Courtesy of Avalon City Attorney‘s Office
Christian Romberger
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
3030 Old Ranch Pkwy, Suite 400
Seal Beach, CA 90740 christian.romberger@wildlife.ca.gov R5RMP@wildlife.ca.gov
Re: City of Avalon’s Protest to the Catalina Island Conservancy’s Permit and Corresponding CEQA Determination to Massacre All Mule Deer on Catalina Island
Dear Mr. Romberger:
The City of Avalon (“City”) submits this written protest to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Department”) in opposition to the Restoration Management Permit No. RMP 2025-0017-R5 signed and made effective on January 30, 2026 (“Permit”) to Catalina Island Conservancy (“Conservancy”) for the Catalina Island Conservation Project (“Project”). Through the Project, the Conservancy seeks to eradicate thousands of mule deer and, in so seeking, threatens the City’s residents, economy, public safety, and livelihoods, and also presents substantial risk to the unique Channel Islands ecosystem. This written protest is submitted because: (1) no notice under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) was provided to the City prior to the Department’s January 26, 2026 Concurrence Opinion which determined that a statutory CEQA exemption applies; (2) the Permit’s approval of deer eradication conflicts with applicable City ordinances; and (3) complete eradication of the deer is unnecessary and unreasonable, as reasonable alternatives should first be attempted and considered.
Catalina Island—the southernmost of the Channel Islands—is a unique and renowned destination in Southern California. Located southwest of Los Angeles, it is an island just 22 miles long and 8 miles across, containing two towns that are surrounded by rugged hills and the majestic Pacific Ocean. The Conservancy’s Permit threatens the culture and livelihood of this special place.
This Department is tasked with managing California’s natural resources, including deer. (Cal. Fish & Game Code, § 450 [“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Legislature to encourage the conservation, restoration, maintenance, and utilization of California’s wild deer populations …”], see also Cal. Fish & Game Code § 18011.) This Department is entrusted by the people of the State of California to preserve and protect the State’s natural resources. But the mass elimination of deer, as proposed by the Conservancy, would violate the Department’s mandate to preserve and protect these animals for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. Accordingly, the City submits this written protest to the Department and, for the reasons stated herein, the Permit should be reconsidered or amended.
The Permit Should be Reconsidered or Amended Because the City was Not Provided any Notice About the Permit’s Supposed CEQA Exemption
The Department, acting as lead agency, utilized the Statutory Exemption for Restoration Projects (“SERP”) found in Public Resources Code Section 21080.56 to determine the Project was exempt from CEQA. The Department issued Concurrence No. 21080.56-2026-090-R5 (“Concurrence”) on January 26, 2026, prior to posting a Notice of Exemption (SCH No. 2026020024) on January 28, 2026.2 However, contrary to the Department’s stated policy, and despite covered Project activities occurring within the City, the City of Avalon was not timely notified of the Department’s consideration or approval of the Project.
The Department’s website states that “[w]hile Public Resources Code section 21080.56 does not include a public comment requirement, CDFW encourages and supports lead agency efforts to meet and confer with interested parties, neighbors, public officials, and California Native American tribes prior to submittal of a SERP concurrence request to CDFW.”3 The Department’s Concurrence describes coordination of interested parties, describing outreach done by the Conservancy. Nowhere does the Permit mention any community outreach or coordination, or noticing to interested parties done by CDFW, which is the lead agency for this Project. The Avalon City Attorney communicated with the Department’s General Counsel on December 1, 2025, at which time the City expressed its intent to comment on the Conservancy’s application once it was filed. During this call, the City was not told that an application had been received. Despite this communication and the City of Avalon’s previous objections to the Conservancy’s plan in 2023, the Department never notified the City of its intent to file a Concurrence or approve Restoration Management Permit No. RMP 2025-0017-R5 (“RMP”) once the Conservancy submitted its application on December 4, 2025. The City Attorney did speak to the General Counsel of Fish and Wildlife on January 28, 2026 about the Concurrence and notified her that he would be talking to the City Council in closed session on Feb. 3, 2026 about whether the City would direct the City Attorney to file an updated protest. Despite such notice, the Permit was issued before the City Council meeting.
