Catalina Island deer plan faces a courtroom test as critics allege a fast-tracked exemption hides the true stakes
catalina island is now the center of a legal fight over whether a state-approved “resource management plan” was allowed to bypass the kind of environmental review normally required for a project that aims to eradicate an entire mule deer population. A coalition of hunting, conservation, and advocacy groups has taken the dispute to Los Angeles County Superior Court, arguing that the approval process itself—not just the outcome—failed basic transparency and scientific scrutiny.
Why is the Catalina Island deer eradication plan in Los Angeles County Superior Court?
Environmental and hunting groups filed a lawsuit on March 9 in Los Angeles County Superior Court challenging the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s approval of a resource management plan submitted by the Catalina Island Conservancy. The plan’s stated goal includes eradicating the entire population of mule deer on Catalina Island.
The plaintiffs argue the plan was wrongfully approved and should have required a fuller environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Their core procedural claim is that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife granted an exemption from CEQA “rigors” that the plaintiffs say was not authorized in the manner required by law.
The lawsuit also frames the eradication component as the real engine of the plan, contending that restoration elements mask what it calls an “ulterior motive” to eliminate all deer rather than manage them through less sweeping measures.
What are the plaintiffs alleging about the CEQA exemption and who signed it?
The plaintiffs contend the CEQA exemption granted for the Catalina Island Conservancy’s Resource Management Plan is illegal because it was not authorized by the agency’s director “as the law specifically prescribes. ” Instead, the exemption was signed by “the director’s designee, ” Joshua Grover, deputy director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Ecosystem Conservation Division.
The lawsuit argues that exemptions of this type are typically reserved for wetlands restoration or projects that clearly will have no significant environmental impacts. In this case, the exemption is central because it dismisses the need for a full environmental review—commonly including an Environmental Impact Report—along with deeper study of potential effects on other species, evaluation of alternative options, and a formal public hearing process.
The plaintiffs’ position is that a project designed to remove every deer on Catalina Island is “precisely the type of project that warrants CEQA review, ” particularly given the methods described for locating, trapping, and killing deer.
What does the plan propose doing to the deer—and what risks do critics cite?
The Catalina Island Conservancy’s plan includes eradication of the island’s mule deer population, which the Conservancy says numbers 2, 040. The plan states the deer are eating native plants and damaging the island’s ecosystem.
In their court challenge, the plaintiffs highlight proposed tactics that include using dogs to sniff out deer and helicopters dropping aerial nets to trap them, followed by shooting them to death. One of the lawsuit’s central risk arguments is that using helicopters and aerial netting could inadvertently harm federally protected endangered species—specifically golden eagles and bald eagles—by disturbing nests and their young.
Beyond species impacts, plaintiffs also argue the state environmental agency is violating its own principles to “manage the state’s natural resources, including deer, ” by allowing a plan that eliminates a deer population outright without the deeper review they say state law requires.
Who is suing, who benefits, and what are the official responses so far?
The plaintiffs named in the case include Coalition to Save Catalina Island Deer; California Deer Association; Howl for Wildlife; Safari Club International; California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.; and the California Bowmen Hunters/State Archery Association.
From the plaintiffs’ side, the lawsuit seeks to force a full CEQA review that includes scientific analysis, consideration of alternatives, and opportunities for stakeholder input. Their stated alternative includes regulated hunting as a management tool, and they allege the current approval lacked adequate scientific evidence and did not properly consider “other and better alternatives. ”
In a public statement issued shortly after the Resource Management Plan was approved on Jan. 30, Jen Benedet, acting deputy director of public affairs for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the decision was based on a scientific and legal review and that state law allows an RMP only for projects restoring native plants, wildlife, or habitat and resulting in a substantial net benefit to native species or their habitats and ecosystems. Benedet also emphasized that projects permitted under an RMP are proposed and carried out by the applicant, not by the department, and said the permitted Catalina Island Conservancy activities are intended to support the recovery and long-term health of native and endemic California species by addressing impacts from invasive and non-native species.
Asked about the lawsuit, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife did not answer detailed questions on the merits of the claims. Cort Klopping, spokesperson for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, wrote in an emailed response that the department does not comment on pending litigation.
What the dispute suggests about oversight when eradication is embedded in “restoration”
Verified fact: The lawsuit directly challenges the process by which the California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved an exemption that avoided a full CEQA environmental review for a plan whose goals include eradication of all mule deer on Catalina Island. The plaintiffs also cite potential impacts to federally protected species such as golden eagles and bald eagles from helicopter-based operations.
Informed analysis: The fault line in this case is not only ecological; it is administrative. One side frames the plan as a lawful habitat-focused permitting decision producing a net benefit to native and endemic species. The other side argues the state permitted a high-impact eradication strategy under a procedural shortcut more suited to low-impact restoration work, without the typical mechanisms that pressure-test assumptions: an Environmental Impact Report, formal public hearings, and documented consideration of alternatives.
That tension is intensified by the plaintiffs’ claim that the exemption’s authorization did not follow the chain required “as the law specifically prescribes. ” If a court finds the signature authority or exemption criteria were misapplied, it could force the plan back into a full review process. If the state prevails, the case may reinforce that the Resource Management Plan framework can be used for sweeping interventions—so long as the permitting record is deemed sufficient.
For residents and stakeholders, the immediate accountability question is straightforward: whether catalina island will see an eradication project proceed under an exemption path, or whether the court will require California’s full environmental review process before any irreversible steps move forward.
