Del Norte to Monterey Counties
Embedded Files
Strength in numbers 84 Members and growing: Join today!
Welcome
Southern California
Tuesday May 19th Los Angeles County through San Diego County
May 19. 8:00 a.m.
Holiday Inn Express
San Clemente, CA
Address and Link to Meeting below
May 19th
MPA Petitions being discussed
Click Here to view 2023-24MPA Petition Details
VCCFA Recommedation DENY
2023-24 Expand Laguna Beach no-take SMCA
Laguna Beach SMCA (no-take)
Click Here to view 2023-14MPA Petition Details
VCCFA Recommedation APPROVE
2023-14* Allow commercial sea urchin take in 9 MPAs statewide
Point Vicente SMCA (no-take)
Swami's SMCA
Point Dume SMCA
Click Here to view 2023-33MPA Petition Details
VCCFA Recommedation DENY
2023-33* Add new MPA near Pleasure Point and expand 6 MPAs statewide
Point Dume SMCA
Cabrillo SMR
Click Here to view 2023-34MPA Petition Details
VCCFA Recommedation DENY
2023-34* Reclassify Point Buchon SMCA and modify regulations in Farnsworth MPAs
Farnsworth Onshore SMCA
Farnsworth Offshore SMCA
*Denotes Petition will or has been discussed in other MPA Regional Meetings. This meeting will deal with the areas effected within this Regional Meeting of those particular MPA Petitions.
Continue down this page for details on each MPA Petition
CALL TO ACTION!
Submit Letters (*Comment Deadline: May 11. 5 pm: **Supplemental Comment Deadline May 14. 12pm)
* Written comments received at the Commission office by the Comment Deadline will be made available to the Commissioners prior to the meeting, made available to the public, and may be posted online with meeting materials. ** Written comments received at the Commission office by the Supplemental Comment Deadline will be made available to Commissioners at the meeting, but not posted online. After these deadlines, written comments may be delivered in person to the meeting. Please bring twelve (12) copies of written comments and hand them to the designated staff member just prior to speaking.
For Letter templates and instructions click here
Submit a written letter or email
Submit a written letter or email
Time is of the Essence here! Submit your letters now!
📧 Email: fgc@fgc.ca.gov
Subject : MPA Petition #____ postion letter for (date)regional CFGC Meeting Meeting
📬 Mail:
California Fish and Game Commission
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Your comment becomes part of the official public record reviewed by decision-makers.
Attend and Participate in Regional Meeting
Attend and Participate in Regional Meeting
May 19. 8:00 a.m.
Join in person or online
Address and Link to Meeting below
In Person (Most Impact)
Tuesday May 19th
Holiday Inn Express
35 Via Pico Plaza
San Clemente, CA 92672
Online
As of April 10th, this has not been published on Fish and Game Commissions website: It will be uploaded here as soon as it is available. Here is the link to the page where the agenda and zoom invite will be in the meantime
Central and Southern California commercial fishermen—and the businesses that depend on them—are at a critical moment as MPA petitions move toward review at the May 5th and May 6th Fish and Game regional meetings.
What’s at stake?
2023-24 – Laguna Beach Expansion (SoCal Direct Impact)
2023-24 – Laguna Beach Expansion (SoCal Direct Impact)
Expands no-take MPA into Dana Point SMCA
Eliminates:
Commercial lobster fishing
Urchin and finfish take in that zone
Removes one of the only remaining fishing areas inside Laguna Beach
Identified as a high-use lobster fishing block → direct economic hit
Forces effort:
Offshore or south → crowding + safety + fuel costs
Net effect: Loss of productive nearshore grounds with little proven benefit
2023-14 – Allow Commercial Urchin Take in 9 MPAs (Statewide, includes SoCal implications)
2023-14 – Allow Commercial Urchin Take in 9 MPAs (Statewide, includes SoCal implications)
One of the only pro-fishing petitions
Would reopen access to urchin grounds inside MPAs
Stakes:
Could restore access to historic fishing areas
Supports kelp management via urchin removal
2023-33 – New MPA + Expand 6 MPAs (Statewide, Precedent Threat)
2023-33 – New MPA + Expand 6 MPAs (Statewide, Precedent Threat)
Adds new MPA (Pleasure Point) + expands multiple existing MPAs
Even though Central/NorCal focused:
Sets statewide precedent for expansion
Stakes for SoCal:
Reinforces MPA expansion model
Signals future closures likely in Southern California
Net effect: Long-term threat to access across entire coast
2023-34 – Point Buchon + Farnsworth Changes (Precedent + Catalina Relevance)
2023-34 – Point Buchon + Farnsworth Changes (Precedent + Catalina Relevance)
Converts areas to more restrictive designations (SMR/no-take)
Farnsworth (Catalina area relevance):
Potential tightening of existing access and take rules
Stakes:
Expands reclassification trend → SMCA → SMR
Reduces flexibility in “limited take” areas
Net effect: Gradual loss of fishable zones through reclassification
Economic Impact
Loss of nearshore grounds = higher costs + reduced catch efficiency
These petitions collectively reduce fishing access, shift effort into smaller areas, and set a precedent for expanding and tightening MPAs along the Southern California coast—directly impacting working fishermen’s ability to operate safely and economically.
