This can be a follow-up to my authentic article revealed June 20, 2026 – California to Ban Shark Fishing As We Know It. Since then I’ve spoken immediately with Craig Shuman, CDFW’s Marine Area Supervisor, watched the June 17 Fee listening to, reviewed the official CDFW presentation given to the Fee, and corrected a number of factual errors from my preliminary reporting. Western Outside Information picked up the unique article, which tells me this concern is resonating with anglers effectively past San Diego. This piece displays every thing I now know.
The Regulation — What It Says and What It Does
On June 17, 2026, the California Fish and Recreation Fee voted unanimously to approve an emergency regulation amending Sections 28.06 and 28.65 of Title 14, California Code of Rules. The regulation doesn’t explicitly state a California shark fishing ban, but it surely bans the mandatory gear to successfully goal sharks – wire or metallic chief and hooks bigger than 1.5 inches in inside measurement when fishing inside 1,000 yards of shore in ocean waters from Pigeon Level south which is basically your complete Southern and Central California shoreline.
One factor that wasn’t clear to me after I first learn the discover, however turned clear after talking with a representatives of the Fee and watching the June 17 listening to, is that this measure just isn’t solely about nice white sharks. The Fee’s acknowledged intent is broader: they wish to cease shore-based anglers from hooking and combating any shark giant sufficient to pose a possible danger to a close-by swimmer.
White sharks are protected and already unlawful to focus on – that regulation hasn’t modified. What this regulation provides is a de facto finish to the shore-based fishery for each different giant shark species that swims this coast. Sevengill sharks. Thresher sharks. Mako sharks. None of those are white sharks. All of them are presently authorized to catch and launch. And all of them can not be realistically focused from shore with out the wire chief this regulation bans. That’s not a aspect impact of the regulation. Based mostly on what the Fee has communicated, it seems to be not less than a part of the intent.
The regulation is anticipated to enter impact round July 4, 2026. As soon as efficient it runs for 180 days earlier than being reassessed. That 180-day assessment window is a vital element for California anglers.
Correcting My Preliminary Errors
My authentic article had a number of inaccuracies I must personal earlier than going additional.
There was a public listening to. I implied the regulation handed with no public enter alternative. That was incorrect. There was a public listening to on the June 17 Fee assembly. You may watch it right here: California Fish and Recreation Fee June 17, 2026 — CAL-SPAN, Merchandise 6.
The 1,000-yard scope. I initially stated the regulation utilized to all ocean waters. The right scope is inside 1,000 yards of shore. That is nonetheless basically each surf fishing location in Southern California, however I ought to have gotten it proper the primary time.
Shark Stewards didn’t write this regulation. CDFW’s Craig Shuman was clear that this was a CDFW and Fee-driven response to documented incidents, not a Shark Stewards initiative. I stand by the truth that Shark Stewards publicly praised the measure and pushed for even broader restrictions – that’s their very own acknowledged place – however the origin of the regulation itself was inner to CDFW.
These corrections matter as a result of accuracy is the inspiration of a reputable argument. Now let me inform you what I realized after these corrections that makes this example significantly extra troubling, not much less.
How This Regulation Was Born – 72 Hours
After watching the total June 17 listening to and talking with Craig Shuman, I now perceive how this emergency regulation really got here collectively. Craig described it himself.
It began with a message from a buddy and fellow fisherman. An awesome white shark had washed up useless from a fishing-related damage, and the message to Craig was basically: when are we going to do one thing about this? Across the similar time, Craig learn a forecast projecting a robust El Niño this summer time, which traditionally will increase the variety of juvenile nice white sharks close to shore in Southern California.
He determined to behave. He known as a number of folks. And in response to what was described, the core emergency package deal got here collectively in roughly 72 hours.
Seventy-two hours to assemble a regulation that impacts the fishing practices of tens of 1000’s of California anglers alongside your complete Southern and Central California coast.
That’s not a criticism of Craig’s intentions. After chatting with Craig, I really feel assured that he’s well-intentioned and that he’s combating by means of quite a bit to maintain fishing accessible to us as anglers. For that, I’m very grateful to Craig Shuman and your complete fee and all of us ought to be.
A useless white shark with fishing-related accidents is an actual downside. Will increase in juvenile nice white exercise close to crowded seashores pushed by El Nino. is an actual concern. However seventy-two hours to draft a coastwide gear restriction, with a choose outreach checklist, a single Fee listening to, and 4 audio system – all of whom supported the measure – just isn’t a course of that critically thought of the total vary of individuals this impacts.