(Footnote 1 This section states in pertinent part: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to encourage the preservation, conservation, and maintenance of wildlife resources under the jurisdiction and influence of the state. This policy shall include the following objectives: … (c) To perpetuate all species of wildlife for their intrinsic and ecological values … (d) To provide for aesthetic, educational, and nonappropriative uses of the various wildlife species … (e) To maintain diversified recreational uses of wildlife, including the sport of hunting, as proper uses of certain species of wildlife, subject to regulations consistent with the maintenance of healthy, viable wildlife resources, the public safety, and a quality outdoor experience … [M]anagement shall be consistent with the maintenance of healthy and thriving wildlife resources and the public ownership status of the wildlife resources …”)
(Footnote 2 Restoration Management Permit No. RMP 2025-0017-R5 was not approved until January 30, 2026, thus the January 28, 2026 NOE was filed in violation of CEQA as it was filed prior to Project approval. The Department issued a corrective NOE on February 2, 2026, attempting to cure that violation.)
(Footnote 3 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Cutting-Green-Tape/SERP/QA#570063372-will-the-public-have-opportunities-to-comment-on-a-project-that-is-utilizing-the-serp-process, accessed February 5, 2026.)
As the City was not properly notified of the approval of RMP and CEQA determination, the City requests the Department reconsider its determination or amend the RMP. The City also reserves its right to challenge the Department’s approval and use of the SERP exemption from CEQA, as the RMP does not satisfy the requirements for a SERP exemption.
The Project does not result in public benefits such as access and recreation. Eradication of mule deer from the City of Avalon and Catalina Island will result in a permanent loss in recreational hunting, which will be a detriment to the City’s local economy as well as for interested hunters that visit Catalina Island during deer season. While the Concurrence cites increased birding as a benefit of the Project, this is called into question by the use of helicopters to net mule deer, the use of drones to locate mule deer for removal, as well as the use of detection dogs and air rifles.
The Project will restrict public access throughout the 10 year life of the Project. Mule deer will be shot with tranquilizer darts prior to being euthanized within the City of Avalon. While there are safety protocols in place, the Permit provides that “the Permittee will work collaboratively with Avalon city officials to adjust operations based on community concerns to the extent practicable.” (Permit, pp. 10-11.) This is a vague and unenforceable measure. City residents have no guarantee on how operations will be conducted, which leads to a chilling effect on how they may wish to access public spaces should deer be present.
The Project will not result in long-term net benefits to climate resiliency, particularly regarding wildland fires. As noted by Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone, in correspondence dated January 7, 2026, complete removal of mule deer would increase chaparral fuel loads, increasing wildfire risk to developed areas – particularly the City of Avalon.
Accordingly, the City requests the Department reconsider the RMP, as well as rescind its Concurrence that the Project qualifies for the SERP under CEQA.
The Permit Should be Reconsidered or Amended Because it Conflicts with the City’s Ordinances
Concurrently with some of the Conservancy’s earlier attempts to obtain approval for eradicating the deer, City Council passed amendments to the Ordinance of the City of Avalon, Title 6, Chapter 6-1, Section 6-1.128 Animal Care of the Avalon Municipal Code (“Ordinance”). In particular, the City has determined that hunting, injuring, pursuing, killing, or trapping animals within the City represents a threat to public health and safety within the City, and that such activities would be inconsistent with the residential, recreational, and visitor-friendly nature of the City. In pertinent part, the Ordinance states:
(e) No person shall hunt, pursue, kill, or trap any domesticated or wild animal in the City. Additionally, even if a permit to hunt, pursue, kill, or trap animals is issued by a State or Federal Agency, such permit shall be subject to this Section 6-1.128 in order to protect public health, safety and welfare. This prohibition on killing animals shall not apply to the removal or extermination of rats, mice, squirrels, stinging insects, or other vermin from private or public property. This section shall not apply to City of Avalon Code Enforcement personnel in the discharge of his/her duties.
(f) No person shall feed, trap, or lure any wild animal located within the City with the intent to hunt or kill such wild animal or with the intent to transport that wild animal out of the City to hunt or kill said animal.
(g) As used in this section, “hunt” means the killing or wounding of any animal by means of any poison, trap, fireworks, firearm, weapon, air gun, archery device, slingshot, spear, javelin, knife, paintball gun, or explosive of any type with the specific intent to frighten, injure, mutilate, or kill any animal, domesticated or wild.