*not all petitions move in one direction—some proposals may adjust boundaries, reopen limited access, or better align protections with actual habitat use, which could create opportunities for improved access if shaped correctly. Scroll down this page to see specific MPA Petitions being discussed, and prepare your statement in support or opposition.
Why it matters
decisions made now will define how much water remains available to fish and how fairly it is managed, especially as existing MPAs are still being evaluated
Action needed
fishermen, processors, and support industries must engage now—show up May 5th and May 6th, submit comments, and help ensure outcomes protect both ocean health and the long-term viability of commercial fishing.
NOT ANOTHER INCH!
New and expanded Marine Protected Area (MPA) petitions are being consideration by the California Fish and Game Commission.
In addition to HOW INCREASED MPAS affects you, keep in mind, the primary argument against expanding MPAs is that there has not been sufficient time to fully evaluate the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of the existing network—on fishermen’s livelihoods, consumer access to local seafood, and whether MPAs are achieving their intended outcomes. Expanding closures now risks shifting fishing pressure into smaller open areas, increasing reliance on imported seafood with a higher carbon footprint, and creating unintended economic and environmental consequences.
These proposals could further restrict access to key fishing grounds along the California coast —places many small-boat fishermen depend on every day.
What’s at stake is more than access—it’s the future of working waterfronts, local seafood supply, and the livelihoods of those who rely on these fisheries.
Additional closures risk shifting pressure into smaller open areas, increasing costs, and creating unintended impacts, while existing MPAs are still being evaluated.
Increase Commercial Fishing Opportunity!
Changes in Boundries and take restrictions via (MPA) petitions are being consideration by the California Fish and Game Commission.
Support MPA petitions that increase commercial fishing opportunities is grounded in the need to responsibly restore access where existing restrictions may be broader than necessary, while still maintaining conservation goals. Thoughtful adjustments can strengthen local economies, improve access to sustainable, low-carbon seafood, and ensure fishing effort is more evenly distributed without compromising ecological objectives.
CALL TO ACTION
If fishermen don’t speak up now, decisions will be made without their voice. This is the time to engage, show up, and advocate for balanced, science-based management that protects both the ocean and our industry.
To become familiar with Petitions being presented and discussed at this meeting, scroll down this page.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MPA Petitions discussed in this meeting
MAY 19th
2023-24
2023-24
2023-24 Expand Laguna Beach no-take SMCA
Laguna Beach SMCA (no-take)
Submitted By:
Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Existing
Proposed
VCCFA Recommedation DENY
Extend the Laguna Beach no-take SMCA southern boundary to the southern border of city of Laguna Beach, which will require modification of northern boundary of Dana Point SMCA (modified boundaries as amended)
Extend the Laguna Beach no-take SMCA southern boundary to the southern border of city of Laguna Beach, which will require modification of northern boundary of Dana Point SMCA (modified boundaries as amended)
Expand the existing Laguna Beach no-take SMR southward
Convert part of the Dana Point SMCA into full no-take (SMR)
In simple terms:
Take an area that currenly allows some fishing → make it completely closed
What the Petition Is Trying to Do
What the Petition Is Trying to Do
Create a continuous stretch of no-take coastline
Eliminate what they call a “gap” in protection
This is a pure expansion petition —no trade-offs, no added access
Direct Impacts to Commercial Fishing
1. Loss of Active Fishing Grounds
1. Loss of Active Fishing Grounds
Area currently allows:
Commercial lobster fishing
Some finfish / other take (depending on regs)
Would become 100% closed
Immediate loss of working fishing area
2. Targets a Known Productive Zone
2. Targets a Known Productive Zone
This stretch is:
Actively used by fishermen
Valuable for nearshore fisheries (especially lobster)
Not theoretical — this is real, working water
3. Effort Displacement
3. Effort Displacement
Fishermen forced to:
Move north or south
Stack into smaller open areas
Leads to:
Crowding
Gear conflicts
Reduced efficiency
Higher fuel costs
4. Benefit to Fishermen
4. Benefit to Fishermen
This is a one-way loss
5. Precedent for SoCal Expansion
5. Precedent for SoCal Expansion
If approved:
Validates “fill the gaps” strategy
Could lead to:
More closures between existing MPAs
Risk of chain-reaction expansions along SoCal coast
This is a high-impact negative petition for commercial fishing
✔️ What it does:
✔️ What it does:
Expands an MPA into currently fishable water
What it means:
What it means:
Less access
More pressure elsewhere
No benefit in return
This petition removes productive fishing grounds in Laguna Beach by expanding a no-take MPA into currently open waters, displacing fishermen into smaller areas and setting a precedent for further closures along the Southern California coast.
