California Moves Ahead With Catalina Island Deer Eradication After Court Rejects Legal Challenge

California wildlife officials have authorized a multiyear campaign to eliminate Catalina Island’s mule deer population, with professional sharpshooters already conducting removal operations as conservation groups and opponents dispute the environmental and wildlife management consequences.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

CATALINA ISLAND, Calif. — A controversial state-approved program to eliminate mule deer from California’s Catalina Island is moving forward after a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge dismissed a legal challenge brought by hunting organizations and other opponents of the plan. Professional shooters have already begun killing deer as part of a broader restoration initiative that could ultimately eliminate the island’s entire population of approximately 800 to 2,000 animals.

The Sept. 28 ruling cleared another legal obstacle for the Catalina Island Conservancy, the nonprofit organization overseeing the project with authorization from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The decision followed an earlier Sept. 3 ruling allowing initial removal operations to proceed despite efforts by opponents to obtain an injunction.

The conservancy confirmed in September that limited deer removal operations had begun, with approximately 200 animals expected to be affected during the initial phase. The work is scheduled to continue through October in designated areas of the island, marking the beginning of a longer campaign intended to remove the introduced species and restore native vegetation.

At the center of the dispute is the Catalina Island Restoration Project, an extensive ecological management initiative intended to reverse environmental changes attributed to mule deer introduced nearly a century ago. State wildlife officials and the conservancy maintain that removing the animals is necessary to protect native plants, preserve wildlife habitat and address the spread of invasive vegetation. Opponents argue that eliminating the entire deer population is excessive and that alternative wildlife management approaches should receive greater consideration.

California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife granted authorization for the project in January 2026, permitting professional ground-based personnel to conduct the removals under a phased management strategy. The program includes nighttime shooting, baited locations, aerial surveillance, specialized detection dogs and additional techniques intended to locate animals in the island’s rugged terrain.

The restoration plan described by MeatEater is being implemented by the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy, which owns approximately 42,000 acres, representing about 80% of the island. The organization manages extensive undeveloped areas of Catalina and has identified the deer population as a principal obstacle to restoring native plant communities.

Although mule deer are indigenous to much of mainland California, they are not native to Catalina or the other Channel Islands. The species was deliberately brought to Catalina during the 1920s for recreational hunting and subsequently established a breeding population. Over the following decades, the animals became a familiar feature of the island’s landscape, even as conservation officials increasingly questioned their ecological impact.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s official restoration management document identifies the browsing habits of introduced deer as a significant threat to native vegetation, particularly plants found only on Catalina and surrounding islands.

“The Project will conserve, restore, protect, enhance, and assist in the recovery of California native wildlife, and the habitat upon which they depend. Mule deer are native to most of the state of California but were historically absent from Catalina and the other Channel Islands. Mule deer were intentionally introduced to Catalina in the 1920s. These introduced mule deer on Catalina have reduced Catalina rare and endemic vegetation cover due to mule deer selectively browsing on rare and endemic plants. This allows invasive plant species an opportunity to outcompete these rare and endemic plant species and contributes to habitat type conversion across Catalina,” the agency states.

Officials contend that decades of feeding on native plants have reduced the ability of certain species to regenerate naturally. As deer consume young shoots and seedlings, the conservancy argues, native shrubs and trees struggle to recover, allowing nonnative grasses and other invasive vegetation to spread into previously established habitats.

The conservancy also connects these changes to wildfire concerns. According to the organization, approximately 35% of Catalina is now dominated by highly flammable invasive grasses, which can contribute to the rapid spread of fires. Restoration officials believe reducing the pressure placed on native vegetation will help encourage the return of plant communities better suited to the island’s natural environment.

The ecological consequences extend beyond vegetation, according to project supporters. Catalina is home to distinctive wildlife, including the Catalina Island fox and Catalina Island ground squirrel, whose habitats depend on the island’s native plant communities. Conservation officials argue that restoring those communities would provide long-term benefits to wildlife species that evolved without the presence of large introduced deer populations.

