The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed a bill that seeks to extend Florida‘s existing state ban on shark feeding to federal waters up to 200 miles offshore. The Florida Safe Seas Actsponsored by Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Clermont)aims to reduce human-shark interactions and align federal law with Florida’s longstanding rules. However, the proposal has drawn strong opposition from shark tourism operators and marine scientists, who argue that the measure lacks scientific foundation and threatens a multimillion-dollar ecotourism industry.
The controversy surrounding the bill highlights the complex interplay between marine conservationpublic safetyand economic interests. As the debate unfolds, stakeholders on both sides present compelling arguments to support their positions.
The scientific perspective: a lack of evidence
Dr. Matt Ajemianan associate research professor at Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Instituteargues that the bill is not informed by robust scientific evidence. According to Ajemian, the available data does not strongly support the claim that provisioning sharks significantly alters their behavior in Florida’s waters.
“It’s a very interesting act. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be informed by scientific evidence“, Ajemian stated. He further explained that the number of sharks affected by feeding operations is relatively small compared to the overall population. Ajemian’s research suggests that shark dive operations, which typically occur in deep, offshore waters, have an “almost perfect safety record” and rarely overlap with areas where most shark-human encounters take place.
The scientist warns that banning offshore shark feeding could harm a valuable tourism sector without meaningfully improving safety. He emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decisions in marine species management and expresses frustration that the proposed measure was made without scientific backing.
The tourism industry’s concerns: economic repercussions and unfair targeting
Shark dive operators argue that the bill’s 200-mile feeding ban would make their businesses impossible to run. Tanner Mansellowner of Tanner Underwater Charters in Jupiter, calls the measure “absolutely ludicrous” and suggests that it appears driven by commercial fishing interests.
“It’s not based on science whatsoever“, Mansell said. He argues that sharks are far more conditioned by fishing activity than by tourism baiting. Moving trips 200 miles offshore, he contends, would mean heading into an “ocean desert” with inconsistent shark sightings. Mansell also criticizes the bill’s fishing exception, which allows large-scale chumming to catch and kill sharks while banning tourism feeding.
Jonathan Campbella shark feeder at Emerald Chartersshares similar concerns. He left a full-time job to commit fully to shark diving, describing his work as a combination of safe adventure and conservation education. Campbell points out that Emerald Charters has never had a client hurt by a shark in 30 years of operation and that its baiting practices involve small amounts of cut fish, drawing sharks well offshore.
“It’s frustrating that we’re being targeted while others who chum super close to shore are not“, Campbell said. He also criticizes the bill’s fishing exception, which allows large-scale chumming to catch and kill sharks while banning tourism feeding.
Economic implications and safety considerations
Critics of the bill argue that shark tourism creates ocean advocates, turning fear into fascination and fueling conservation. They contend that one live shark is worth far more to Florida’s economy—estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars—than its meat or fins. Supporters of the bill, however, counter that aligning federal waters with state bans is a common sense safety step, noting that similar rules already exist in Hawaii and certain U.S. Pacific territories.
With the bill now through the House, opponents fear it could wipe out Florida’s shark diving industry, forcing some operators to shutter and others to consider relocating to countries like the Bahamas—where competition and regulations may make relocation unfeasible. Dr. Ajemian sums up the frustration among scientists and operators alike, stating that “This is an overly damaging measure, with very little safety benefit. The ocean is a big place—operators need to do what they need to do to survive.”
