119-HR-3831 Investigative Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

• What the bill does: adds Florida to Magnuson–Stevens Act §317 so it becomes unlawful to introduce food/substances to attract sharks in Florida’s EEZ except for harvest; current federal law applies this ban only off Hawaii and U.S. Pacific territories. [1]Congress.gov — H.R. 3831 (IH) — Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025 (bill text)
• Florida baseline: state rules already prohibit feeding sharks or other marine species while diving/snorkeling and ban chumming from beaches; operators have used federal waters just offshore to run baited-dive trips. [2]Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission — Feeding sharks and other fi…
• Economic stakes: shark-diving in Florida generates an estimated $378M in total annual impact and ~3,800 jobs (all encounter-diving), with ~$217M tied to targeted shark dives; a federal feeding ban would chiefly affect the subset dependent on provisioning. [3]Oceana — The Economic Impact of Shark Diving in Florida (report)
• Safety and social context: NOAA discourages wildlife feeding; Florida’s hearing memo frames the bill as aligning laws to improve beach safety and provide relief to anglers. Global shark-bite risk fluctuates annually and remains low; no clear causal link to provisioning has been established. [4]NOAA Ocean Service — NOAA: What is ocean etiquette? (don’t feed wildlife)
• Environment: provisioning can increase sharks’ site fidelity and shift local species composition at feeding sites; ecosystem‑scale changes appear limited in the literature. [5]Biological Conservation (ScienceDirect) — Effects of tourism‑related provisioni…

Key metrics

Economic Effects

Primary impacts fall on offshore baited-dive operators; recreational and commercial fisheries may perceive benefits if depredation lessens, but causal attribution is uncertain.

• Florida shark-diving economics: direct spending and multipliers from shark-encounter diving produce an estimated $378.4M total impact and ~3,797 jobs; targeted shark-diving alone is ~$217.4M and ~2,180 jobs. Operators that rely on baiting in the EEZ (beyond 3 nm on Florida’s Atlantic coast) would face revenue losses unless they pivot to non-feeding models. [3]Oceana — The Economic Impact of Shark Diving in Florida (report)
• Industry adaptation: non-feeding wildlife tours remain permitted; some demand may shift to natural aggregation sites (e.g., wrecks, reefs) without provisioning, reducing but not eliminating revenue impacts. Evidence from other regions shows shark tourism without feeding can be viable but typically at lower encounter reliability. [6]Marine Ecology Progress Series — Shark and ray provisioning: responses across s…
• Angling and charter sector: Committee materials characterize the bill as providing relief to commercial/recreational fishers amid reports of rising shark depredation; NOAA likewise notes depredation as a growing conflict, though multiple drivers (effort, stock recovery, release practices) complicate attribution. Net fishery benefits from a feeding ban are plausible but not guaranteed. [7]U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources — House hearing memo: H.R. 3831 Flori…
• Cross-border displacement risk: a portion of high-spend baited-dive clientele could shift to The Bahamas, where shark-diving is a substantial industry (e.g., $113.8M total impact; ~$48.8M direct expenditures reported in separate assessments), redirecting economic activity out of Florida. [8]Biological Conservation (ScienceDirect) — The contemporary economic value of el…
• Compliance and enforcement costs: verifying positions relative to the state/EEZ line (3 nm Atlantic; 9 nm off Florida’s west coast) imposes monitoring burdens on operators and agencies; misreporting or navigation errors create compliance risk. [9]NOAA Ocean Service — What is the EEZ?

Social Effects

• Public-safety framing: NOAA cautions that feeding wildlife can habituate animals and disrupt behavior; Florida’s hearing memo similarly links the bill to safer beach and water use. The measure could reduce close human–shark interactions at provisioned sites near popular recreation areas. [4]NOAA Ocean Service — NOAA: What is ocean etiquette? (don’t feed wildlife)
• Shark-bite context: ISAF-reported unprovoked bites were unusually low in 2024 and returned near average in 2025; Florida typically leads U.S. incident counts due to high exposure, not necessarily provisioning. No consensus evidence ties baited tourism to regional bite rates. [10]University of Florida / Florida Museum of Natural History — Unprovoked shark bi…
• Community impacts: coastal dive towns (e.g., Palm Beach/Jupiter) with baited-dive niches face employment/income adjustments; benefits, if any, accrue diffusely to general beach users and anglers rather than to easily identifiable households. [3]Oceana — The Economic Impact of Shark Diving in Florida (report)

Environmental Effects

Ecological literature points to localized behavioral and community changes from provisioning; system‑wide impacts remain limited or uncertain.