The removal program is designed to unfold over several years rather than through a single operation. During the first year, professional shooters are authorized to use bait and water locations to attract deer, alongside nighttime ground operations intended to increase the effectiveness of the removals.

The second year introduces additional methods, including aerial net capture and ground shooting supported by detection dogs and helicopters. As the number of remaining deer decreases, officials plan to modify their approach to locate animals that evade earlier operations.

Helicopters, drones and thermal imaging technology may be used to identify deer and coordinate the movements of personnel across difficult terrain. The program does not authorize shooting from aircraft, meaning lethal operations are to be conducted by personnel operating on the ground.

The conservancy has contracted with White Buffalo Inc., a wildlife management organization with experience conducting deer population reduction programs in other parts of the United States. The organization has previously conducted operations involving deer removal and capture near populated communities, including locations in Virginia and South Carolina.

The Catalina project presents additional logistical difficulties because much of the island consists of steep slopes, remote canyons and limited-access terrain. These conditions have complicated conventional hunting efforts and are among the reasons cited by the conservancy for adopting a specialized removal program.

As the deer population declines, contractors may use live-captured animals fitted with GPS tracking collars to identify remaining groups. These monitored animals, sometimes called sentinel or Judas deer, can help wildlife managers locate individuals that might otherwise remain undetected.

Special measures are also contemplated for Avalon, Catalina’s principal city, where deer have historically moved into developed areas and sometimes avoided hunters. The plan allows for tranquilization and subsequent removal or sterilization of animals in locations where conventional shooting could pose safety concerns.

The program’s anticipated completion date extends into January 2032, although the pace of removal will depend on how effectively contractors locate the remaining population and whether legal or operational circumstances require modifications.

The question of what happens to the animals after they are killed has become another point of contention. Under the restoration plan, some carcasses may remain in remote areas to decompose naturally, returning nutrients to the environment. Animals removed near populated areas or public facilities may be handled differently, with provisions for donating usable remains to conservation programs or local tribal communities.

Critics have questioned whether leaving deer carcasses in the island’s interior represents an appropriate use of wildlife resources, particularly when the animals have historically supported recreational hunting. They have also raised concerns about whether carcass management could create additional environmental or public health issues.

The conservancy maintains that recreational hunting has not produced sufficient population reductions to protect the island’s native vegetation. Hunting has been permitted on Catalina for decades, but officials argue that the animals’ ability to retreat into inaccessible areas has made sustained population control difficult.

During the 2024 hunting season, approximately 1,000 deer tags were made available to California residents, but hunters harvested 397 animals. The conservancy subsequently characterized the program as inadequate for achieving its restoration objectives. In 2025, the number of available tags was reduced to 200, with eligibility restricted to island residents, a change that generated criticism among some hunters who questioned why opportunities were reduced before the eradication program began.

The dispute eventually reached Los Angeles County Superior Court, where Safari Club International and several partners challenged the state’s authorization. In an Aug. 3 legal filing announcement, the organization said it had requested an injunction preventing the shooting of deer while the court considered arguments about the legality of the restoration permit.

The challengers argued that state wildlife officials had improperly approved the project without conducting the level of environmental review they believed California law required. They also questioned whether the department had exceeded its authority by authorizing the complete elimination of mule deer, a species classified as a game mammal under California’s wildlife management laws.

Safari Club International Chief Executive Officer W. Laird Hamberlin said the organization wanted judicial review before the conservancy proceeded with an irreversible population removal program.

“SCI’s ask is simple: make sure all the right steps are taken before slaughtering all the mule deer on Catalina Island,” Hamberlin said. “No administration, including Governor Gavin Newsom’s, should be permitted to deny the public the full environmental review, transparency, and science-based decision-making this issue demands. An injunction is necessary to ensure the Court—not politics—decides whether this project was lawfully approved.”

