The website for Hook Fish Co., the pescatarian’s lunch spot of choice at 4542 Irving St. in the Outer Sunset, tells diners to “Know where your fish comes from, who caught it, and how.” What those seafood lovers may not know is that a battle for fishing access is raging 13 miles north on the coast of the famously salty Marin town of Bolinas. A sign posted at Hook Fish Co. asks diners to take a side: “PROTECT FISHING IN MARIN COUNTY,” it reads.
At the center of this dispute is a true California coastal treasure, Duxbury Reef. The rocky intertidal habitat on the coast of Bolinas is among the state’s rarest coastal ecosystems and one of the continent’s largest shale reefs. A prime location for tidepooling, Duxbury is home to a vibrant array of anemones, starfish, crabs, slugs, snails, urchin, and algae.
Waters beyond the precious reef are a favored site in Marin County for halibut fishing, making it a crucial site for local fisherman and for restaurants that serve locally-caught fish.
That could change Friday as the state’s Fish and Game Commission decides on a petition to extend the protected boundaries of the reef south and north, a move that could existentially impact the region’s fishing tradition.
Duxbury Reef is one of over a hundred geographic marine or estuarine areas in California designated under the Marine Protected Area (MPA) conservation program. Set off by the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999, the MPAs were designed to support biodiversity on the California coast while balancing public use. Now, over a decade into the program’s existence, MPAs have been highly regarded as successful pathways for marine conservation.
At less than three-quarters of a square mile, Duxbury Reef is one of the smallest MPAs in the state, though you wouldn’t believe it given the ruckus its possible extended designation has caused.
MPAs are ranked in three tiers — state marine reserve, state marine park, and state marine conservation area — each with different rules and regulations. Currently, Duxbury Reef’s status as a state marine conservation area (the most lenient classification) allows for some recreational hook-and-line fishing, and the MPA boundaries do not encompass the entire reef.
The petition to extend Duxbury’s MPA was brought forth in 2023 by the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC), a small environmental organization based out of Point Reyes Station. It would prohibit the taking of marine life from the reef and surrounding area in order to promote and protect biodiversity.
The initial petition, which garnered about 100 signatures and letters of support, sought to upgrade Duxbury’s MPA status from a state marine conservation area to a state marine reserve, which would prohibit any extractive activities including fishing, kelp harvesting, and mussel foraging, among other activities. It also sought northern and southern boundary extensions from the existing MPA’s 2.8 miles of shoreline to encompass a nearly 8-mile stretch.
MPAs are “meant to be adaptively managed,” said Ashley Eagle-Gibbs, executive director of EAC. In recent years, increased tourism and climate change prompted the organization to petition for protections focused on the intertidal reef. “That’s our highest priority area to protect given its high habitat value,” said Eagle-Gibbs “There's like, 200 species found at the reef.”
Fishermen say the proposed expansion would impede halibut fishing — which feeds local restaurants like Hook Fish — in waters beyond the reef’s northern boundary. Losing Duxbury on the heels of a shortened crab season, the state’s multiyear closure of salmon season, and rockfish restrictions has pushed local fishers to their limits.
A post on Hook Fish’s Instagram on Wednesday, asked, “are we teaching the next generation to simply purchase food harvested elsewhere? Are those ecosystems any less deserving of protection?”
It concluded: “Conservation and responsible local food production can — and should — coexist.”
(Hook Fish did not respond to Gazetteer SF’s multiple requests for comment.)
According to a report from volunteer-led data platform MPA Watch, Duxbury was the most-visited MPA in Marin County last year. The proposed changes would not impact what the committee refers to as non-consumptive activities, such as surfing, hiking, and tidepooling, though they hope it will put an end to visitors taking marine life from the reef.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), which evaluates MPA petitions but does not write law on them, in its report acknowledged impacts on the fishing community and ultimately advised to reject the EAC’s petition, in part, due to these community concerns: “Since the objective of the proposed northern and southern expansions is to protect the biodiversity in the intertidal habitat of the reef, extending the boundaries with the current SMCA regulations or as an SMR would unnecessarily restrict existing commercial and recreational take.”