(Emphasis added.)
The Permit directly states that it intends to violate subsections (e) and (f) of the Ordinance. For example, the Permit states that the Conservancy intends to “us[e] bait to attract mule deer and us[e] air rifles to shoot mule deer with tranquilizer darts to capture mule deer, followed by either surgical sterilization or euthanasia of mule deer.” The Permit’s limitation that the Conservancy cannot use a Shooting Device within the City “unless Permittee has obtained any applicable and legally required permit from the City of Avalon” does not prevent against the Permit’s violation of subsection (f) of the Ordinance, which prohibits the contemplated “bait” approach within City limits. Thus, the Permit directly violates subsection (f) of the Ordinance because the Permit’s limitation is not adequate and does not address the baiting element.
The Permit vaguely references it “will include … protocols for working within Avalon.” (Permit at p. 9 of 35.)4 But no such protocols are included in the Permit; and what is included in the Permit directly contradicts the City’s Ordinance. The Ordinance is not preempted because it concerns the health and safety of City residents and the Permit does not demonstrate that the solutions therein are necessary.
The Department Has The Authority to Amend/Reconsider the Permit Because the Permit’s Plan to Completely Eradicate Deer is Unnecessary and Unreasonable
The Permit here is a Restoration Management Permit, which began pilot programs just one year ago in January of 2025 pursuant to the Restoration Management Permit Act, Cal. Fish & Game Code, § 1670 et seq.
This Department has the authority to issue permits, “subject to restrictions and regulations that the department determines are desirable, to take or possess, in any part of the state, for scientific, educational, or propagation purposes, mammals, birds … fish, amphibians, reptiles, or
(Footnote 4 The Permit also states it “will include … protocols for night shooting” even though nighttime hunting is prohibited under California law in other coastal areas similar to Catalina Island. (See, e.g., 14 C.C.R. § 263.) any other form of plant or animal life.” (Cal. Fish & Game Code, § 1002, subd. (a).) Here, there are numerous reasons why the Permit should be amended or reconsidered based on this authority, the common thread amongst all of those reasons is that complete eradication of the deer is unnecessary and unreasonable.)
First, California law has unequivocally tasked this Department with maintaining sufficient populations and habitat for mule deer to provide for, inter alia: (1) their beneficial use and enjoyment by all citizens of the State; (2) their perpetuation for their intrinsic and ecological values, as well as for their direct benefits to all persons; and (3) their aesthetic, educational, and nonappropriative uses. (Cal. Fish & Game Code, § 1801, subds. (b), (c), and (d).) The granting of this Permit is a direct violation of the Department’s obligations and duties towards the citizens of this State to protect and preserve deer for the enjoyment and benefit of all.
Second, the Conservancy fails to adequately address why individual hunting permits are not a viable alternative that can maintain and contribute to a healthy management of the island’s deer population. Indeed, Department regulations clearly include Catalina Island as part of its typical hunting regulations which would permit hunting, but not eradicate all deer. (14 C.C.R. §360(14). In fact, increasing the number of deer tags could be the answer. The Conservancy could also, in addition to increasing the tag allowance, expand the season or eliminate the requirement that hunters forfeit mainland tags. And yet, the Conservancy has declined to even try this more reasonable approach. In short, the Conservancy has not even tried to increase individual hunting permits, even though it has numerous tools at its disposal to do so in order to manage the island’s deer population.
Third, the Conservancy’s proposed methods for eliminating the deer are extremely aggressive , especially given the Conservancy’s stated intent to hunt within the City’s limits and directly adjacent to a thriving human population. Humane taking of animals requires a process that inflicts “the least possible degree of pain and suffering.” (14 C.C.R., § 650, subd. (b)(9).) But the Permit itself understands that deer will be shot and “wounded,” resulting in suffering and great pain to the animal.5 (Permit at p. 9 of 35.) For example, the use of “aerial net capture” within City limits to capture deer will only lead to the deer struggling for their lives as hunters then try to carefully shoot the deer in a very specific location in the back of the skull. (See Permit at pp. 7-8 of 35.) Further, the use of “detection dogs” could lead to animal-on-animal altercations and. (Permit at p. 8 of 35.) Whether it is attempting to shoot a pinpoint target while the deer are in a frenetic and panicked melee, or whether it is attempting to shoot a deer who is engaging with a detection dog, the result is clear—any such shooting will surely cause substantial agony to the deer, and is not a peaceful “euthanasia.” (See id.) Such shooting likewise is almost certain to result in the wounding of numerous deer before they can be finally killed.
