While the Catalina Island Conservancy prepares to implement a multi-decade plan to restore and ecologically remake the Island (including eliminating the deer), opponents of the plan say “real science” was sacrificed by quiet legislation that fast-tracked its approval.
Following the state wildlife department’s recent approval of “Operation Protect Catalina Island,” Conservancy officials were quick to say the multi-decade restoration project would ultimately restore the Island to its natural beauty, including new life for its native plants that will add resistance to wildfires.
“This restoration work is a cornerstone of the Conservancy’s strategic plan and represents the commitment our board has made to protect this island,” said Maureen Ramer, Chair of the Board of Directors, in a statement last week.
To accomplish this, however, the Conservancy has proposed eliminating all deer from the Island, which they estimated was 2,000, an idea that has drawn vocal and deep resistance from Islanders.
Since the permit’s recent approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Avalon City Council has already voted to file a lawsuit, the Coalition to Save the Catalina Island Deer has protested the decision and announced they are working with the Safari Club International California Coalition to bring dozens of organizations together to continue the fight to save the deer.
In addition, Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone, and State Sen. Lena Gonzalez all announced continued opposition to the deer eradication proposal.
Marrone is even quoted in an opposition letter from Hahn as suggesting that “wiping out the deer would remove one of the Island’s most effective forms of vegetation management. Without deer grazing, fuel loads would grow significantly, making wildfires more likely and dangerous.”
“I’ve heard from countless residents who are deeply concerned about the plan to fully eradicate mule deer on the island. I sent a letter to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife asking them to slow down their review of the permit application and include community voices and perspectives before making any decisions,” said State Sen. Lena Gonzalez of Long Beach.
“I am deeply disappointed the department chose not to engage the community and allow for a more comprehensive review of the unique and consequential impacts this permit will have on the island. I stand in full solidarity with my community,” she said.
Despite the opposition, Conservancy officials steadfastly maintain their claim that deer are eating the Island’s native flora and fauna, which protect the Island from wildfire more than invasive grasses.
Full restoration of the Island, over decades, they claim, is inconsistent with any number of deer populating the Island.
Opponents, even after the permit’s approval, however, still question the “science” of the deer eradication plan.
A spokesperson for the Coalition to Save the Catalina Island Deer said the Conservancy continues to use outdated scientific methods, or no science at all, in their permit application.
“This permit to eradicate the deer has been submitted (to CDFW), and denied, multiple times before for the same reason – no new science presented,” said Bre Bussard from a statement representing the Coalition to Save the Catalina Island Deer.
She said the coalition believes the Conservancy has been denied twice before because it is using “outdated science” to count the deer. Accordingly, she said the coalition has offered The Conservancy, to no avail, funding for a scientific deer count using what they believe would be a more accurate tool.
Bussard said the Coalition wants the Conservancy to take an inventory of the deer using drones and thermal technology. “The science used to justify eradication is funded and produced by Conservancy-employed scientists; it’s outdated, and third parties are not allowed to verify their numbers,” said the Coalition statement.
Other opponents, like Charles Whitwam, who produced a documentary titled “Killing Catalina,” which includes an in-depth interview with Conservancy officials, said his wrath is more directed at the state for approving the permit.
“There’s a significant amount of public pressure on this issue,” said Whitwam, who is also part of the overall Coalition opposed to the deer eradication.
“Now, it’s (the deer eradication issue) grown way past us,” he said, noting that some big social media influencers are now involved, including a film crew from UC Santa Barbara, and “we expect to see several lawsuits from larger organizations,” he said.
“My real frustration, at this point,” he said, “is with California Fish and Wildlife, because they didn’t address it (the Conservancy permit application) as a science-based agency.” According to Whitwam, it is “well documented through public records that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has told the Conservancy you don’t have the science for this (project).”
Now, however, both the Coalition, Whitwam and others are pointing fingers at an obscure law passed in 2024 as playing a major role in facilitating the Conservancy’s permit approval.
Legislation supported by land trusts and other major conservation groups is now being accused of being the vehicle to allow major conservation efforts to bypass some scientific justification. (For details, see https://thecatalinaislander.com/wording-of-assembly-bill-1581/.)
Back on Sept. 27, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Conservation: Restoration Management Permit Act, authored by Assembly Rep. Ash Kalra of San Jose. Many residents now think the language in this legislation, which became law upon the Governor’s signature, provided legal justification for the Conservancy to bypass the earlier obstacles set forth by CDFW and led to its ultimate approval.
“When the Conservancy realized they were losing, they lobbied for the restoration management plan permit and the statutory exemption for restoration project (SERP) to avoid the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which ensures independent science. a full impact review and public input,” said Bussard reading the coalition’s statement.
“Our fight to save the Catalina Island deer is far from over,” the Coalition contends.
