Pleasure Point Reserve Proposal Amended to Allow Recreational Fishing

Critics remain unsatisfied despite concessions in new plan for marine protected area in Santa Cruz

Published on Feb. 27, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The groups behind a proposal to create a new marine protected area (MPA) at Santa Cruz's Pleasure Point have scaled back restrictions in response to feedback. However, some opponents, including the All Waters Protection and Access Coalition, remain firmly against any new limits on fishing in the area.

Why it matters

The proposal is driven by two overlapping goals: advancing the Marine Life Protection Act and California's '30 by 30' initiative, which aims to protect 30 percent of the state's land and coastal waters by 2030. While kelp forests in other parts of California have suffered severe declines, those in Monterey Bay have proved to be resilient during marine heat waves.

The details

The updated proposal would now allow non-motorized recreational fishing within the proposed reserve. The original plan called for a 3.2-mile no-take zone along Santa Cruz's east side from Rockview to Trees Beach. The most vocal opposition group, All Waters Protection and Access Coalition, argues that science does not justify stricter protections for Santa Cruz's healthy kelp forest and that existing fishery management rules are sufficient.

  • In November 2023, Environment California and Azul filed a petition to expand six marine protected areas in California and to add a new one off Pleasure Point.
  • The next regional meeting on the petition is scheduled for April 21 at a location to be announced near Half Moon Bay.

The players

Environment California

A conservation group that filed the petition to create the new marine protected area at Pleasure Point.

Azul

A conservation group that filed the petition to create the new marine protected area at Pleasure Point.

All Waters Protection and Access Coalition

A group that opposes the proposed marine protected area, arguing that science does not justify stricter protections for Santa Cruz's healthy kelp forest and that existing fishery management rules are sufficient.

Laura Deehan

The state director of Environment California and the primary contact listed on the petition.

Matt Bond

The chief strategy officer for the All Waters Protection and Access Coalition.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“If you have an area of the ocean that's in a marine protected area with really limited extraction happening, we do see significant benefits. We thought (the amendment) would be a middle ground.”

— Laura Deehan, State Director, Environment California (theinertia.com)

“The petition is, at best, an over-application of the precautionary principle. Kelp generally grows in waters up to about 90 feet deep, and they're proposing protections out to three miles offshore. The scale doesn't match the problem.”

— Matt Bond, Chief Strategy Officer, All Waters Protection and Access Coalition (theinertia.com)

What’s next

The next regional meeting on the petition is scheduled for April 21 at a location to be announced near Half Moon Bay.

The takeaway

This proposal highlights the ongoing tension between conservation efforts and local recreational interests, with both sides citing scientific data to support their positions. The amended plan represents a compromise, but opposition remains, raising questions about balancing environmental protection and community access to natural resources.