The Outreach Record – Who They Known as and Who They Didn’t
The official CDFW presentation given to the Fee on June 17 lists the organizations contacted throughout outreach:
- All Waters
- California State College Lengthy Seashore Shark Lab
- California Surf Fishing
- Coastal Conservation Affiliation California
- Coastside Fishing Membership
- Fish On
- Golden Gate Fishermen’s Affiliation
- Sportfishing Affiliation of California
Eight organizations. And on the listening to itself, 4 audio system known as in with public remark. All 4 supported the measure. The Fee cited broad help from “these they reached out to” as a think about shifting ahead.
Right here’s what I would like you to grasp about that checklist.
Not a kind of organizations represents the surf angler particularly focusing on leopard sharks, soupfin sharks, or different smaller coastal shark species from the seaside. The outreach targeted closely on organizations related broader sportfishing pursuits. The folks most immediately and particularly impacted by a wire chief ban for smaller coastal shark species – the surf fishing neighborhood that has constructed a accountable, sustainable catch-and-release fishery round these animals – was not at giant made conscious of this.
The Fee’s presentation acknowledged that this regulation would have an effect on a “small group” of anglers focusing on soupfin and sevengill sharks from shore. That framing is incorrect in two instructions. First, it misses a whole fishing neighborhood that repeatedly targets leopard sharks, a species whose interactions with this regulation have been apparently by no means thought of – to not point out the bigger species of sharks that it impacts. Second, by limiting outreach to a choose checklist and holding a listening to with 4 supporting audio system, they painted a deceptive image of how “small” this group of affected anglers actually is.
I understand how giant it’s. After my authentic article ran, the response I acquired from anglers throughout Southern California was overwhelming. These folks exist. They fish legally and responsibly. They weren’t reached out to. They weren’t on the listening to. They’d no concept this was coming till the vote was already executed.
What the Presentation Mentioned – and What It Didn’t
The emergency was justified by these circumstances:
- Rising stories of juvenile white sharks close to shore
- 20 sharks hooked in a single day at Hermosa Seashore Pier
- A minimum of 3 hooked sharks killed this 12 months
- The 2014 incident wherein a swimmer was bitten by a shark that had been hooked by a pier angler
- A forecasted El Niño anticipated to extend water temperatures and white shark presence
These are actual details. I don’t dispute any of them.
What the presentation doesn’t include: any evaluation of the downstream influence on leopard sharks, soupfin sharks, sevengill sharks, or some other species affected by this regulation. No examination of what occurs to these fish when wire chief is faraway from the equation and break-off charges enhance. No consideration of the dimensions of the accountable catch-and-release fishery that targets these species from shore. No try to quantify what number of anglers could be affected past characterizing them as a “small group.”
They constructed the case for the regulation fully on the issue aspect of the ledger. No person was in that room to place numbers on the fee aspect.
What Really Occurred at Hermosa Seashore
Two incidents set this in movement.
On April 1, 2026, a 20-year-old named Kevin Phan by chance hooked a juvenile nice white from the Hermosa Seashore Pier, ran right down to the seaside, waded in, and bodily freed it. The video went massively viral. That created the cultural second that put white shark interactions at SoCal piers in entrance of thousands and thousands of individuals.
Ten days later, a bunch of 5 anglers arrived on the similar pier at 6am with entire mackerel on 1.5-inch hooks and proceeded to hook greater than 20 sharks over the course of the day. They claimed they have been makos. A nationally acknowledged shark knowledgeable who examined photographs stated not less than some seemed to be juvenile nice whites. The anglers have been reducing traces as an alternative of correctly releasing the fish — and people minimize traces, leaving hooks and monofilament connected to the sharks, are what resulted within the fishing-related shark deaths that triggered Craig Shuman’s name to motion.
Right here’s the half that doesn’t get examined sufficient: these anglers have been reducing traces. Not as a result of they’d wire chief. As a result of they have been on a pier with no approach to correctly land a big shark and have been selecting the quickest approach to finish the state of affairs. That conduct exists independently of substances sort. Banning wire chief doesn’t change the choice to chop a line. It doesn’t forestall the hookup. It doesn’t all the time forestall the shark from being delivered to the floor. It doesn’t forestall the road from being minimize.
What banning wire chief does change is what occurs for the 1000’s of accountable surf anglers focusing on leopard sharks and soupfins with correct deal with and real intent to land and launch. For these anglers, eradicating wire means extra break-offs, extra fish swimming away with hooks and trailing monofilament, and extra fishing-related accidents to the very shark populations the Fee says it’s making an attempt to guard.
The mechanism the regulation depends upon doesn’t hook up with the issue it claims to unravel. And it creates a special, bigger downside for a fishery it by no means critically examined.
The Peak Season Insult
Yet one more factor that deserves to be stated plainly.
