POLL: Which Wildlife Feeding Ordinance Would You Support?

Earlier this month, the township committee tabled the wildlife feeding ordinance that would prohibit residents from feeding geese on public and private properties.

“I’ve spoken to some of the freeholders. I’ve spoken to some of the surrounding towns,” Committeeman Gary Quinn previously said. “This is an issue that’s effecting a lot of people and I think to take and go and put something in play as far as feeding animals and stuff is wrong at this time until we look at all the facts and look at this thing a little more intensely.”

After receiving much pushback from residents last month, , which would prohibit the feeding of wildlife on all private and public properties.

As part of the township’s geese population management plan, the committee crafted a modified ordinance. Feeding wildlife on public property, which the committee says contributes to the presence of geese, had already been illegal. The township sought to update the ordinance to include all private properties as well.

The ordinance was to prohibit ground feeding for all wildlife, not just geese, and would punish an individual in violation of the law by a fine between $100 and $1,250, imprisonment of no more than 90 days, community service of no more than 90 days or any combination of fine, imprisonment and community service.

Residents were concerned that they would no longer be able to feed wildlife on their own property. A non-scientific Lacey Patch poll from May revealed that 77 percent of 190 voters felt that the ordinance was infringing on their rights.

The new ordinance, Peace and Good Order, would have only encompassed geese with the punishment remaining the same.

“The way it’s written here is going to put neighbor against neighbor and I just don’t want to see that stuff happening,” Quinn said at the meeting.

Township Administrator Veronica Laureigh said the committee might decide to simply go with the county’s ordinance.

“The county Board of Health has an ordinance with more teeth so I think if we need to fall back on that we can call back to the county,” Committeeman David Most previously said.

The County’s Board of Health ordinance declares the following as a nuisance, “Any matter, thing, condition or act which is or may become detrimental or a menace to the health of the inhabitants of this municipality.”

It adds that the existence of a condition, which causes or threatens pollution of any waters in the municipality is also considered a nuisance.

The ordinance prohibits residents from “depositing, accumulating, or maintaining any matter or thing which serves as food for insects or rodents and to which they may have access or which serves or constitutes a breeding place or harborage for insects or rodents in or on any land, premises, building or other place.”

The ordinance considers the feeding of wildlife a nuisance and injurious to the health of the public. Those who are convicted are subject to a penalty fine between $5 and $500 for each violation.

In 2007, Brick Township amended an ordinance to coincide with the county’s, said a story in the Brick Township Bulletin.

According to Clerk of the Board Betty Vasil, the county also has an ordinance, which was adopted by the Freeholders on Feb. 17, 2010, that states, “Feeding of birds, animals, fish or other wildlife by unauthorized persons is strictly prohibited. This shall include, but not be limited to, all migratory and non-migratory birds such as geese and ducks, which gather on area waterways in and adjacent to park property.”

The municipal court would have jurisdictions of cases in which violated the law. All violations would be classified for the purpose of sentencing as a petty disorderly persons offense, subject to a fine not exceeding $200, imprisonment of no more than 30 days or both.