Animal Protection League of New Jersey v. New Jersey Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 423 N.J. Super. 549 (App. Div. 2011). With the coming of this season often comes an effort by the State of New Jersey to conduct a bear hunt, and efforts by groups opposed to such a hunt to block it. Today, the Appellate Division, in a decision by Judge Carchman, gave victory to the State for this year, subject, of course, to Supreme Court review. In essence, the panel found that the State had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in adopting its Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (“CBBMP”), and that the State had not violated the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 (“APA”), in adopting the CBBMP.
Challengers to a bear hunt in 2010 had sought to stay that hunt based on some of the same arguments about the CBBMP. The Appellate Division, and then the Supreme Court, denied a stay and allowed that hunt to proceed. Judge Carchman found that, under the very deferential standard of appellate review of administrative agency actions, the CBBMP “contains significant substantive professional and scientific support for its conclusions,” and therefore withstood appellants’ challenges on the merits of the CBBMP.
In various respects, “appellants’ complaints amount to a disagreement with the data [about bears] and the conclusions that respondents drew from them.” That was “an insufficient basis to overturn the decisions of an administrative agency.” Judge Carchman also rejected appellants’ argument that a bear hunt was permitted only as a “last resort,” and that the State should have considered other methods for controlling bears. The enabling statute, N.J.S.A. 13:1B-30, contained “no requirement that the hunt be a last resort.” Regardless, Judge Carchman stated, the State “did determine that a hunt was necessary, and that decision was not arbitrary or capricious.”
Appellants’ APA arguments fared no better. Judge Carchman addressed and disposed of each one. Ultimately, he summarized the panel’s conclusions by noting that an administrative rule need only be adopted in “substantial compliance with the APA,” citing N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(b). The panel concluded that, despite appellants’ procedural objections, at least one of which highlighted a procedure that might have been handled better, the State had “substantially met its obligations under the APA.”