How Anglers Can Become Allies: Turning “Mine” Into “Ours”

I have been the person who did not know.

When I started fishing without my dad, I realized how much of the logistics I had been relying on him for. Licensing. Gear. Tide knowledge. The small details that make a big difference.

When I was in college, I was fishing on what I thought was a jetty. Three sides of water, man-made structure, so I assumed I was in compliance. I wasn’t. It turns out only one specific section of that structure counted as the “jetty” for the rules at that location. If it wasn’t for someone else telling me, “That is not the jetty,” I would have assumed I was fine.

I genuinely thought I did what I was supposed to do. I had my license, I had my gear, and I believed I was in an approved area. But the lack of clear signage and the gaps in my own know-how added up to a rule violation I did not even realize I was making.

I think this same knowledge gap is a part of why many anglers have reservations about things they may think they understand, but don’t know the full scope of, like marine protected areas. Typically, pushback does not start from someone wanting to do harm. It often starts with confusion, frustration, and the feeling that the rules are hard to interpret in real life (Cook et al., 2024). And when people feel like access is being reduced without clear communication of goals and outcomes, that frustration makes sense (Cook et al., 2024; Nowakowski et al., 2023).

Just like my jetty moment, it is easy to assume you understand a thing or place based on what you see or think you know.

MPAs often get treated the same way.

Marine protected areas, or MPAs, are designated ocean areas where activities are managed to protect marine life and habitat. In California, MPAs are not all the same. They include multiple designations with different rules depending on the site, and the state supports ongoing monitoring to see what is working and adjust as needed (Cook et al., 2024; California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], n.d.).

It’s fair for an angler to assume that “protected” means nothing is allowed. But in California, MPA rules operate on a spectrum, and what is allowed depends on the designation and the specific location (CDFW, n.d.). California’s statewide network was fully implemented in 2012 and includes 124 MPAs covering 16% of state waters (Cook et al., 2024).

Knowing which designation you’re in is the difference between being compliant and accidentally breaking a rule. From most restrictive to least restrictive, the classifications you will see generally look like this (CDFW, n.d.):

• State Marine Reserve (SMR): A no-take area. Taking or possessing living, geologic, or cultural marine resources is not allowed unless specifically authorized.

• Special closures: Areas where access or certain activities may be restricted to protect wildlife like seabird nesting sites or marine mammal haul-out sites.

• State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA): Some recreational and or commercial take may be allowed, but only what is specifically permitted for that site. Restrictions vary by SMCA.

• State Marine Park (SMP): Recreational take may be allowed, but commercial take is not allowed.

• State Marine Recreational Management Area (SMRMA): A managed area intended to protect recreational values where some take may be allowed, and legal waterfowl hunting is allowed.

If people do not know where the boundaries are, what the designation means, or what is allowed, they are more likely to make mistakes, disengage, or assume the rules are unfair. And when rules feel unfair or inconsistently applied, willingness to comply drops. Fairness and legitimacy matter, not just enforcement pressure (Ibbett et al., 2025).

A lot of the conflict around MPAs sounds like “something is being taken from me.” That reaction is understandable, but it is also a signal. It means people already feel attached to a place. The goal is to redirect that attachment away from territorial conflict and toward stewardship. That attachment is also the starting point for psychological ownership.

Psychological ownership is the feeling that something belongs to “me” or “us” even without legal ownership, and that feeling can bring a sense of responsibility to care for and protect what you feel connected to (Wang et al., 2022). In the context of nature, psychological ownership can motivate people to maintain, nurture, and protect natural places they feel are “theirs” or “ours.”

Researchers suggest psychological ownership tends to grow through three pathways: control, intimate knowledge, and personal investment (Wang et al., 2022). That matters because when psychological ownership is stronger, people often show greater willingness to protect nature, even compared to scenarios involving legal ownership alone (Preston & Gelman, 2020).

At the same time, psychological ownership has a risk. If it becomes “this is mine” in an exclusionary way, it can turn territorial and create more conflict (Wang et al., 2022). So the question is not how to make anglers feel ownership, because many already do.

The question is how to build the right kind of mine-ness: the kind that sounds like “our waters” and “protect what we pass down,” not “keep out.”

To build stewardship-focused ownership, it has to be realistic. That means focusing on those three pathways and fitting them into everyday life: control, knowledge, and investment.

• Control: Make it easy to know what to do at the exact moment decisions are made.

• Knowledge: Give information in a format that is clear, short, and tied to place.

