As the Catalina Island Conservancy advances a long-term ecological restoration effort that could reshape the future of Catalina Island, the plan has sparked an intense and widening debate over science, process, wildfire risk, and the role of newly enacted state law in environmental decision-making. Known as “Operation Protect Catalina Island,” the multi-decade initiative is intended to restore native habitats across the island by reversing ecological damage caused by non-native species, a goal that Conservancy officials say is essential to the island’s long-term health. Central to that effort, however, is the proposal to remove the island’s mule deer population entirely, a step that has drawn strong resistance from residents, elected officials, and wildlife advocates.
The ecological challenges of Catalina Island date back more than a century, when non-native animals were introduced for ranching, hunting, and other uses. While species such as goats and pigs were removed decades ago, deer remain a visible and familiar presence across the island. According to the Conservancy, deer browsing has significantly reduced native plant cover, allowing invasive grasses to spread more easily. Those grasses, the Conservancy argues, burn hotter and faster than native vegetation, increasing wildfire risk and making post-fire recovery more difficult. From the organization’s perspective, restoring Catalina’s native ecosystems at scale is incompatible with maintaining a free-ranging deer population.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife recently approved the Conservancy’s restoration permit, allowing the project to move forward. That approval immediately triggered opposition. The Avalon City Council voted to pursue legal action challenging the permit, while the Coalition to Save the Catalina Island Deer organized protests and expanded its efforts by partnering with national and state-level organizations, including Safari Club International’s California Coalition. Critics of the plan do not uniformly oppose habitat restoration, but many argue that the decision to eradicate deer was approved without sufficient independent scientific review or meaningful community involvement.
Several public officials have also voiced concerns in statements previously made to other news outlets, including Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone, and State Senator Lena Gonzalez. Among the issues raised are questions about whether deer grazing may actually help reduce fuel loads in certain areas, potentially lowering wildfire risk rather than increasing it. Fire officials have cautioned that removing deer could allow grasses and brush to grow unchecked, creating more volatile fire conditions. The Conservancy disputes that assessment, citing research indicating that native plant recovery ultimately leads to more resilient landscapes.
Much of the disagreement centers on the science used to justify the eradication plan. Opponents argue that the deer population estimates relied upon by the Conservancy are based on outdated survey methods and lack independent verification. Coalition representatives have stated to other publications that similar permit applications were denied in the past because they did not present new or sufficiently robust data. In response, the coalition has advocated for the use of newer technologies such as drones and thermal imaging to conduct more precise population counts, even offering to help fund such studies.
The Conservancy maintains that no wildlife census method is flawless and that spotlight surveys remain widely accepted and used by state wildlife agencies across the country. Conservancy representatives have pointed out that comparable methods are employed by wildlife departments in states such as Iowa and Texas, and that drone-based surveys present their own limitations when applied to Catalina’s steep and rugged terrain. From the Conservancy’s standpoint, the central issue is not the exact number of deer, but the cumulative impact their browsing has on the island’s vegetation and long-term ecological stability.
Adding another layer of controversy is a state law passed in 2024 that critics believe played a decisive role in the permit’s approval. Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the Conservation: Restoration Management Permit Act allows qualifying restoration projects to proceed under a streamlined permitting process and provides exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under specific conditions. Opponents argue the law effectively allowed the Conservancy to bypass the full environmental review and public input typically required for projects of this scale, clearing a path for approval after previous efforts stalled.
Some supporters of the legislation, including individuals who initially backed it, have since expressed concern about how it is being applied. A Sacramento-based lobbyist with Safari Club International, who supported the bill during its passage, has stated to other outlets that the intent was to facilitate legitimate restoration projects, not to limit scientific debate or community participation. Since the law took effect, discussions have begun among some groups about potential amendments to strengthen scientific oversight and public engagement in future approvals.
The bill passed unanimously in the Assembly, a fact that has frustrated critics who argue its implications were not fully understood at the time. In the case of Catalina, they believe the law created a statutory framework that allowed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to approve the permit while deflecting responsibility for deeper scientific scrutiny.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has maintained that it conducted a thorough review and determined the project met the legal standard of best available science. Conservancy representatives have emphasized that exemption from CEQA does not mean exemption from oversight, noting that the project still underwent scientific and regulatory evaluation and will continue to be monitored as it progresses. They’ve also pointed to research conducted by California universities examining wildfire recovery on Catalina and the effects of herbivory on native plant communities.
Beyond regulatory and scientific arguments, the controversy has underscored the emotional connection many residents and visitors have to the deer themselves. For some, deer have become part of Catalina’s identity, even if they are not native to the island. The Conservancy has acknowledged that connection and has stated in prior interviews that the decision was not made lightly. At the same time, Conservancy leadership has framed the issue as one of long-term responsibility, emphasizing that ecological stability, wildfire resilience, tourism, and local livelihoods are all intertwined.
Additional community conversations are planned as the project moves forward, even as legal challenges loom. While the permit has been approved, Conservancy officials have indicated they remain open to discussion and feedback, provided alternative approaches are supported by credible scientific evidence and align with restoration goals.
As lawsuits proceed and public scrutiny intensifies, the outcome of Operation Protect Catalina Island is likely to extend well beyond the island itself. The case will test how California balances restoration objectives with community trust, how new environmental laws are interpreted in practice, and how science is evaluated in the context of large-scale ecological intervention. For Catalina Island, the decision represents a turning point — one that will shape its landscape, governance, and relationship with conservation for decades to come.