Whitwam was more pointed with his criticism of the new law.
The new law was authored by a wine country representative, he said, and supported by a variety of interests, including a San Francisco group called Sustainable Conservation.
“One of the supporters was the Wine Institute, which I thought was interesting,” he added.
“It is my belief that this was the plan; they got this legislation passed because the way it’s worded is perfect for Catalina Island,” Whitwam surmised.
“Then, CDFW would have a scapegoat and could say, ‘Well, they (CIC) followed the rules. They met the requirements, so we’re going to sign the Restoration Management Permit in Catalina,” he said.
Greg Hurner, a Sacramento lobbyist with Safari Club International, who initially supported the AB 1581 legislation, now says alarm bells are going off in the preservation community after it became law and groups are seeing the CDFW fast-track the Catalina Island Conservancy permit.
“We saw the bill (AB 1581) as potentially being beneficial for restoration projects, for public trust resources, and we never saw it as a method to avoid scientific debate, Hurner said. The legislation passed 77-0 in the Assembly.
“I think the challenge is, in Catalina, the new law (Restoration Management Act) is apparently being used to avoid a more in-depth scientific discussion,” he said. Hurner said the groups will immediately move to alter the bill to ensure more robust science in future approvals. Already, he said, “deer eradication opponents are making their voices heard. Hurner said he and others used the public comment period during the California Fish and Game Commission meeting Feb. 11 in Sacramento to express displeasure at the Department’s granting of the permit.
Lisa K. Lavelle, mayor pro-tem of Avalon City Council, told the Islander, “As reported by our city attorney, we are providing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with an objection via lawsuit (to the granting of a permit to eradicate the deer).
Lavelle said the specifics of the legislation will be discussed in closed sessions, but she, too, thinks the Conservancy, at least, should have had to comply with the scientific justification provided by the California Environmental Quality Act.
“We still believe there is reason for them (CDFW) to revisit that requirement,” she said.
A spokesperson for the Conservancy said they understand the concerns, but they are comfortable with the process and the science.
“The key consideration,” said Catalina Island Conservancy spokesperson Pepe Barton, “is not simply about the number of deer on the island, but the impact they are having on the landscape.”
“We have shared all of the research and the permit application and all of the data on our website,” he said this week.
“That’s not Conservancy research, that’s independent research, including folks at California universities, specific to what happens after wildfires on Catalina Island,” said Barton, “and the impact that deer have on Catalina and on its native plants.”
“Everything that we submit has to go through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,” he said, “and they had to determine that the project meets the criteria for approval … and that it has to meet the strict guidelines for habitat restoration projects and the best available science,” said Barton.
While the new law does exempt qualifying projects from CEQA, Barton said it is not a “loophole.”
While the Act does provide exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), providing projects for all types of categories of projects, including active restoration,” said Barton, noting that Operation Protect Catalina Island qualifies for the exemption under the new law.
However, Barton said, “while the restoration project meets that criteria for then the statutory exception for restoration projects (SERP), and it is exempt from the CEQA portion, the statutory exemption for restoration projects isn’t a loophole because an exemption still requires all the scientific support and regulatory oversight, including oversight throughout the project.”
Barton said he is aware of the concerns that remain in the community yet pushed back strongly against assertions that the Conservancy’s permit was devoid of science or that it required any legislative loopholes for approval.
“The project is still going through all of the restoration and habitat and scientific review, and the CDFW found that this project meets all of those criteria, based on the substantial evidence on the best available science and research that has been presented to them,” he said.
In fact, according to Barton, the same method of counting deer on the Island (using spotlights) is currently being used by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, among others.
“No method is perfect, even drones on the island are a method, but we would still need to use scientifically backed methods because drones will still miss deer, especially on 48,000 rugged acres,” said Barton.
The Conservancy fully understands that they are still facing an avalanche of opposition to the plan, yet they have called another “community conversation” for next Wednesday.
“We want to be fully transparent for any changes to the plan, any milestones we hit along the way, and other things that may come up along the path,” said Barton.
Asked now that Operation Protect Catalina Island has been approved, whether the Conservancy is still open to any changes in the plan, Barton said, “I think we’re always open to feedback and conversations with the community.”
“Any proposals, as such, would still have to be vetted for the scientific backing of any other new suggestions.”
“We understand everyone wants to do what’s best for the island, and we have a difference of opinion on how to do that,” said Barton.
Further, he said the Conservancy understands “everything that people have shared,” and “we understand the connection people have to the deer. This isn’t something we want to do,” said Barton.
Overall, Barton said the Conservancy is charged “with thinking about the long-term health of the island, not just for the beauty, but also the tourism economy that directly affects Avalon, the livelihoods that rely on Avalon, and the people and places that make the island unique.”
