Opponents of California’s plan to eliminate Catalina Island’s entire population of non-native mule deer are asking a Los Angeles County judge to stop the first shootings before they begin in September.
The request comes as their lawsuit challenges the state’s approval of the eradication project and its use of an exemption from the usual California environmental review process.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved a Restoration Management Permit for the Catalina Island Conservancy on January 30, clearing the way for a broad habitat restoration program that includes removing the island’s mule deer. The Conservancy says the animals damage native vegetation and undermine efforts to restore an ecosystem already threatened by invasive plants, drought and wildfire.
But a coalition of hunting, wildlife and community groups sued the state in March, arguing that officials improperly allowed the project to bypass the more extensive environmental review normally required under the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly known as CEQA.
The dispute could determine more than the immediate fate of Catalina’s deer. The lawsuit also tests how California agencies may use a relatively new exemption intended to speed environmental restoration projects without conducting the usual CEQA review.
Safari Club International, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, California Bowmen Hunters/State Archery Association, HOWL for Wildlife, the California Deer Association and the Coalition to Save Catalina Island Deer filed the lawsuit against the Department of Fish and Wildlife on March 10.
Their petition asks the court to set aside the state’s approval of the Catalina Island Restoration Project. The groups claim CDFW abused its discretion when it determined that the project qualified for a Statutory Exemption for Restoration Projects under Public Resources Code Section 21080.56.
That exemption, known as SERP, allows qualifying restoration projects to proceed without the usual CEQA environmental review if they meet statutory requirements. The exemption is intended to make it easier for agencies to move forward with projects designed to restore habitat and protect native species.
CDFW concluded that the Catalina project qualified because it is intended to restore native habitat, produce long-term benefits for biodiversity and climate resilience, and include continuing environmental protections. The department determined the project was exempt on January 28 and issued the restoration permit on January 30.
The challengers contend the project does not fit within those limits.
Their lawsuit argues, among other claims, that eradicating an entire deer population cannot properly be treated as a project devoted to restoring habitat for native California wildlife. They also challenge the state’s administrative process and the scientific basis supporting the exemption. Those claims have not yet been decided by the court.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife disputes the allegations and has asked the court to dismiss portions of the lawsuit. In a May filing, the California Attorney General’s Office argued on behalf of CDFW that some claims are legally deficient and that portions of the CEQA challenge were not filed on time.
In a June filing, the groups told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin that deer eradication was scheduled to begin in September and that they expected to seek an injunction before animals were killed. On August 3, Safari Club International said the coalition had filed that request, asking the court to block shooting while the CEQA challenge remains pending.
Safari Club also said the Conservancy has represented that it will not begin baiting or shooting deer before the court resolves the injunction issue.
When a California court considers a preliminary injunctionA preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before a case is finally decided that requires a party to take or stop an action while the litigation continues. Federal courts generally consider the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest before granting one.Read more →, two major factors are the likelihood that the party seeking the order will ultimately succeed and the harm each side could face while the case is pending. Courts weigh those considerations together when deciding whether temporary relief is warranted before the underlying lawsuit is resolved.
For the opponents, the harm argument is straightforward: once a deer is killed, that result cannot be reversed if the coalition later wins its CEQA challenge.
The state and Conservancy, however, can point to harm from delaying a restoration project they say is necessary to protect native plants, wildlife habitat and the island’s long-term ecological health.
The Conservancy says mule deer, which were introduced to Catalina roughly a century ago, browse heavily on native vegetation and contribute to conditions that allow invasive plants to spread. It says removing the deer will take several years and will be carried out by trained professionals working from the ground.
That approach differs from an earlier proposal that drew widespread opposition because it contemplated shooting deer from helicopters. The Conservancy abandoned aerial shooting and says the approved program allows lethal removal only by ground-based professionals.
Opponents argue that the deer population could instead be managed through expanded hunting, sterilization, relocation or a combination of less sweeping measures. They also dispute some of the environmental assumptions behind eradication.
The controversy has divided officials and residents.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn has urged the Conservancy to pursue a smaller, managed deer population rather than eliminate the herd. County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone has also questioned claims that eradication would reduce wildfire danger.
The Conservancy maintains that ordinary hunting and other population-control methods have not produced a sustainable solution.
It recently announced that 2026 will be Catalina’s final recreational deer-hunting season. The hunt is scheduled for October 24 through December 18 and will be limited to island residents, with as many as 200 tags available. After that, the Conservancy plans to transition to the state-authorized professional removal program.
The case presents two separate legal questions. The court must ultimately decide whether CDFW lawfully approved the restoration project under the CEQA exemption. More immediately, it must decide whether deer removal can proceed while that challenge remains pending.
Judge Kin denied an earlier procedural motion on June 11 and set a status conference for September 17. The court has not yet issued a final ruling on the legality of the restoration permit.
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from treating four California Clean Air Act waivers as federal rules that could be quickly overturned by Congress, preserving California’s authority to enforce stricter emissions standards for vehicles and small engines while the lawsuit continues.U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington issued... Read More »
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has agreed to meet California deadlines for processing concealed carry firearm permits and publicly report its wait times under a proposed settlement with the U.S. Justice Department. The agreement would resolve a federal lawsuit accusing the agency of effectively denying Second Amendment rights through... Read More »
Two environmental advocacy groups, Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, have filed a lawsuit against the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) over its controversial plan to cull nearly 500,000 barred owls. The groups argue that the plan, designed to aid the recovery of the endangered... Read More »
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a challenge to California’s Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Bill passed back in 2018. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the plaintiffs in the suit, argue that the amendment is unconstitutional based on the... Read More »
The plaintiff is the aptly-named “Where Do We Go Berkeley?” (WDWG), a homeless advocacy organization. It filed suit against the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) when the Department tried to clear two encampments near freeways that were home to about 30 homeless individuals, many of them physically or mentally disabled. ... Read More »