2023-14
2023-14
2023-14* Allow commercial sea urchin take in 9 MPAs statewide
Point Vicente SMCA (no-take)
Swami's SMCA
Point Dume SMCA
*Additional Geographies discussed at
April 21st (@San Mateo)
Double Cone Rock SMCA
Sea Lion Cove SMCA
Stewart's Point SMCA
Salt Point SMCA
May 6 (@Santa Barbara)
Anacapa Island SMCA
Naples SMCA
Submitted By:
California Sea Urchin Commission
Swami's SMCA
Existing (No Urchin Take)
Proposed (Allow Urchin Take)
Point Dume SMCA
Existing (No Urchin Take)
Proposed (Allow Urchin Take)
VCCFA Recommedation APPROVE
Allow commercial take of sea urchins in 9 State Marine Conservation Areas (Double Cone Rock SMCA, Sea Lion Cove SMCA, Stewart's Point SMCA, Salt Point SMCA, Naples SMCA, Anacapa Island SMCA, Point Dume SMCA, Point Vicente SMCA (no-take), Swami's SMCA)
Allow commercial take of sea urchins in 9 State Marine Conservation Areas (Double Cone Rock SMCA, Sea Lion Cove SMCA, Stewart's Point SMCA, Salt Point SMCA, Naples SMCA, Anacapa Island SMCA, Point Dume SMCA, Point Vicente SMCA (no-take), Swami's SMCA)
Sonoma & Mendocino (Stewarts Point, Salt Point, Sea Lion Cove, Double Cone Rock)
Southern California (Anacapa Island, Point Dume, Point Vicente, Swami’s, Naples)
Core idea:
Use commercial urchin fishing as a management tool to reduce urchin barrens
Support kelp forest recovery and ecosystem balance
Help rebuild a collapsed urchin fishery (from ~4.2M lbs in 2013 to ~284K lbs in 2022)
Benefits to Commercial Fishing
Benefits to Commercial Fishing
Increases access to previously restricted areas
Provides economic recovery opportunity for urchin divers
Aligns fishermen as part of the solution (active ecosystem management)
Could help stabilize kelp ecosystems, benefiting broader fisheries
2023-33
2023-33
2023-33* Add new MPA near Pleasure Point and expand 6 MPAs statewide
Point Dume SMCA
Cabrillo SMR
*Additional Geographies discussed at
April 21 (@San Mateo)
Natural Bridges SMR
New - "Pleasure Point SMCA"
May 6th (@Santa Barbara)
Gull Island SMR
South Point SMR
May 6 (@Santa Barbara)
Point Conception SMR
Submitted By:
Environment California and Azul
Point Dume SMCA
Existing
Proposed Expand westward and add allowance for recreational take from shore by hook and line and by spearfishing
Cabrillo SMR
Existing
Proposed Expand westward and northward
VCCFA Recommedation DENY
Designate one new MPA ( Pleasure Point SMCA - amended) and expand boundaries of SMRs at Cabrillo (amended), Natural Bridges (amended), Point Conception , South Point , and Gull Island , and of SMCA at Point Dume ; add new take allowance at Point Dume SMCA (amended)
Designate one new MPA ( Pleasure Point SMCA - amended) and expand boundaries of SMRs at Cabrillo (amended), Natural Bridges (amended), Point Conception , South Point , and Gull Island , and of SMCA at Point Dume ; add new take allowance at Point Dume SMCA (amended)
This petition proposes a series of MPA expansions and new designations across California including:
Expanding multiple existing MPAs (e.g., Cabrillo SMR, Point Dume SMCA, Natural Bridges SMR, South Point SMR)
Creating at least one new MPA (Pleasure Point area)
Expansions range from a few square miles to 20+ sq mi per site
Concerns for Commercial Fishing
Concerns for Commercial Fishing
Significant loss of access (cumulative):
Multiple expansions across the state = large net reduction in fishable waters
Targets productive areas:
Specifically focuses on healthy, resilient kelp zones—often the same areas fishermen rely on
Expansion into deeper waters:
Some proposals extend offshore to 3-mile limit, including areas not directly tied to kelp
Precedent-setting:
