H.R. 3831 amends Section 317 of the Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1866) to change a statutory reference from singular to plural and to insert "and Florida" after "Hawaii." The mechanical change makes the statute cover more than one State and explicitly extends the existing federal prohibition on feeding sharks to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Florida.
That narrow amendment has practical reach: it places activities that attract or provision sharks in federal waters off Florida under the Magnuson‑Stevens enforcement framework. The change matters to dive operators, charter services, researchers, and federal managers because it substitutes or supplements state and local approaches with a uniform federal ban in the EEZ and relies on existing federal enforcement mechanisms without creating new funding or exceptions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 16 U.S.C. 1866 (Section 317) by replacing the singular phrase "the State" with "the States" and adding "and Florida" after "Hawaii," thereby prohibiting feeding sharks in the EEZ seaward of Florida under the existing federal statute.
Who It Affects
Recreational and commercial operators that provision or chum sharks in federal waters off Florida (charter dive vessels, ecotourism operators), researchers who conduct in‑water baiting in the EEZ, and federal enforcement agencies (NOAA Fisheries/Secretary of Commerce) that administer Magnuson‑Stevens enforcement.
Why It Matters
The amendment brings Florida’s adjacent federal waters into the same federal prohibition currently applied to Hawaii, clarifying legal exposure for actors working in the EEZ and creating a federal standard that can override or coexist with state and local rules in those federal waters.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill is deliberately narrow: it changes one statute so that the federal ban on feeding sharks that currently identifies Hawaii also names Florida. Practically, the text does two things at once: it makes the statutory reference plural so more than one State can be named, and it appends Florida to the list.
The effect is not to rewrite Magnuson‑Stevens but to fold Florida’s adjacent federal waters into an existing federal prohibition.
The prohibition applies in the exclusive economic zone off Florida, meaning federal waters seaward of whatever baseline and state territorial sea bound the State. That creates a jurisdictional line: activities that occur in state waters remain subject to state and local law, but the same conduct in the EEZ becomes a federal matter under the Magnuson‑Stevens enforcement authorities administered by the Secretary of Commerce (NOAA Fisheries).Because the bill is an amendment and contains no funding or express exceptions, enforcement will use the existing violation, penalty, and citation mechanisms already in Section 317 and related Magnuson‑Stevens provisions.
That raises immediate implementation questions—how agencies detect and prove feeding in open water, how to treat scientific or permitted baiting, and whether operators will alter behavior by shifting activities shoreward into state waters.For operators and compliance officers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: if your vessel or business conducts shark provisioning, chumming, or guided interactions in federal waters off Florida, those activities will be explicitly covered by a federal prohibition and subject to federal enforcement under Magnuson‑Stevens once the amendment takes effect.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 317 of the Magnuson‑Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1866).
It replaces the singular phrase "the State" with "the States," enabling the statute to list multiple states rather than only one.
It inserts the words "and Florida" immediately after "Hawaii," making the federal shark‑feeding prohibition apply explicitly to the EEZ off Florida.
The prohibition created (or extended) by this amendment applies only in the exclusive economic zone — federal waters seaward of state territorial waters — not in state inland or territorial waters.
The amendment is purely statutory language change: it does not appropriate funds, add new enforcement tools, or create express research exemptions; enforcement will rely on existing Magnuson‑Stevens authorities administered by NOAA/Secretary of Commerce.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: "Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025." This is a standard captioning clause and does not affect substance or enforcement; its inclusion makes the bill easy to cite in later rules, guidance, or litigation.
Make the statute plural and add Florida
This is the operative change. By striking "the State" and inserting "the States," the text removes a grammatical constraint and permits Congress to list multiple states subject to the provision. By inserting "and Florida" after "Hawaii," the bill puts Florida on that list, so the statutory prohibition that applied to Hawaii will also apply to the EEZ adjacent to Florida. The change is literal and immediate: no regulatory rulemaking is required to change the statutory text, though agencies will need to translate that text into compliance guidance and enforcement practice.
Jurisdictional and enforcement implications
The statute governs conduct in the exclusive economic zone; that means the federal prohibition will reach activities beyond the state territorial sea. Enforcement, fines, and compliance processes will therefore be handled under the Magnuson‑Stevens framework (civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms already in federal fisheries law). The bill does not create permits, carve‑outs, or funding for monitoring, so agencies must adapt current enforcement plans or shift resources to implement the expanded coverage.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Coastal public safety officials and beachgoers — The federal ban aims to reduce human‑shark interactions in federal waters adjoining beaches, simplifying the legal standard for incidents occurring seaward of state boundaries.
- Non‑provisioning dive and tour operators — Operators who avoid shark feeding gain a clearer regulatory playing field because competitors who attract sharks in the EEZ would be subject to federal prohibition.
- Shark conservation and wildlife managers — The prohibition reduces incentives for conditioning sharks to associate humans with food in federal waters, which managers argue lowers risk to wildlife and helps preserve natural behavior patterns.
- State and federal fisheries managers — The amendment clarifies federal authority in the EEZ off Florida, removing ambiguity that can complicate coordination between state and federal agencies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Charter dive companies and ecotourism operators that feed or chum sharks — Businesses that use feeding to guarantee shark encounters will face loss of a revenue stream or the need to modify business models when operating in the EEZ.
- Recreational operators and anglers who provision sharks in federal waters — Individuals who bait or provision sharks for sport or viewing will face federal enforcement exposure where previously only state regulation applied.
- Federal enforcement agencies (NOAA Fisheries/Department of Commerce) — The bill expands the geographical scope of a federal ban without providing funding, potentially increasing monitoring, investigation, and prosecution burdens.
- Scientific researchers conducting in‑water baiting or experimental provisioning — The statute contains no express research exception; researchers will need to review whether existing permits or authorizations cover their activities in the EEZ or if they must seek separate approvals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: protect public safety and unconditioned shark behavior by banning feeding in federal waters versus preserve economic activity, scientific study, and operator flexibility that rely on baiting to create predictable wildlife encounters. The bill solves the safety‑and‑conservation side by extending a federal prohibition to Florida’s EEZ, but it does so without clarifying definitions, exceptions, or funding — shifting the burden of resolving the operational tradeoffs to agencies, courts, affected businesses, and researchers.
Two practical ambiguities will drive implementation and litigation. First, the statute’s operative terms — what constitutes "feeding" or "provisioning" — are not defined in this amendment.
Agencies will need to interpret whether chumming, deployment of bait near dive sites, or intentional attraction counts as prohibited conduct, and how to establish intent. That interpretive work creates room for uneven enforcement and procedural challenges when agencies and defendants disagree about the facts necessary to prove a violation.
Second, the bill expands federal reach without addressing resource or coordination gaps. Enforcement in the EEZ requires vessel monitoring, evidence collection at sea, and intergovernmental coordination.
The statute adds targets for enforcement but not the funding, guidance, or permitting mechanisms that would reduce compliance costs or give researchers and operators a clear pathway to lawful activity. Finally, by changing "the State" to "the States," the text invites future incremental additions that could generate a patchwork of state‑specific federal bans rather than a uniform national rule; that incrementalism may be sensible politically but complicates long‑term industry planning.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.