Your Access to Coastal Fishing in California is on the Line
It's Time to Set the Hook
California's coastline is one of the great fishing destinations on earth. Kelp forests teeming with rockfish, surf breaks where halibut lie in the sand, open water where yellowtail and tuna run. For generations, hunters and anglers have been funding and working within the state regulatory framework to maintain healthy habitat and recreational opportunities. Those recreational fishing opportunities are now in jeopardy of being closed for good. We need you to speak up to defend them.
What's Happening and Why It Matters
California's MPA Network was established under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) of 1999 — a landmark law that created a stakeholder-engaged process for designating Marine Protected Areas along the state's coast. The network is made up of a variety of different MPA categories, most notably State Marine Reserves (SMRs), which restrict all recreational and commercial fishing (no-take), State Marine Parks (SMPs), which restrict all commercial extraction, and State Marine Conservation Areas (SMCAs), which restrict some or all types of recreational and commercial fishing. Every MPA in the network was designed through a regional process that attempted to balance ecological goals with the needs of fishing communities — recreational anglers, commercial fishermen and tribes alike. When applied with precision and scientific backing, MPAs are a legitimate and valuable conservation tool, which have been shown to increase fish biomass and complement data-driven fisheries management practices.
The MPLA mandated what's called the Decadal Management Review (DMR), a 10-year assessment of California's MPA network. Following the DMR, the California Fish & Game Commission (CFGC) opened the door for adaptive management of the MPA network while making clear that they would not support "wholesale changes" during this process.
In late 2023, CFGC received 20 petitions proposing changes to the network. Five were resolved in 2024, but many of the petitions currently under consideration propose a significant reduction in fishing access for California's anglers. Several would impose broad, sweeping closures across large stretches of coastline well beyond the existing MPA network, without the empirical evidence to justify those restrictions on recreational and commercial fishing.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers has been in the room for all of it, submitting comment letters and attending commission hearings throughout the DMR process and into the petition review phase.
"We were one of the first organizations to formally oppose these petitions in front of the commission. This wasn't adaptive management. This is a major shift in policy and something that we didn't feel had the empirical data to rationalize why we were making these restrictions on recreational fishing."
- Devin O'Dea, BHA's Western Policy and Conservation Manager, and a lifelong coastal angler and diver.
BHA is a conservation-first organization and has supported fisheries closures before — when the science warranted it — including the recent recreational salmon closures. The argument here is about precision and utilizing the best available local scientific data to drive fisheries management decisions. Not sweeping restrictions and broad-brush closures lacking scientific rigor and substantive stakeholder engagement.
In March 2026, CDFW staff scientists released their recommendations on 10 of the 15 remaining petitions, recommending the denial of essentially all of the petitions they've evaluated. California BHA applauds the Department's efforts and stands firmly behind those recommendations. At the same time BHA encourages the department to apply the same science-based framework to the 5 remaining petitions they have yet to evaluate — several of which call for substantial closures to recreational fisheries.
Your Voice Matters. Right Now.
The Commission is holding three regional public comment meetings before any formal votes take place. The Northern California meeting already happened. Two more are coming, and this is the moment that counts.
David Bess, California State Board Member and Legislative Chair for CA BHA, attended the first regional hearing on April 21 in the Half Moon Bay area. He's been direct about what's at stake in the remaining meetings.
"People need to show up at these meetings, voice their opinions, their concerns, their support for however that may land, because this is really going to be the opportunity."
Commission leadership has also indicated that when the formal rulemaking process begins for these petitions, public comment opportunities will be extremely limited. The record being built at these regional meetings is what commissioners will be working from and public comment is critical.
Below is a schedule of the upcoming regional meetings, as well as BHA co-hosted pint nights prior to the meetings to gather as a community and discuss the best ways to push back on these reductions of fishing access.
Raise a Glass. Then Raise Your Voice.
May 4 | Pint Night, Santa Barbara
The Brewhouse, 229 W Montecito St, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
7pm | Free Admission | Co-hosted with CCA Cal & All Waters
RSVP HERE
May 5-6 | Commission Meeting, Central Coast (Goleta)
May 14 | Pint Night, Southern California
Pour House, 1903 S. Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054
7pm | Free Admission | Co-hosted with North County Depth Finders, CCA Cal & All Waters
May 19 | Commission Meeting, Southern California (San Clemente)
Come to a pint night to get up to speed. Come to a meeting to go on the record. Do both if you can.
This Is What Membership Looks Like
California BHA doesn't just post about conservation. We show up. We've been in these meetings, in these rooms, fighting to protect your right to fish California's coast using the same science-based, regulated approach that has always guided responsible resource management.