• Investment: Offer low-effort ways to participate that still feel meaningful.

These do not have to look like big meetings or formal programs. Control can look like clear signage at the access point. Knowledge can look like a one-page “what is allowed here” guide that is easy to find and easy to understand. Investment can be as simple as giving anglers small, real ways to contribute, like reporting unclear boundaries, flagging confusing rules, or sharing what they are seeing on the water. Over time, that kind of involvement builds trust because people feel included, not managed, which matters for how MPAs are received (Cook et al., 2024). 

If we want clarity, fairness, and buy-in, we cannot put it on others to do extra homework. We have to design for real life. Access to clear rules is also about equitable access, because not everyone has a mentor, a boat captain, or a lifetime of local knowledge to lean on. This is where ‘zero-effort touchpoints’ come in: clear signage at common access points, a QR code that leads to a simple one-pager that answers the questions most anglers have, and partnerships with bait shops so the information shows up where anglers already are. The goal is simple: make compliance easy and make the rules feel navigable, not hidden.

And when we talk about why this effort is worth it, we should be honest and evidence-based. MPAs can produce benefits for ecosystems and people, but discussions often involve trade-offs and perceptions of cost, which is exactly why communication, legitimacy, and community experience have to be treated as real outcomes, not side notes (Nowakowski et al., 2023; Cook et al., 2024).

By meeting anglers where they already are, with clear information and respect, we can prevent the kind of accidental mistakes that fuel resentment. When rules are easy to understand at the point of decision, when boundaries are clear, and when the “why” is communicated without hype, it becomes easier to do the right thing and to trust the process.

Just like my jetty moment, it was one conversation that helped me realize I was wrong and pushed me to learn. It is my hope and belief that there is room for that same bridge to exist at scale. Anglers and conservation do not have to be opposing sides. With the right kind of mine-ness, it becomes “our waters,” and protecting them becomes something we do together.

References 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (n.d.). MPA monitoring. Retrieved February 6,

2026, from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Management/Monitoring

Cook, S., Richmond, L., Chang, J., Sayce, K., Bonkoski, J., Chen, C., Enevoldsen, J.,

Fisher, R., Chin, D., & Kia, M. (2024). Marine protected areas and fishing community well-being: An example from statewide socioeconomic monitoring of the California MPA network. Ocean & Coastal Management, 254, 107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107199

Ibbett, H., Dorward, L., Jones, J. P. G., Kohi, E. M., Dwiyahreni, A. A., Sankeni, S.,

Prayitno, K., Mchomvu, J., Kaduma, J., Saputra, A. W., Agustin, I. Y., Tryswidiarini, T., Mawenya, R., Supriatna, J., & St John, F. A. V. (2025). Improving compliance around protected areas through fair administration of rules. Conservation Biology, 39(1), e14332. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14332

Johnston, E. M., Waltz, G. T., Kosaka, R., Brauer, E. M., Ziegler, S. L., Jarvis Mason, E.

T., Glanz, H. S., Zaragoza, L., Kellum, A. N., Brooks, R. O., Semmens, B. X., Honeyman, C. J., Caselle, J. E., Bellquist, L. F., Small, S. L., Morgan, S. G., Mulligan, T. J., Coscino, C. L., Staton, J. M., … Wendt, D. E. (2024). Participation in collaborative fisheries research improves the perceptions of recreational anglers towards marine protected areas. Frontiers in Marine Science, 11, 1330498. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1330498

Lenihan, H. S., Gallagher, J. P., Peters, J. R., Stier, A. C., Hofmeister, J. K. K., & Reed,

D. C. (2021). Evidence that spillover from marine protected areas benefits the spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) fishery in southern California. Scientific Reports, 11, 2663. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82371-5

Nowakowski, A. J., Canty, S. W. J., Bennett, N. J., Cox, C. E., Valdivia, A., Deichmann,

J. L., Akre, T. S., Bonilla-Anariba, S. E., Costedoat, S., & McField, M. (2023). Co-benefits of marine protected areas for nature and people. Nature Sustainability, 6, 1210–1218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01150-4

Preston, S. D., & Gelman, S. A. (2020). This land is my land:

Psychological ownership increases willingness to protect the natural world more than legal ownership. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101443

Wang, X., Fielding, K. S., & Dean, A. J. (2022). Psychological ownership of nature: A

conceptual elaboration and research agenda. Biological Conservation, 267, 109477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109477