4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Jun 2, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The changes between v3 and v4 reflect the bill's procedural movement from the House of Representatives to the Senate, including updated legislative status and clerk attestation. There are no substantive policy changes in the bill's text.

H.R. 3831119th CongressIntroduced Jun 6, 2025

Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025

Passed HousePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11]
Committees: Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
Last action: Jun 3, 2026

Bottom line

The Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025 expands a federal ban on shark feeding from Hawaii's exclusive economic zone to include Florida's, aiming to protect both sharks and humans.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to explicitly prohibit the feeding of sharks within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coast of Florida. It achieves this by adding "and Florida" to a section that currently prohibits shark feeding in the EEZ off Hawaii, thereby extending the existing federal ban to a new geographic area.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that prohibiting shark feeding is crucial for public safety and marine ecosystem health. They contend that feeding sharks habituates them to human presence, leading to increased aggression, altered natural hunting behaviors, and a higher risk of dangerous interactions with swimmers, divers, and fishermen. Extending this ban to Florida, a state with significant marine tourism and shark populations, is seen as a proactive measure to prevent such incidents and maintain the natural balance of the marine environment.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that such a federal prohibition could negatively impact certain tourism-related businesses, such as shark diving operations that involve feeding for viewing purposes, which are a source of revenue for local economies. They might also contend that existing state or local regulations, or voluntary industry best practices, are sufficient, and a federal blanket ban is an overreach that could stifle economic activity without clear evidence of widespread harm from current practices.

The bill is extremely short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its direct legislative impact in a matter of seconds.

Section 2

Prohibition on Feeding Sharks in Exclusive Economic Zone Off State of Florida

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to make it illegal to feed sharks in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) adjacent to Florida. Previously, this federal prohibition only applied to the EEZ off Hawaii. By adding Florida to the existing language, the bill extends the same federal protections and restrictions to Florida's offshore waters, aiming to prevent human-shark interactions that could be dangerous or alter shark behavior.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupShark diving and tourism operatorsImpactPotential loss of business revenueMechanismDirect prohibition of shark feeding activities that may be part of their operations.ScaleLocalized, affecting businesses that specifically rely on shark feeding for tourism.

GroupMarine ecosystems and shark populationsImpactReduced habituation to humans, potentially restoring natural behaviorsMechanismEliminating a source of artificial food and human interaction.ScaleBroad ecological benefit for shark populations in Florida's EEZ.

GroupSwimmers, divers, and recreational water usersImpactIncreased safetyMechanismReducing instances of sharks associating humans with food, thereby lowering the risk of aggressive encounters.ScaleStatewide benefit for individuals using Florida's coastal waters.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this provision is a vital public safety measure, preventing sharks from associating humans with food, which can lead to dangerous encounters. They also contend it helps maintain the natural predatory behavior of sharks, contributing to healthier marine ecosystems by reducing reliance on artificial food sources.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that this provision could negatively impact specific tourism sectors, such as guided shark feeding dives, which contribute to local economies and offer educational experiences. They may also suggest that the impact of such activities on overall shark behavior or public safety is exaggerated, and that a federal ban is an unnecessary intervention.

Tradeoffs

The bill balances the potential economic benefits of shark feeding tourism against concerns for public safety and the ecological health of shark populations. It also navigates the tension between federal oversight and potential state-level management of marine activities.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.