WHAT’S AT STAKE

The proposed plan by the Catalina Island Conservancy is radical and irreversible. It certainly warrants a thorough evaluation that encompasses a range of factors unique to Catalina Island. It is crucial to delve into financial, legal, cultural, scientific, ethical aspects and a reliable impartial deer count from a third party. It is important to consider everything before implementing any strategies.

Furthermore, public safety concerns regarding the possibility of fires sparked by thousands of bullets raining down from helicopters during a dry fire season on a rocky island should not be taken lightly. It is essential to weigh this risk against the perceived benefits of the proposed plan. The Conservancy’s plan needs to be carefully assessed.

A comprehensive and transparent examination of these factors would not only foster a better understanding of the proposed plan, but also allow for informed decision-making that takes into account the welfare of both the Catalina Island environment and its inhabitants.

The concerns regarding the impact on the local economy, mental health, access to homes and services within the interior, as well as the nature of the eradication process on an inhabited island, raise valid points that necessitate further exploration and resolution.

The allocation of donor funds towards the Conservancy’s elaborate PR campaigns should not overshadow the need for meaningful public community engagement, with transparent communication regarding matters which have significant implications for the community and its residents. It is important to address these concerns through open dialogue and collaborative efforts to ensure the well-being of both the deer, the environment and the island's community.

The pattern of behavior the Conservancy exhibits by touring the press and officials, highlighting the thriving vegetation in the exclosure that deer cannot access, when in fact they fail to disclose their active involvement in planting, watering, and maintaining these areas to strengthen their position is troubling and raises questions about transparency.

The repeated efforts to showcase this exclosure without full disclosure suggests a lack of honesty in the Conservancy’s communication with the public, the press, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This echoes a similar instance in 2007 when there were attempts by the Conservancy to mislead a Senior Environmental Scientist from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

It is crucial to uphold the trust of the public both on and off the island, and transparency is paramount in addressing this issue effectively.