The report, titled "Forest Health and Ecological Integrity: Stressors and Solution," goes into some detail on ecological trends and wildlife repercussions facing the region, including the impact of habitat loss, invasive organisms, climatic change and pollution.

"The elevated deer densities dramatically alter the structure and composition of natural ecosystems leading to overall degradation of ecosystem health," the report says. The report says that could lead to decomposition of forests and eventually result in the death of bird life.

The report points to such findings as support for a deer-culling strategy.

"Lethal control of white-tailed deer populations has proven highly successful at significantly reducing local deer herds over a short period of time," the report states, expressing an opinion that the Audubon Society, throughout its 108-year history, had never before expressed publicly.

The new Audubon stance drew both criticism and applause from local environmentalists in the Princeton region.

"I think the New Jersey Audubon Society made a decision with a lot of study and forethought," said Tom Southerland, an avid bird watcher and retired nature tour leader.

"There's no question the deer have made an impact on places like the Institute Woods and the Charles H. Rogers Wildlife Refuge," he said. "The understory has disappeared. ... The woods have been fragmented everywhere.

"I haven't seen a Kentucky warbler in about five years now," Mr. Southerland continued. "There used to be towhees (large ground-feeding sparrows). Now I may get one pair, maybe two pairs at best. There's no habitat for them."

Tom Poole, who chairs the township's Deer Program Evaluation Committee, echoed Mr. Southerland's concerns.

"It's a little late in coming," Mr. Poole said. "But I have a very high regard for the New Jersey Audubon Society. I think it's very important someone with their prestige is talking about this aspect of the problem.

"I would hope more organizations would follow the lead of the New Jersey Audubon Society," he continued, citing the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy as groups that have not yet formalized positions on deer management.

"Their statement underscores the least understood of the five problems deer have created," Mr. Poole said, citing forest damage as an often neglected stepchild of more widely publicized topics, such as collisions with vehicles, Lyme disease, farm crop damage and destruction of residential landscaping.

"The average person doesn't spend a whole lot of time in the woods and doesn't recognize the problems going on," Mr. Poole said.

"The majority of people now agree with this position" taken by the Audubon Society, Mr. Poole said. "It's a very small, very vocal minority who does not."

Bruce Afran and Nancy Bowman, two local environmental activists, might take issue with that statement.

"Such a policy is foolish," Mr. Afran said of the Audubon Society's acceptance of lethal culling. Mr. Afran, an attorney who has represented deer-culling opponents in suits filed against Princeton Township, continued, "Anytime humans intervene, inevitably other problems ensue. It's better not to intervene. That's the whole lesson of conservation.

"This panic about deer is misguided," he added. "Nature will just correct itself. Had they allowed nature to take its course, harsh winters and drought summers would have killed the deer."

In an e-mailed statement, Ms. Bowman, a member of the Mercer County Deer Alliance, also said she differed with the Audubon report.

"Any time slaughter stops, the deer population will quickly rebound to where it was when the program began," she said.

"Audubon Society bewails the destruction of the forest undergrowth, blaming it on deer and calling for a war of extermination against them," Ms. Bowman continued. "Why don't they turn their wrath against the real cause of the problem — our insane land-use rules and practices?"

Mr. Afran noted, "Only three communities out of 565 municipalities have entered these deer programs. People instinctively know it doesn't work. ... There are many people who think the policy is absurd, but Princeton has a distorted political system. Special interest groups have been able to push this plan."

But according to township Mayor Phyllis Marchand, deer management was more of a last resort than a first-choice option.

"We really tried everything," she said. "We looked at everything — the trees, the animals, the flowers, the health — before we made the decision.

"I think it certainly underscores that Princeton has done the right thing," the mayor said, referring to the Audubon report. "I'm sure they would endorse the kind of program Princeton has. We have done it in the most humane way possible."

As far as the future goes, Mayor Marchand contends that regardless of the new policy announcement, decisions regarding next season's culling have not yet been made.

"We finished our five years," she said, referencing the township's five-year deer-management program that wrapped up this season. "We'll make a decision in the fall. There may be some maintenance that needs to be done."