Rew Goodenow, president of the SCI Center for Conservation Law and Education, also disputed the scientific justification for eliminating the deer and warned about the permanent loss of hunting opportunities on the island.

“The deer eradication is not supported by good science and will wipe out a big game hunting opportunity in an area where few exist,” Goodenow said.

The legal challenge centered in part on California’s environmental review requirements and the state’s decision to approve the initiative through a statutory exemption for qualifying ecological restoration projects. Opponents argued that the approval process did not adequately examine alternatives or provide sufficient opportunities for public participation.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, however, determined that the project qualified for an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act because its stated purpose was to conserve native species, rehabilitate damaged habitats and improve the island’s long-term ecological resilience.

The dispute produced an important ruling on Sept. 3, when a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge denied the request to suspend the preliminary phase of the project. As The Guardian reported on the decision, the ruling allowed the conservancy to advance its program despite objections to the planned elimination of nearly 2,000 deer.

The legal developments continued later that month. On Sept. 28, the Superior Court dismissed the challengers’ remaining claims, concluding that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife had acted within its statutory authority in approving the restoration program.

Following the decision, the conservancy reiterated that the deer removal initiative was only one component of a broader program that also included revegetation, invasive plant control, watershed protection and measures intended to reduce wildfire vulnerability.

“Catalina Island is the last of the Channel Islands to take this important step, and the Conservancy is committed to giving Catalina’s native landscape the chance to recover,” Pepe Barton, the conservancy’s director of communications, said in a statement following the court’s ruling. “That recovery matters not just for the native plants and rare wildlife, but also for the people and livelihoods that depend on this unique place.”

The court’s decision did not end public disagreement over the future of Catalina’s deer. Wildlife advocates, hunters and residents opposed to the removals have continued questioning whether an animal population established nearly a century ago should be eliminated rather than managed through hunting, fertility control or relocation.

Relocation has been among the alternatives considered, but conservancy officials maintain that moving large numbers of free-ranging deer presents substantial logistical, financial and animal welfare challenges. They also contend that fertility control would require repeated interventions and would not immediately reduce browsing pressure on sensitive native vegetation.

Those arguments have not persuaded opponents who believe the state’s preferred approach places too much emphasis on eradication rather than coexistence. The controversy reflects a broader disagreement over how conservation agencies should manage introduced wildlife populations that have become established parts of local landscapes.

Catalina’s situation is unusual because of its isolation and the number of native species found within its boundaries. Located approximately 23 miles off Southern California’s coast, the island contains habitats that developed independently of large mainland herbivores. Conservation officials argue that this ecological history makes Catalina particularly vulnerable to the effects of introduced grazing and browsing animals.

Restoration planners point to earlier invasive-species removal efforts elsewhere in the Channel Islands as examples of how native vegetation can recover after nonnative herbivores are eliminated. They argue that Catalina remains the last island in the chain where introduced large herbivores continue to exert significant pressure on native plant communities.

Nevertheless, the long-term results of the current project will depend on more than the disappearance of deer. Successfully restoring native habitats will also require continued monitoring, controlling invasive grasses, protecting newly established vegetation and ensuring that ecological improvements persist over time.

The broader restoration effort is expected to extend well beyond the scheduled completion of the deer removal operation. The conservancy has described its landscape recovery initiative as a decades-long undertaking involving native plant restoration, freshwater protection and efforts to make the island more resilient to environmental change.

Meanwhile, professional removal operations are proceeding under the state’s authorization, with the initial phase expected to affect approximately 200 deer before more extensive population reduction efforts begin.

The final number of animals removed during the September and October operations has not been publicly established in the reporting reviewed for this article. The conservancy’s long-term objective, however, remains unchanged: the complete removal of mule deer from Catalina Island.

With the latest court ruling allowing the program to continue, the immediate legal obstacles to the eradication effort have been reduced. The larger dispute over wildlife management, ecological restoration and the treatment of Catalina’s established deer population remains unresolved among the organizations and residents who disagree over the island’s future.