• Behavioral shifts: provisioning increases site fidelity and changes movement patterns for some species (e.g., Caribbean reef sharks), concentrating animals at predictable sites. A ban would be expected to reduce such artificial aggregation over time. [5]Biological Conservation (ScienceDirect) — Effects of tourism‑related provisioni…
• Community composition: long‑term monitoring at a multi‑species feeding site documented increasing dominance by a few species (e.g., bull sharks) and reduced diversity at encounters—patterns a ban could moderate. [11]PLOS ONE — Long‑Term Changes in Species Composition at a Shark Provisioning Site
• Ecosystem scale: a 2015 review concludes provisioning effects are most evident at individual and local scales; evidence for food‑web or population‑level change is limited, so large ecological gains from a ban may be modest. [6]Marine Ecology Progress Series — Shark and ray provisioning: responses across s…
• Byproduct risks: reducing bait inputs may lessen localized nutrient pulses and competitive/aggressive encounters around dive boats, potentially lowering incidental injury risk to wildlife and divers. Empirical quantification remains scarce. [6]Marine Ecology Progress Series — Shark and ray provisioning: responses across s…

Temporal Analysis

• 0–12 months after enactment: immediate cessation of baited-dive practices in Florida’s EEZ; short‑run revenue hit for operators specialized in provisioning; limited, if any, detectable changes in regional shark‑bite statistics. [1]Congress.gov — H.R. 3831 (IH) — Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025 (bill text)
• 1–3 years: operators adapt toward non‑feeding encounters; localized shark aggregation near former feeding sites diminishes; any angler‑reported depredation changes remain confounded by effort and stock dynamics. [6]Marine Ecology Progress Series — Shark and ray provisioning: responses across s…
• >3 years: market re‑sorting (some tourism diverted to The Bahamas); steady‑state with fewer artificial aggregations and mixed evidence of fishery interaction changes. [8]Biological Conservation (ScienceDirect) — The contemporary economic value of el…

Unintended Consequences and Risks

Assessment

Analytical stance (not advocacy).

• Overall: neutral. The bill tightly targets a specific practice (baited viewing) already banned in Florida state waters and aligns federal and state regimes. Economic costs are concentrated among a small subset of operators; claimed fishery/safety benefits are plausible but not strongly evidenced. [2]Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission — Feeding sharks and other fi…
• Conditions to watch: operator adaptation rates; cross‑border trip leakage; depredation trend data in Florida fisheries; and monitoring/compliance capacity in near‑shore EEZ. [3]Oceana — The Economic Impact of Shark Diving in Florida (report)

Sourcing and method notes

• Bill text and legal scope: H.R. 3831 (Congress.gov PDF) and 16 U.S.C. §1866 (LII) for existing Hawaii/Pacific‑area ban and harvest exception. [1]Congress.gov — H.R. 3831 (IH) — Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025 (bill text)
• Jurisdiction: NOAA explainer on EEZ boundaries; FWC rule page on feeding prohibitions in Florida state waters. [9]NOAA Ocean Service — What is the EEZ?
• Economics: Oceana‑commissioned Florida shark‑diving impact study (2017) and Bahamas shark‑tourism economic assessments. [3]Oceana — The Economic Impact of Shark Diving in Florida (report)
• Safety context: NOAA guidance discouraging wildlife feeding; ISAF/UF annual reporting on shark‑bite trends (2024–2025). [4]NOAA Ocean Service — NOAA: What is ocean etiquette? (don’t feed wildlife)
• Ecological effects: peer‑reviewed studies on provisioning and behavior/community change (Caribbean reef sharks; long‑term multi‑species site) and 2015 review synthesis. [5]Biological Conservation (ScienceDirect) — Effects of tourism‑related provisioni…
• Stakeholder/committee rationale: House hearing memo summarizing objectives (“safer beaches,” “relief” to anglers) and National Fisherman coverage. [7]U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources — House hearing memo: H.R. 3831 Flori…