Lawsuit Seeks to Stop Catalina Island Deer Eradication Before September Shooting Begins

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 injunction, 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.