The Fee justified the urgency of this emergency motion partly on the grounds that summer time is peak season for juvenile nice white exercise close to shore. That’s correct. Summer season can also be peak season for leopard sharks, soupfin sharks, and plenty of different legally fishable species in Southern California waters. These species are at their most lively, most catchable, and most modern within the surf zone throughout precisely the interval this regulation covers.
So the Fee is saying: as a result of that is an important time of 12 months for nice white administration, we have to act instantly. And the consequence is that an important time of 12 months for a authorized, sustainable fishery in the identical waters will get shut down by the identical motion. Not by the way, not as a reluctant trade-off acknowledged and weighed – simply as an unconsidered aspect impact of a regulation drafted in 72 hours.
You aren’t a aspect impact. This fishery just isn’t a aspect impact.
The Wire Chief Challenge – From Somebody Who Really Fishes This Method
I fish for leopard sharks and soupfin sharks from the surf year-round. In a typical 12 months I hook round 50. In robust years I’ve topped 100. Each single one in all them has been launched rigorously and safely. I’ve by no means focused a white shark. I’ve by no means come near touchdown one.
I did hook one, as soon as, accidentally. I knew instantly as a result of it went midway airborne. It rubbed by means of my mainline, not my wire chief, in about 15 seconds. My gear was to date under what that fish required that the interplay resolved itself virtually immediately. That’s not an argument. That’s a knowledge level. The gear I take advantage of for leopard sharks can’t land a fantastic white. I proved it with out making an attempt to.
Wire chief is what permits me to land the fish I’m really focusing on. Leopard sharks and soupfin sharks have tooth and tough, abrasive pores and skin. They roll and thrash in a struggle, and that pores and skin saws by means of monofilament repeatedly. With out wire, extra fish break off. Extra fish swim away with hooks of their mouths and line trailing behind them. Extra fish expertise the fishing-related accidents the Fee says it’s making an attempt to forestall – simply in species that no one in that Fee assembly was counting.
The Hook Dimension Restriction – Getting Worse for the Fish
The 1.5-inch most hook measurement will get much less consideration than the wire chief ban however deserves some.
My 7/0 to 9/0 circle hooks for leopard sharks and soupfins are smaller than the brand new restrict. However anglers focusing on sevengill, thresher, and mako sharks want bigger hooks applicable to these fish. Undersized hooks on giant sharks dramatically enhance the probability of intestine hooking and deep hooking – the outcomes that correctly sized circle hooks have been particularly designed to forestall. A regulation framed as decreasing shark hurt makes shark hurt extra possible for each angler focusing on bigger authorized species from shore. It additionally makes it extra harmful for angler unhooking caught sharks.
The Compromise Dialogue — And Why I’m Nonetheless Not Happy
In my dialog with Craig Shuman, we mentioned whether or not there’s a extra focused method. One concept: as an alternative of banning wire chief fully, set up most chief size and power limits. A brief, lighter wire chief is adequate for leopard sharks and soupfins however doesn’t present the heavy terminal deal with related to intentional white shark focusing on.
I wish to be clear about the place I stand. I don’t love this compromise. Any dialogue of a extra refined rule is price having, but it surely has to occur with real, open outreach to the total neighborhood of affected anglers – not a brief name checklist that produces 4 supporting voices and a unanimous vote.
My baseline place stays: each shark species with a wholesome and sustainable inhabitants ought to stay a authorized goal for California anglers. The burden is on CDFW to reveal with precise information why that ought to change, and to design rules which might be proportionate to documented issues slightly than handy to put in writing rapidly.
Our Proper to Fish – And the Sample We Have to Acknowledge
California’s structure ensures the folks the appropriate to fish. The state can regulate fishing for real conservation and security causes, and that authority is actual and bonafide. However the course of by which a regulation will get made issues as a lot because the regulation itself.
This regulation was assembled in 72 hours. Outreach went to a pre-selected checklist of organizations. Public remark on the listening to got here from 4 audio system, all supportive. The affected neighborhood – surf fishing anglers focusing on smaller coastal shark species – was characterised as a “small group” that apparently wasn’t price reaching out to immediately. The vote was unanimous.
The individuals who name in to Fee hearings in help of measures like this are organized. They know when the conferences are. They’ve relationships with company employees. They’re prepared to talk.
Most of us who fish legally and responsibly for leopard sharks and soupfins on the seaside at 5am had no concept this was occurring. We solely realized in regards to the regulation after it handed. The response I obtained from different anglers after my article ran tells me I used to be not alone. There’s a giant, engaged neighborhood of accountable shore anglers in California who have been merely not within the room – not as a result of they didn’t care, however as a result of no one advised them there was a room to be in.
That’s not a course of that represents the folks it impacts. And as soon as a restriction like that is in place, even quickly, the historical past of California fisheries regulation (and politics on the whole) suggests it’s way more more likely to be expanded than reversed.
What Comes Subsequent – The Conferences You Have to Be At
The regulation goes into impact round July 4, 2026. It runs for 180 days. That 180-day window closes in late December 2026, that means the Fee will determine whether or not to let it expire, lengthen it, or make it everlasting at their December assembly.
Each assembly between at times is a chance. Each Marine Assets Committee assembly is the place the shark regulation and MPA discussions stay. Each full Fee assembly is the place votes occur. The individuals who present up persistently are the individuals who affect outcomes. Those who don’t present up don’t get to complain when the entry they took with no consideration is gone.
Right here is the total remaining 2026 Fee assembly schedule. All conferences are open to the general public and may be attended in particular person, by webinar, or by telephone. The be a part of directions are posted to the Fee web site earlier than every assembly. Subscribe at fgc.ca.gov so that you get these notices immediately.
Full 2026 Remaining Assembly Schedule – fgc.ca.gov/Conferences/2026
| Date | Assembly | Why Anglers Ought to Care |
|---|---|---|
| July 16, 2026 | Marine Assets Committee | The shark regulation assessment — that is essentially the most pressing assembly on this checklist. Present up. |
| August 11, 2026 | Tribal Committee | MPA petition discussions associated to tribal entry and coastal fishing areas |
| August 12-13, 2026 | Full Fee Assembly | Main choices assembly — shark regulation standing, MPA petitions, common fisheries points |
| October 14-15, 2026 | Full Fee Assembly | The 180-day shark regulation assessment window closes round this time |
| November 12, 2026 | Marine Assets Committee | Marine fishing rules and MPA updates |
| December 14, 2026 | Tribal Committee | Continued MPA and tribal entry discussions |
| December 15-16, 2026 | Full Fee Assembly | Yr-end choices |
All conferences are held on the California Pure Assets Headquarters Constructing, 715 P Avenue, Second Flooring, Sacramento, CA 95814, with distant participation out there.
The MPA Risk – Why This Goes Past Shark Fishing
Whereas the shark gear restriction is the rapid struggle, it’s not the one one. For those who haven’t been taking note of the MPA petition course of already underway in California, you have to begin now.
Marine Protected Space expansions are already in movement. The Fee held a sequence of regional MPA petition hearings earlier this 12 months – in April for Northern California, in Might for San Luis Obispo by means of Santa Barbara and the Channel Islands, and in Might for Los Angeles by means of San Diego counties together with Santa Catalina Island. These petitions, if permitted, would develop no-take and restricted-take zones alongside vital stretches of California’s shoreline.
What does that imply for surf anglers particularly? Expanded MPAs can shut entry to productive fishing areas fully, limit particular gear sorts or species, and completely scale back the shoreline out there to anglers who fish from shore. Boat anglers can transfer to seek out fish. Shore anglers are caught fishing wherever the regulation permits.
The identical sample that performed out with the shark regulation – a comparatively quick course of, a choose outreach checklist, organized conservation voices on the desk, and a fishing neighborhood largely unaware it was occurring – is strictly how MPA expansions have traditionally moved ahead in California. The distinction this time is that you simply now know the sample. You recognize the assembly schedule. You know the way to point out up.
For those who fish Southern California seashores and don’t wish to see extra of them flip into no-fishing zones, July 16 is the place it begins. Subscribe to the mailing checklist. Present up. Hold exhibiting up.
The right way to Take part – Step by Step
Step 1 – Subscribe proper now – Go to fgc.ca.gov and join the Fee mailing checklist. You’ll obtain assembly agendas and bulletins immediately. It’s best to by no means once more discover out a few regulation that impacts you after it has already been voted on. Direct subscription hyperlink: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/CNRA/signup/35154
Step 2 – Mark each California Fee assembly in your calendar.
Step 4 – Attend and submit public remark – You do not want to journey to Sacramento. Each assembly has a distant participation possibility — by webinar or by telephone. The be a part of directions are within the agenda paperwork posted earlier than every assembly. When public remark opens, say your identify, say you’re a California angler, and share your expertise in two minutes or much less. Numbers matter: how usually you fish, what number of fish you launch, what number of years you’ve fished this coast. Be factual, be particular, be temporary, however be sensible.
Step 5 – Get different anglers to affix – The Fee heard 4 audio system on June 17. All 4 supported the regulation. The variety of anglers who present up at July 16 and each assembly after that may talk one thing about whether or not this neighborhood is organized sufficient to take critically. Share this text. Inform your fishing companions. Get folks on the mailing checklist
