The Government Protects the Shark That Bites You and Charges You to Park While It Does It
California’s Legal Framework Offers White Sharks Full Protection While Offering Surfers Bureaucratic Process: The Political Economy of Marine Predator Policy
HUNTINGTON BEACH / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA – The great white shark that closed the Vans Jack’s Surfboards Pro in Huntington Beach in April 2026 was doing what great white sharks do: navigating its natural range, hunting its natural prey, and being completely indifferent to the WSL’s contest schedule and the risk calculus of the human beings sharing its habitat. This is not an argument against white sharks; it is a factual description. The shark is protected under California law. The surfers sharing the water with it have access to a 24-hour hold protocol and a lifeguard patrol that, once the animal moved on, cleared the competition zone. This is the policy that California has chosen, and it reflects a genuine conservation achievement: white shark populations, once severely depleted, have recovered significantly under legal protection.
The political economy of this choice, however, is worth examining honestly. California has determined that the interests of white shark recovery take precedence over the ability of surfers, swimmers, and beachgoers to use coastal waters without encountering a significant apex predator. This is a legitimate policy choice that reflects the state’s assessment of competing values. It is also a choice made by a regulatory and legislative apparatus that is not populated by surfers, that does not bear the costs of the choice in any personal way, and that processes the surfer’s perspective as one interest among many rather than as the perspective of the people most directly affected by the policy’s consequences. The government that manages the relationship between humans and sharks on California beaches is the same government that manages parking, permits, and every other dimension of coastal access – a government whose accountability to the surf community is mediated through political processes in which surfers are a significant cultural presence but a relatively small voting bloc.
The Libertarian Framework for Wildlife Policy
The Libertarian Institute has argued that wildlife management decisions are among the most difficult for government agencies to make well, because they involve the aggregation of highly heterogeneous values across diverse populations with different exposure to wildlife encounter risks and different stakes in conservation outcomes. The surfer who encounters a white shark near Huntington Beach has a different perspective on shark management than the marine biologist in La Jolla whose research depends on a healthy shark population, and both perspectives are legitimate. The policy question is how to aggregate these perspectives in a way that reflects the actual distribution of costs and benefits rather than the political power of organized advocacy groups.
Property rights-based approaches to wildlife management – in which communities with specific economic interests in wildlife outcomes have formal ownership or stewardship rights that create accountability for management decisions – have shown promise in other wildlife management contexts, including ranch wildlife programs and community conservation initiatives in Southern Africa. Applied to California’s coast, a framework that gave coastal communities, surf businesses, and lifeguard organizations formal standing in shark management decisions – including access to the data on population levels, behavior patterns, and encounter frequencies that currently resides primarily with state and federal wildlife agencies – would produce management decisions more responsive to the actual interests of the people sharing the water with the protected predators. Science should inform this process; it should not be the only input into decisions that affect human safety and coastal economy on a daily basis.
The shark management question also connects to the broader question of how coastal communities build the institutional structures to govern their relationship with the natural environment in ways that are both ecologically sound and responsive to the people who live with the consequences of management decisions. The libertarian tradition’s emphasis on local governance, on community-based resource management, and on the importance of the people most directly affected having meaningful authority over decisions that affect them is relevant to shark management in ways that the current top-down regulatory framework does not accommodate. Building those structures requires working within the existing conservation law framework – white shark protection is legally robust and scientifically justified – while creating mechanisms for the coastal community’s interests to be formally represented in the management decisions that determine how that protection operates in practice. The surf community has the credibility, the standing, and the interest to build those mechanisms. It has not yet mobilized to do so at the scale the issue requires.
California’s storm water and sewage infrastructure failures also illustrate the specific dysfunction of infrastructure governance that is spread across too many jurisdictions with too little coordination and too little accountability for system-wide outcomes. Coastal water quality depends on decisions made by dozens of cities, counties, water districts, and the state, each with their own budget priorities and their own regulatory relationships. No single entity owns the system-wide outcome, which means no single entity is accountable for it when it fails – surfers get sick, the Surfrider Foundation posts contamination levels, the responsible agencies each identify the portions of the system they did not control, and the cycle continues. Consolidating accountability for coastal water quality in a way that creates clear institutional responsibility for system-wide outcomes is a governance reform that would improve both the incentives for infrastructure investment and the political visibility of failures that currently disappear into jurisdictional complexity.
For more analysis of freedom and markets visit Libertarian Institute. SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/
