We suggest that you choose 2 main points  for each of your letters.

Please customize your letter in your own words. Brief introductory paragraph: "I want to write to register my concern regarding the Southern California Marine Life Protection Act implementation." or something similar.

I wish to point out that these closures appear to be designed to completely shut down fishing activities based on ideology instead of reasonable protection in view of social/economic impact to the public. I am a fisherman/spearfisherman and closing Northern Palos Verdes in the manner proposed will effectively eliminate the best shore-based and kayak-based fishing/spearfishing activities for all citizens of the South Bay. This closure will affect boating ownership, marina occupancy, and visitation to the coast for lawful fishing and diving and recreation purposes. These closures, which occur underwater, will not increase tourism to the area since most tourists do not go on the water or in it to recreate except to fish. By completely shutting down fishing in this area, there will be a disproportionate and undue social/economic impact on those currently using the resources for recreation or on businesses depending on it for a living.

Safe access for shore fishermen and divers- you can't be expected to swim 3 miles to traverse a closed area to get to legal fishing grounds. You can't be expected to cross that kind of distance in a kayak either. Note: Here is your chance to tailor the facts to your locality. For example you kayak fishermen should be able to argue that the distance from the only viable launch, King Harbor would be too far to any fishing grounds if North PV/rocky point closure is placed. In the afternoons, the NW winds and swells kick up and making the paddle back hazardous and impractical if one has to paddle 5-8 miles to begin fishing.

Cost: Nobody has said what this whole thing will really cost to MANAGE PROPERLY. We don't care much about what enforcement will cost.. You don't write tickets to poisons in the environment, you don't arrest foreign waterborne diseases that kill the environment.

WE AS FISHERMEN SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO PAY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF WATERS WE HAVE NO ACCESS TO. WE WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS ALONE, WE EXPECT THAT THE FUNDING MUST COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. They are the people who voted for this, they wanted this, they can PAY for this!

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO HABITAT AND FISH DECLINES:
Water Pollution
Water Temperature Changes
Resurgence of marine mammals, sea lions and sea otters
Ocean Acidification
Pollution from coastal streams
Pollution from Electrical plants and Desalination plants

THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT IS HUGE: Many Californians make their living on the sea and many more rely on the ocean for fishing recreation and these endeavors support a very large financial pyramid—lodging, boating, supplies, fuel, etc.

THE COST IS UNSUSTAINABLE AT THE CURRENT ESTIMATE OF 30-40 MILLION: The State is essentially bankrupt. The Department of Fish and Game admits is currently does not have the resources to manage the huge array of closures. The net effect is that honest fishermen will stay out of reserves, but poachers will not.

THE TAKE- NO-TAKE PLAN IGNORES FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR PREVENTING OVERFISHING: The array of reserves should not be a surrogate for fisheries management. If there is over-fishing, then the Department of Fish and Game is not doing its job

THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO DEPLEATED OR ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES IN THE AREA: When pressed, the Department of Fish and Game could not name one fish species that was depleted.

WHY DO ENVIROMENTAL PROPOSALS FOCUS ON THE MOST PRODUCTIVE HABITATS FOR CLOSURE? The environmentalists proposals focus on the most productive areas ( “A+ habitats ) for their reserves because they want the best habitat reserved for themselves. What they fail to realize is that these areas are the most productive and resilient and closing them will offer little net gain. It would be better to close some of the “B” habitat to let it become more productive—the net effect will be much greater

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT: Such successful programs such as fish propagation ( white seabass ) and artificial reefs are ignored in the process and these programs can go a long way to enhance the ocean waters off our coast.

Emphasize the personal historical importance the area has to you and your community for us the annual lobster opener when over 200 boats are out in north PV bond fires are on the beach it's a cultural event unique to our community ect.

Another particular to PV is the health effect to the citizens of the south bay
North PV has by far the cleanest water in all the Santa Monica bay. by closing this area to fishing you force people to fish within the bay where there are much higher levels of runoff pollution or fish south PV which is contaminated with DDT
thus it is a major health issue (this is also a major flaw with the scientific guidelines of the mlpa process that looks for the cleanest water areas to protect thus leaving poor water areas to the citizens who pay for use)

The south coast region is different from previous areas of MPA development in california due to the very large costal population density.  And as different methodology should be used to account for this fact.  Advocate closure of areas with poor water quality (from industrial pollutants and urban runoff) that still have good marine environment for biodiversity (rocky substrate large kelp beds).  These areas should be protected so that funds directed at latter MPA study can identify the culprits that reduce biodiversity.  State and private funds targeted for the MPA should be used to study the water quality more closely and identify the offenders who should then be made to pay the proper fines for pollutants.  If you protect and study the areas with the best water quality by the time there is a fall out in that eco-system in that region, nearby areas with poorer water quality may be already completely collapsed beyond repair. 

Also emphasize that recreational fishermen that pay state license fees to fish for consumption should have the right to consume the best quality fish available to them