A hearing in Superior Court on Sept. 1 has apparently given the Catalina Island Conservancy the right to begin its long-contested extermination of “non-native” mule deer from the island; opponents have only stepped up their opposition to the move.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin tentatively denied a request for a preliminary injunction, saying there would be no irreparable harm in letting the deer eradication plan begin because the process starts with a “pre-removal assessment” and the “actual eradication phase” is not set to begin immediately.
Almost immediately, the Conservancy announced that their “limited deer removal assessment” work, scheduled throughout September and October, will begin. The Conservancy said 200 deer will be “affected” by the assessment, while others say as many as 400 deer could be removed.
According to the Conservancy’s Operation Protect Catalina Island restoration plan, eliminating the entire population of mule deer on Catalina Island is critical to restoring its native flora and fauna while also reducing the threat of wildfires.
“Everyone who loves Catalina Island wants the same thing, a safe and healthy island,” said Conservancy Interim President and CEO David Solomon in a prepared statement.
“For more than 50 years, the Conservancy has worked alongside the community to care for Catalina’s native plants, animals and wild places. We remain committed to protecting the Island we all value so deeply,” he said.
Opponents, however, disagree and have now asked the Governor to step in.
“Tomorrow, these deer could begin to be killed, and once they are gone, they are gone forever,” said Fourth District Supervisor Janice Hahn.
“Governor Newsom can still stop this, and I am asking him to act,” said Hahn.
Hahn has long opposed the eradication, warning that eliminating the deer could have serious unintended consequences, including increasing wildfire risk.
In a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom released by her office, she notes that Los Angeles County Fire Chief Tony Marrone, who oversees fire operations on Catalina, has warned Hahn that the island’s deer population consumes vegetation that would otherwise become wildfire fuel.
“Eradicating an entire population of animals that have been part of Catalina’s landscape for nearly a century is an extreme, unnecessary response,” she said in the letter.
Hahn pointed to Santa Rosa Island, where the deer population was eliminated years ago and where wildfire burned more than 18,000 acres earlier this year.
“I share the goal of protecting Catalina’s unique ecosystem, but protecting Catalina does not have to mean killing every deer. There are alternatives, and we should exhaust them before making an irreversible decision,” Hahn said.
Hahn also argues that alternatives to total eradication, including maintaining and responsibly managing a smaller herd, deserve consideration.
In its statement, the Conservancy emphasized that its restoration plan is about much more than eliminating the island’s mule deer.
“While the legal challenge centers on provisions related to the removal of non-native mule deer, deer management is just one component of Operation Protect Catalina Island, the Conservancy’s broader restoration effort authorized under the permit,” it said.
“The multi-year effort also includes restoring native plants, controlling invasive vegetation, protecting freshwater resources and improving the health and resilience of Catalina’s ecosystem against climate change and wildfire,” the Conservancy contends.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved the Conservancy’s restoration management permit in January 2026 following years of collaborative planning, scientific review and public engagement, the statement noted.
Opponents do not deny that the Department of Fish and Wildlife has issued a permit, but they continue to argue the permit itself was flawed.
“The court hasn’t addressed the primary issue here,” said Long Beach attorney Chuck Michel, who filed the petition for injunctive relief on behalf of Safari International and a coalition of hunter and wildlife groups.
Michel said significant legal questions remain about whether the exemptions to the California environmental impact report that was supposed to be prepared were validly issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
“That’s the issue,” he said, “and that issue still must be resolved. The director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife was required to sign it, and he did not. And he was specifically required.”
According to Michel, the DFW director was not authorized to delegate that. And secondarily, because they did not, when they gave public notice, the Department of Fish and Wildlife failed to attach any of the necessary documents.
“They referenced a bunch of documents, but they didn’t attach any of them to the public notice,” said Michel.
Attaching the documents is critical to the process, “and you have to do that to give the public the opportunity to comment,” he said.
Therefore, the wildlife coalition contends that, on those grounds, the exemption to the environmental permits issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife granted to the Conservancy “were not validly issued. That’s our foundational point.”
Michel said he believes these matters will be ruled on in the Oct. 1 hearing.
Meanwhile, the Conservancy will move forward with its planned elimination assessment work, and it appears as though the Governor’s Office is not going to save the deer.
According to a Sept. 1 article in the New York Times, the Governor’s Office has referred all requests for comment to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The DFW declined to comment further.