Fourth, and on this point, shooting at such a large scale further presents an unreasonably high risk of death or injury to human beings, domesticated animals, and other wild animals on the island, such as the island’s protected Catalina Fox and numerous protected bird, snake, shrew, and bat species.
(Footnote 5 Not to mention that this Project also presents a great threat to the surrounding human population, as wounded deer can lash out and threaten the health and safety of those surrounding it during its convulsive death throes.)
Nearly 4,000 people reside in the City and many have vociferously voiced their fears and apprehensions related to the Permit. The Department should not allow the Conservancy to fire any “Shooting Device”6 consistently over the course of numerous years. That, too, appears to be in violation of California law. (Cal. Penal Code, § 246.3 [prohibiting “the willful discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death to a person”].)
Fifth, the Conservancy fails to address other potential environmental risks associated with their proposed Permit. For example, the risk of igniting wildfire from rounds of “firearm” shooting (see footnote 6, below) are substantial. Such shooting could ignite nonnative grass species (which are highly flammable) and could result in wildfires similar to the tragic incident in Lahaina, Maui in 2023. There is further a risk that lead poisoning or other pollution of the waters and soils could result from the thousands of rounds that would be used to eradicate the thousands of deer currently inhabiting the island. Finally, it is unclear how the thousands of deer carcasses will be collected from across the island and adequately disposed of, presenting further health and safety concerns to residents and visitors to the island.
Both the Department and the Conservancy Haves Failed to Meaningfully Engage With the Public
The Permit requires that the Conservancy coordinate directly with City officials. (Permit at pp. 10-11 of 35.) Yet the Conservancy has failed to provide the City or the City’s legal counsel with a copy of the Permit or Application prior to approval; failed to update the City or the City’s legal counsel about the status of the Permit and Application prior to approval; and failed to coordinate or collaborate with the City in the drafting of the Application or Permit, including the provisions that purport to specifically provide safety protocols for within City limits. The Conservancy’s strong-arm approach to force upon the City what is an unwanted and extremely unpopular Project should not be given the stamp of approval by this Department.
The Department itself is required to address conflicts in a clear and forthright manner, because “[i]t is the policy of the state to anticipate and resolve potential conflicts between the management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitat and private and public activities that may affect them. Accordingly, the Department may use such informal consultative procedures prior to taking any formal action as will assist in the achievement of this policy.” (Cal. Fish & Game Code, § 1017, subds. (a) and (b).) The Department never engaged in such conflict resolution approaches with the Conservancy and the City. Rather, the Department elected to issue the Permit without consultation or input from the City prior to issuing the Permit. (See id. at subd. (e) (“As used in this section, “formal action” means … the issuance, suspension, or revocation of any permit, license, or other entitlement.”)
(Footnote 6 The Permit refers, at different times, to the use of “rifles,” “guns,” “firearms,” “center-fire rifles,” “rimfire rifles,” and “air rifles.”
But the Permit otherwise lacks clarity as to whether the term “Shooting Device” could include, for example, semi-automatic weapons, AR-15s, or other forms of weaponry. This is cause for concern to the City and its residents.)
Conclusion
The Conservancy’s Permit violates California law and policy. The City submits this written protest of the Permit because, as set forth above: (1) no appropriate notice was provided to the City prior to the Department’s determination that a CEQA exemption applies or prior to approval of the Permit; (2) the Permit’s approval of deer eradication conflicts with applicable City ordinances; and (3) complete eradication of the deer is unnecessary and unreasonable, as reasonable alternatives should first be attempted and considered.
We are available to confer with the Department about this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Scott Haskell Campbell of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
cc: Lauren Dennhardt, ldennhardt@catalinaconservancy.org
City of Avalon, City Council Members (via e-mail only)
David Maistros, City of Avalon, City Manager (via e-mail only) Ann Marshall, City of Avalon, Mayor (via e-mail only)