When you become a member of California BHA, this is what your dues support: policy experts who track these processes for years, show up to regional hearings, and make sure the fishing and hunting community has a seat at the table when decisions are made.
BHA Petition Recommendations/Talking Points
Below you'll find the petitions most relevant to the recreational angling community, as well as BHA's thoughts on the petitions. This is a great resource to reference when preparing to give testimony at the upcoming bioregional meetings.
Jump to a petition:
2023-23 – Summary: Modify regulations in Pacific Grove Marine Gardens SMCA, Edward F. Ricketts SMCA, and Carmel Bay SMCA to prohibit recreational and commercial take of finfish for diver safety when kelp restoration activities are occurring; allow unlimited commercial and recreational urchin culling in these three MPAs, as well as in a portion of Point Lobos SMR; designate Tanker's Reef as new SMR; other proposed actions to facilitate kelp restoration.
Overview: This requests multiple changes to 3 existing SMCAs, the Carmel Bay SMCA, Pacific Grove SMCA, and the Edward F. Ricketts SMCA, requesting all three SMCAs become closed to take of finfish during "active kelp restoration permits" and to create a new SMR at Tankers Reef (the area of this SMR was reduced during amendments). Kelp forest restoration is a laudable goal, but this petition, and the loss of recreational fishing access to these SMCAs, would have no significant impact on kelp restoration compared to environmental factors (e.g., water quality, water temperature, swell). Additionally, existing restoration efforts at Tankers Reef would immediately stop if an SMR is designated there for the lack of allowable take inside of an SMR, even the reduced in size SMR.
BHA's Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: BHA supports the ongoing efforts to smash urchins and restore kelp at Tankers Reef. But reducing recreational fishing access is the wrong tool. This petition does not advance adaptive management recommendations from the Decadal Management Review (DMR) nor does it address a current or emerging MPA management challenge. Divers and anglers currently co-exist in MPAs and coastal waters throughout the state, and there is no clear scientific rational that implementing the specific action of eliminating recreational take of finfish will help kelp forest restoration.
- Would arbitrarily eliminate recreational fishing
- No local data supporting the claim that eliminating fishing access would help kelp restoration efforts.
- Implementation of the proposed change would make outreach and enforcement nearly impossible, especially considering many kelp restoration activities occur underwater and would be occurring intermittently
- The proposed new SMR at Tankers Reef is far smaller than the minimum area required to function as a replicate in the MPA
2023-24 – Summary: Extend the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA southern boundary to the southern border of the City of Laguna Beach, which will require modification of the northern boundary of Dana Point SMCA (modified boundaries as amended).
Overview: This petition's core argument claims enforcement concerns of the MPAs by lifeguards, when in fact, the primary enforcement of the MPAs is warden officers. Wardens are the only individuals that may issue citations for MPA compliance and are most notably, not bound by city limits. The idea of moving this border to allow for better enforcement will only create more of an enforcement problem due to where the proposed border lies versus the existing one. The existing border of the Laguna SMCA and Dana Point SMCA is a rocky point, a physical barrier between two areas. This allows the border to be clear as it is marked by an obvious, physical landmark, which is a guiding objective of the MLPA, making borders clear using physical landmarks. The proposed new border would sit along the mean high tide line of the rocky shoreline of an adjacent beach. Simply put, removal of a physical barrier landmark to an invisible line on a public beach would only create more of an enforcement compliance problem, not reduce it.
BHA's Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: This petition proposes altering SMCA borders to address enforcement issues, citing the jurisdictional concerns of the city of Laguna Beach and Orange County. CDFW Wardens, who issue citations for MPA compliance, have statewide jurisdiction. This attempts to solve a problem where there is none. Additionally, and contrary to the claims in the petition, the proposed change is unlikely to benefit migrating whales or have a biologically meaningful impact on kelp at this location beyond what is already offered by existing boundaries.
- Would not address an enforcement challenge
- Would not measurably improve the performance of the Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve (SMR) and Laguna Beach No-Take SMCA MPA cluster beyond what these MPAs were designed to provide
- Would conflict with the original intent of the Dana Point SMCA, which was to maintain intertidal protections while allowing for take of lobster, urchin, and finfish
- Would eliminate nearly half of the fishing grounds within the boundaries of the Dana Point SMCA and effectively end all fishing opportunities within Laguna Beach city limits
- Does not address a current or emerging MPA management challenge
- Would not advance management of the MPA Network.
2023-27 – Summary: Amend existing Anacapa Island SMCA or Special Closure with one of three options to best protect eelgrass (Zostera spp.) meadows while allowing for community access (removed classification change and modified take regulations as amended).
