Educate yourself on the California State Parks Initiative before casting your vote on November 2. Proposition 21, referred to as the "States Parks Act" on the November 2 ballot, proposes to increase vehicle license fees in California by $18 per year to raise approximately $500 million for a dedicated fund for the state's 278 parks.

Many recreational anglers are ardent conservationists who value California's state parks and want to see them well funded, well managed and well cared for. At first glance, it is easy to see why many might want to approve Prop. 21, but as an angler, it is important to take a deeper look into the implications of the State Park Act.

What many people do not know is that some of the money raised through the increased vehicle fees could end up funding the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which requires the formation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in California's coastal waters, including marine reserves which prohibit recreational fishing. The MLPA implementation process has been largely criticized by anglers, divers and others for its lack of true science and covert decision making.

The MPAs currently proposed under the MLPA would close or restrict recreational fishing access in prime locations along the entire coast of the state. For example, between Point Conception and the Mexican border, 16.6 percent of southern California's coastal and island waters may be closed to any consumptive activity, including recreational fishing. Your own money could be used to keep you out of your favorite fishing spots!

According to the allocation breakdown of the expected $500 million raised annually from the $18 car tax, approximately $35 million a year would go to the Department of Fish and Game for management and operation of lands, $20 million to the Ocean Protection Council, $10 million to state land conservancies and $10 million to the Wildlife Conservation Fund. State parks would receive $375 million per year, urban river parkways another $20 million and $25 million to local agencies for "lost fee revenue."

While not spelled out in the wording of Prop. 21, even members of the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) admit that some Prop. 21 money would be used to help fund the yearly cost of MPAs. During the October 20-21 FGC meeting, Commissioner Mike Sutton commented that "all will be well with the environmental world once Proposition 21 passes and there's plenty of money for the MLPA."

The sportfishing community is in favor of marine conservation based on sound science and proven fisheries management methods. What the sportfishing community does oppose is the closure of popular fishing grounds based on political agendas and rushed science, especially when it is funded by our own tax dollars.

Whether to vote for or against Proposition 21 is a decision that all Californians - and all outdoorsmen and women - must make for themselves. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans requests that you review the contents of the measure carefully and make your decision with all of the facts.