poor creature just trying to eak out an existence. Deer populations need to be dramatically reduced...that is a fact ...but it is also a fact, that we can do it as intelligent, civilized benevolent rulers of this ecosystem or we can just pretend to do it in some sloppy half-assed, cruel, sick perverse way that wastes suffering and proves us to be an insult to the intelligence we claim justifies our dominion. [more] ] permanent link: Dec. 6 meeting, InMendhmm 12/06/04 |
Summation of the November 15th meeting of the Borough Council The meeting began with a statement of congratulations by council member Haverkost regarding the promotion of another police officer to sergeant (I believe the police force is now more than half sergeants) It was estimated that the cost of implementation would be between 15 and $20,000 a year. Council members seemed not to take the issue very seriously ...with one council member calling the state requirements ridiculous... and stating that "he should resign" an apparent reference to the Governor. In overview it was my impression that the state recommendations and requirements was not as silly as a lot of state legislation. The objective is to protect the water supply from easily prevented pollution and there really wasn't anything in the state requirements that I would qualify as onerous or labor-intensive. here's a brief rundown: The state requires the town to distribute an educational brochure to make residents aware of the ecological impact of the storm water catch system. I believe the state just recommends extras like perhaps a website or staging some kind of a fun for the whole family "storm water event" [ I will concede this sounds incredibly silly] The town will be required to pass numerous ordnances ( sometimes just codifying already existing law) regarding: development runoff, yard and pet waste disposal, and general littering. The town will be required to have an inspection and maintenance schedule.. to label existing storm sewers and to retrofit the storm sewers with new, more environmentally friendly, inlets during repaving. There was some discussion regarding the impact of the new state requirements on sump-pumps connected to the storm water system. In brief summary, your sump-pump connection probably isn't a problem as long as your basement isn't full of toxic waste. [of course connection to the sewage system is a problem regardless of how clean the water is] It appears that it is the general opinion of the administrator and council that compliance will require a lot of work... I don't think you can make that argument based on the facts presented-- the state provides "example" ordnances and the rules don't seem outside the common sense notion that we should do what we can to avoid wallowing in (and drinking) our own chemical filth. permanent link: Nov. 15 meeting, InMendhmm 11/15/04 |
Summation of the November 1st meeting of the Borough Council As three council members were absent the meeting was relatively brief. There was initial discussion regarding a proposed "steep slope" ordinance. It was stated that the new requirements would only affect property modifications covering more than 2500 square ft. permanent link: Nov. 1st meeting, InMendhmm 11/1/04 |