Overview: This petition calls for additional protections at the Anacapa Island SMCA, the difference being that 2023-27's focus is on eelgrass, not kelp. While a trap sitting on the bottom does have a larger footprint than a pelagic hook and line configuration which is also allowed in the SMCA, traps fished in the area are not significantly impacting eelgrass beds due to there already being a 20 foot depth closure for traps around Anacapa in its Special Closure. This depth limit alone covers most of the eelgrass beds in the area making the request redundant. Additionally, lobster traps are fished throughout Southern California and other eelgrass beds are doing well as is. This area is not unique in that regard and should be seen in the same lens as the rest of the coast.
BHA's Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: To quote CDFW's recent recommendations on this petition: "there is no indication that the primary driver of the decline or lack of recovery of eelgrass in Frenchy's Cove is bottom contact fishing gear and anchoring that may occur during the two-month window when fishing is allowed in the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) fledgling area. The proposed options are unlikely to have a biologically meaningful impact on eelgrass at this location beyond what is already offered by the Anacapa Island SMCA and Special Closure and brown pelican fledgling area, and it would unnecessarily restrict an important fishing ground that was carefully contemplated and deliberated during the Northern Channel Islands MPA planning and implementation process."
- CDFW found the proposal does not meet the scientific justification needed to modify existing regulations
- The Department concluded there is insufficient evidence that current fishing or anchoring activities are causing eelgrass impacts at the site
- The proposal does not demonstrate that the requested changes would measurably improve eelgrass condition
- CDFW determined the area is already adequately protected under existing MPA regulations and seasonal closures
- The proposal is inconsistent with the goals and design of the MLPA network
- The proposal does not align with the MPA Decadal Management Review guidance for adaptive changes
- CDFW concluded that other potential stressors to eelgrass were not adequately evaluated in the petition
2023-32 – Summary: Change Duxbury Reef State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) to a State Marine Reserve (SMR), extend the southern boundary further south, and extend the northern boundary to the Double Point Special Closure.
Overview: This requests the expansion of the Duxbury Reef SMCA. The petition cites apparent drops in biodiversity in the areas, confusion on take regulations, and, as a result, high incidence of accidental poaching.
BHA Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: The petition claims that eliminating recreational fishing is necessary because enforcement of current fishing regulations is too difficult. These claims are simply unsubstantiated by CDFW enforcement data. This petition would unnecessarily eliminate established uses previously vetted during the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative planning process and conflicts with the MPA's original intent to balance habitat protection with recreational fishing. The MPA process is meant to balance ecological conservation with cultural heritage and local interests. A no-take designation at Duxbury Reef would restrict existing allowed uses that are important to the coastal heritage of the local community of Bolinas, without any clear scientific rational that makes that reduction in access worth the cost to California's anglers.
2023-33 – Summary: Cabrillo State Marine Reserve (SMR), Natural Bridges SMR, Point Conception SMR, South Point SMR, Gull Island SMR, Point Dume State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), and Pleasure Point SMCA (proposed new MPA) — Expand and add additional MPAs for kelp growth.
Overview: While there are various pathways for kelp restoration, the establishment of new or larger MPAs should not be one of them as it is widely accepted that the growth and abundance of kelp are dependent on water quality and temperature. Even under ideal growing conditions, a large swell can damage kelp forests, ripping the largest stalks off the seafloor. Fishing activities have little to no impact on kelp health as seen by thriving kelp populations throughout history pre-dating even the MLPA when fishing access was less restrictive. Fishing restrictions are not what it will take for the forests to regrow. The creation or expansion of MPAs resulting from this petition will have a negligible effect on the recovery of kelp forests, but a permanent and lasting effect on those that have a livelihood on the water or those that want to simply fish and enjoy a day on the water. In some instances, such expansions may hinder restoration efforts by obstructing human interventions aimed at encouraging kelp growth, such as seeding areas or urchin barren removal efforts.
BHA Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: The petition assumes that expanding MPAs to include particularly persistent kelp patches will meaningfully boost kelp stability, resilience, and recovery — but that assumption lacks site-specific mechanistic support. MPAs are a vital conservation tool, but they aren't designed to function as a standalone mechanism for kelp restoration or persistence, and expanding them here could create regulatory barriers that constrain future restoration work. Kelp restoration and management decisions should instead flow through the forthcoming Kelp Restoration and Management Plan (KRMP), which will establish the framework and best practices needed to guide effective, coordinated kelp management strategies.
2023-34 – Summary: Reclassify Point Buchon SMCA as a State Marine Reserve (SMR) and modify allowed uses at Farnsworth Onshore and Offshore SMCAs.