The state’s Ocean Protection Council similarly recommended that the petition be rejected and instead suggested the creation of two new MPAs “to protect the northern and southern portions of Duxbury Reef, each with take regulations that protect intertidal seaweed and invertebrates while allowing for continuation of other existing shore and boat-based fishing.”
Based on these recommendations, the EAC this year amended its proposal to drop the goal of upgrading Duxbury’s protected status and instead is only focused on expanding Duxbury’s boundaries. This would mean that Duxbury Reef remains a state marine conservation area where some recreational and commercial take of marine resources is allowed.
The EAC has also narrowed its expanded boundaries to hug the intertidal habitat and avoid offshore fishing impacts from 1,000 feet and are instead proposing 500 or 200 feet from low tide in an attempt to balance the concerns of the community with their conservation goals.
“You know, the larger it is, the more protective it is of the ecology. If it's narrower, that's better for fishing interests,” Eagle-Gibbs explained.
Those who oppose the petition are not satisfied and have been calling for the EAC to pull it ahead of Friday’s meeting. Hook Fish, online and IRL, is urging its customers and other members of the community to deny the petition. Online, the opposition organization Save Duxbury Access has created informational flyers on how to email Gov. Gavin Newsom, deny the petition to the Fish and Game Commission, and provide public comment.
Rep. Jared Huffman and Marin County Supervisor Dennis Rodoni each wrote letters to the Fish and Game Commission requesting that the petition be withdrawn. Should the Commission accept the proposal, as a sole petitioner, the EAC would be the only stakeholder involved in the lawmaking process. Calls to withdraw the petition largely focus on the inclusion of more community stakeholders rather than keeping it in the hands of the EAC exclusively.
Similarly heated MPA petitions have ignited in other coastal communities across the state. This week, the Santa Ynez band of Chumash Indians withdrew their petition to create an MPA in the Central Coast town of Morro Bay. Their proposal outlined an 8.45-square-mile state marine conservation area stretching from the famous Morro Rock into the town of Cayucos, enacting a ban on commercial and recreational fishing while still allowing the tribe to fish in the area.
It’s a confusing battle for many fishermen, who themselves identify as conservationists, and for restaurants like Hook Fish and other businesses that prioritize sourcing their fish locally and sustainably. The community’s reaction reflects years of what they see as encroachment and government intervention that have hollowed out longstanding food traditions and family businesses.
“This feels a lot like the ranch closures which were done in back rooms for three years — three nonprofits suing the park, forcing everybody's hand,” said Megan Matson, a Bolinas resident and a member of Save Duxbury Access.
Matson is referring to last year when 11 of 13 multi-generational cattle ranching families at the nearby Point Reyes National Seashore received $2.5 to $3 million in payments from the Nature Conservancy to vacate their land following a legal battle spurred by the National Park Service.
And in 2014, the nearby Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which at one point accounted for 40 percent of California’s oyster production, lost its battle to the federal Department of the Interior — despite a flurry of support from figures including the late Rep. Diane Feinstein and chef Alice Waters — to stay on their land.
One of the EAC’s grantors, the Resources Legacy Fund (RLF), is a particularly sore subject for locals, as RLF founder Michael Mantell was directly involved in lobbying regarding the ranch closures and donated $1 million to the Nature Conservancy’s buyout package, per the Press Democrat. The RLF gave the EAC over $300,000 in grants from 2021 to 2024, according to tax filings. Eagle-Gibbs declined to comment on whether EAC had received grant money from RLF.
While conservation efforts are critical for preserving the land they love, government intervention has had a lasting impact on the fabric of these communities, Matson says.
With the closures of ranches, fisheries, and other longstanding local businesses in recent years, “There's been a 30% drop in school population. It's just a hollowing and a gutting,” said Matson, who raised her now-adult children in Bolinas.
“When you start hacking away at the local beef and dairy, the local oyster farming, and then the local fishing, you don't just eliminate the livelihoods of those folks, you just tear that whole fabric of interdependence. And eventually, you end up with more chain stores and corporations and you're just not free anymore,” Matson said. “There's a freedom in community and local interdependence that this is threatening.”
