An N.J. appeals court panel ruled Thursday that the state law allowing municipalities to hire professional hunters to thin herds of deer is constitutional.
This ruling supports the controversial decision of Princeton Township to hire sharpshooters to control the deer population.
The Township hired White Buffalo, a professional hunting company based in Hamden, Conn., to thin the herd in the municipality this year, which resulted February in the extermination of 300 deer.Although the Township had originally planned to kill 500 deer, that number was reduced after loud protests from several community groups.
Four animal rights groups and several individuals filed two lawsuits against the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, claiming the 2000 state law unconstitutional and cruel.
"That simply is not so," it states.
A panel of three State Appellate Court judges combined both lawsuits into one ruling — published yesterday — rejecting the claims.
"We reject the claims of unconstitutionality raised in both appeals," wrote judges for the case Sylvia Pressler, James Ciancia and Anthony Parrillo. "We perceive, therefore, no constitutional infirmity in this legislative scheme."
In the ruling, the judges explain the state plan was intended to allow local authorities to address their deer overpopulation problems individually.
The judges rejected the appellants' claim that the role of such an authority was unlawful.
The ruling addressed other concerns raised by the appellants. The judges rejected the claim that the state plan was adopted without sufficient research and investigation.
Despite the court decision, other lawsuits against animal population control are pending.
A group of Princeton community members, represented by local attorney Carl Mayer, is pursuing a similar case against the state law.

Mayer said the recent appellate court decision has "absolutely no effect" on his own case.
"Our legal theories are entirely distinct," he said.
One of Mayer's cases protests the net-and-bolt procedure of capturing and killing deer, a method he describes as "a permanent stain on Princeton's reputation."
University professors Joyce Carol Oates and Peter Singer of the Center for Human Values are plaintiffs in the case, Mayer said.
"It's quite clearly cruel," Singer said of the net-and-bolt procedure. "I think there are better ways to do this."
Though the suit failed to get an injunction to stop the deer killing, Mayer said the case was not dismissed and would still be heard in court.
He remains confident that the case will succeed.
"We fully anticipate prevailing," he said. By raising awareness about the deer hunt, "we have already prevailed."