Overview: This requests the redesignation of one offshore SMCA to a no-take SMR, merging it with the nearshore SMR at Point Buchon to make one no-take SMR. The petition also requests combining the nearshore and offshore SMCAs at Farnsworth into a single SMCA that would permit only pelagic finfish spearfishing, removing various pelagic fishing allowances existing there. The primary justification for these changes is enforcement concerns and while it is indeed harder to enforce limited take areas compared to no-take areas, enforcement has effectively managed the existing MPA network without significant issues. The concept of allowing pelagic finfish targeting offshore — where interactions with the MPA's intended protections are minimal — has been recognized since the first and second MPA Master Plans where it explicitly states the lesser effect pelagic fish have on themselves and the MPA ecosystem, and to allow for areas that have pelagic take respectively. Additionally, if enforcement was truly the only concern, commercial harpoon at Farnsworth is just as enforceable, if not easier than recreational spear methods, and should be left in as an allowance in the SMCA.
BHA Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: A method of recreational fishing should be restricted only when there is clear scientific evidence, supported with local data, and indicates specific ecological benefit such restrictions would have. In the case of this petition, rigorous scientific review shows that additional no-take protections would not increase habitat representation, ecological function, or connectivity beyond what the existing SMR/SMCA cluster already provides. Available information does not demonstrate that the proposed change to further restrict allowed gear types in the affected MPA would produce measurable ecological benefits to benthic species or the network beyond current conditions. Compliance concerns raised in the proposal are not supported by enforcement data, which indicate generally low citation levels and improving trends. Maintaining recreational and commercial salmon and albacore fishing aligns with the original design intent of the SMCA and balances conservation with community needs.
Tribally Led or Co-led Petitions
Our organization deeply respects tribal sovereignty, the principles of tribal co-management, and tribal authority to conduct government-to-government consultations regarding tribal interests and access to natural resources. At the same time, we respectfully request that any decisions to expand the MPA network and to close recreational access to fishing for the general public follow the guidance provided by the Master Plan for MPAs and the science-based decision-making framework that has guided the MPA petition evaluation process over the past several years.
Below you will find our recommendations on the three "tribally led or co-led" petitions that will significantly restrict or eliminate recreational fishing opportunities.
2023-20 – Summary: Expand North End of Pt. Buchon nearshore SMR and include Tribal and hand take in the offshore SMCA.
Overview: This requests changes to the MPA cluster, nearshore and offshore MPAs, at Point Buchon — allows the hand harvest of finfish and invertebrates except rock scallops and mussels, allows the maintenance of artificial structures under the correct permits, and provide a tribal take exemption for federally recognized tribes. However, it is unclear if these requested allowances to the offshore SMCA and Point Buchon are replacing or adding onto existing recreational and commercial allowance for the take of albacore and salmon in the offshore SMCA. This example in the offshore region is a clear example of how tribal components can be added to the existing network, not requiring creation of more MPAs to involve tribes.
BHA Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: BHA looks forward to reviewing CDFW's scientific recommendations on this petition. As indicated above, BHA strongly supports tribal sovereignty and the ability for tribes to participate in government-to-government consultations while respectfully requesting that all decisions related to the expansion of the MPA framework follow the guidance of the Master Plan and the conclusions reached in the DMR.
2023-28 – Summary: New SMCA around Pt. Sal closed to everything but tribal take and shore fishing.
Overview: This requests the establishment of a new MPA around Point Sal. This MPA would significantly impact local fisheries, recreational and commercial, despite the petitioner's claim that the effects would be minimal. The proposed area is of significant economic importance to the local area; in some fisheries over 50% of the local landings come from the proposed area.
BHA Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: The original petition sought to restrict all recreational fishing but was amended to include shore fishing. What is the scientific rationale for excluding all the other recreational fishing methods? This petition seems to imply that shore fishing has distinctly minimal ecological impacts, and that all other forms of recreational take have demonstratable negative impacts that would harm the long-term ecological health of the Point Sal area if allowed to continue. We look forward to assessing CDFW's careful review of the data, to determine with the same level of accuracy as has been consistently applied throughout the MPA process, whether a closure to any methods of take is warranted and consistent with the MPLA and MPA Master Plan.
2023-29 – Summary: Create new Mishopshno SMCA to allow Chumash take and recreational shore fishing take only.
Overview: This requests a new MPA be created at Carpinteria and would be a tribally allowed SMCA that would be closed to non-federally recognized tribal fishing (general recreational and commercial fishing). The petition's three primary arguments for the new SMCA are to meet habitat connectivity/MPA spacing requirements, to protect habitat surrounding juvenile white shark grounds, and to allow for tribal access.
BHA Position: Oppose
Key Takeaways: We look forward to CDFW's analysis of this petition, and trust that that analysis will follow the MPLA guidance and MPA Master Plan. If closures of recreational fishing are warranted, there should be clear, local, scientific data supporting that conclusion, and that information should be communicated to the public via CDFW's recommendation.
1