Moves toward broad MPA expansion strategy, not isolated adjustments
Limited commercial consideration:
Some areas noted as having “little commercial fishing,” but that is not statewide reality
⚖️ Bottom Line
⚖️ Bottom Line
This is a large-scale expansion petition—one of the most impactful overall. It raises major concerns for commercial fishing due to cumulative loss of access, overlap with productive fishing grounds, and expansion beyond clearly justified habitat areas.
2023-34
2023-34
2023-34* Reclassify Point Buchon SMCA and modify regulations in Farnsworth MPAs
Farnsworth Onshore SMCA
*Additional Geographies discussed at
May 5 (@Santa Barbara)
Point Buchon SMCA
Submitted By:
Environment California and Azul
Existing
Proposed Modify regulations to allow only recreational spearfishing to enhance enforcement
VCCFA Recommedation DENY
Reclassify Point Buchon SMCA as an SMR and modify allowed uses at Farnsworth Onshore and Offshore SMCAs
Reclassify Point Buchon SMCA as an SMR and modify allowed uses at Farnsworth Onshore and Offshore SMCAs
Increase protection levels in existing MPAs (not creating new ones)
Increase protection levels in existing MPAs (not creating new ones)
Specifically:
Upgrade Point Buchon SMCA → full no-take SMR
Restrict Farnsworth Onshore & Offshore SMCAs to:
Recreational spearfishing only (eliminating most other fishing activity)
Concerns for Commercial Fishing
Concerns for Commercial Fishing
Direct loss of commercial access (key issue):
Point Buchon currently allows commercial salmon & albacore → would be fully closed
Additional fishery impacts:
Farnsworth changes could impact:
Market squid
Other pelagic/commercial activity
Conversion effect (important):
This is not expansion of area—but tightening existing access to zero or near-zero
Precedent risk:
Opens the door to:
Upgrading SMCAs → SMRs statewide
“Minimal impact” claim:
Petition states impacts are negligible, but:
Still removes existing legal fishing opportunities
This is a high-impact regulatory tightening petition—it doesn’t expand MPAs geographically, but it eliminates existing commercial fishing access within them, particularly at Point Buchon, making it a direct loss-of-access issue rather than a boundary issue.
ALL CA Regional Meetings Schedule and Petitions being discussed
Taken from: California Fish and Game Commission Website/meetings2026
Schedule for Letter Submission Deadlines
Taken from: California Fish and Game Commission Website/meetings2026
Additional Regional Fish and Game Commission Meetings MPA Petitions - All meetings are in person and available via zoom. Click below to Read More for each individual region.
Northern California - San Meteo - April 21 - Del Norte through Monterey Petitions
Central and Southern California - SantaBarbara - May 5,6 -San Luis Obispo through Ventura Counties MPA Petitions
This page was created to break down the proposed MPA petitions in a clear and straightforward way, so fishermen and stakeholders can quickly understand what’s being proposed, what’s at stake, and what it means for our industry. It also highlights practical, balanced recommendations that support both ocean health and the livelihoods of California’s commercial fishing communities and the public we serve.
This MPA Petition Guide is not legal advice and should be thoroughly scrutinized by the individual or organization before your own decisions are made. VCCFA and its affiliate, staff, and members hold no accoutability for the claims made above, as they are produced with the best available sources at the time.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse