Shark Case

Regon Brenner The scope of government is a continual question in society, when should the government get involved? And if so, how much should it be involved? When it comes to case 4.4 in Kettl’s these are pertinent questions. I do not think that there is a “shark problem” because sharks are a natural part of the environment and have been around longer than humans. According to the case, the risk of a shark attack is relatively low. That being said, it is not unreasonable for the government to take precautions regarding fishing in swimming areas because that way you can further reduce the risk of an incident. It should be up to the state and local governments to decide how to approach this. Then, when one state figures out the best course of action, others can follow the precedent. When it comes to the “campaign to kill the sharks,” as referenced in the case, that becomes an issue of the EPA, whose job is to protect the environment. This agency should prevent the killing of sharks as that could effect the ecosystem within the ocean. As far as how much control the government job has, I think it should be limited to state and local legislation to separate swimming and fishing areas but, also ensure that beaches are …show more content…
The EPA is a specialized agency that focuses on human health and the environment. This is how it clearly connects to Kettl’s mention of Gulick’s principles. The EPA has a purpose to protect the environment. The process they can follow, in this case, is by educating people and preventing the killing of sharks. Their clientele is swimmers and people who use the beaches. And that leads into the place, which is the beaches in the United States. This connection is also found in “The Proverbs of Administration” by Herbert A. Simon who also brings up these principles in his article. I think that this demonstrates the importance of these principles when designing public