HR-3831-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Daniel Webster (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would make it unlawful to introduce, or attempt to introduce, food or any other substance into U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters seaward of Florida for the purpose of attracting sharks, unless the purpose is to harvest sharks. The EEZ extends from the edge of Florida's state waters (roughly 3 miles in the Atlantic, 9 miles in the Gulf) out to 200 miles offshore. Two exceptions apply: (1) federally funded research programs, and (2) feeding that NOAA or state law determines presents no public health hazard or safety risk.
Who benefits
Swimmers, divers, and beachgoers off Florida's coast who may face reduced risk of shark encounters. Florida's coastal tourism industry broadly, including hotels, beach businesses, and recreational fishing operators who depend on safe ocean conditions. Commercial and recreational fishermen who argue that conditioned sharks alter natural behavior patterns. Florida state and local governments that bear costs of shark-related incidents. Residents of coastal Florida communities.
Who is hurt
Shark diving tour operators and ecotourism businesses whose commercial model depends on attracting sharks for paying customers — an industry estimated to generate significant revenue in Florida waters. Marine wildlife photographers and videographers who use chumming to capture footage. Independent marine researchers who rely on non-federally funded grants or private funding, who would not qualify for the federal appropriations exception. Shark conservation advocates who argue that regulated feeding supports public appreciation and protection of sharks.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that shark feeding artificially conditions sharks to associate humans with food, increasing the likelihood of aggressive encounters with swimmers and divers who are not part of feeding activities. They contend that Florida accounts for a disproportionate share of U.S. shark bites annually, and that federal regulation of the EEZ is necessary because state waters (extending only 3–9 miles offshore) leave the vast majority of Florida's adjacent ocean unregulated on this issue. They further argue that the bill's exceptions for federally funded research and NOAA-certified safe activities preserve legitimate scientific and commercial uses.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the evidence linking recreational shark feeding to increased unprovoked shark attacks on uninvolved swimmers is limited and contested, and that the bill would eliminate a lawful, economically productive ecotourism industry without a demonstrated public safety payoff. They contend that the bill's safety exception — delegating the "no public health hazard" determination to NOAA — is vague and could be applied inconsistently, creating regulatory uncertainty for businesses. They further argue that the research exception's restriction to federally appropriated funding unfairly excludes privately or foundation-funded scientific work, potentially impeding legitimate marine biology research.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate activity in the EEZ rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has long supported federal fisheries and marine resource management. Post-Loper Bright (2024), NOAA's discretionary determination of what constitutes "no public health hazard or safety risk" under the bill's exception would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than automatic deference, potentially creating ambiguity in how broadly or narrowly the exception is applied.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to regulate shark feeding in the EEZ; NOAA is granted discretionary power to determine safety exceptions, subject to post-Loper Bright independent judicial review of any rulemaking.
Historical precedent
Florida state law has previously regulated shark feeding in state waters, and several other coastal states and U.S. territories have enacted similar prohibitions; this bill would extend an analogous framework into the federal EEZ.