Redington Beach moves to scale back shark-fishing ban

Redington Beach is narrowing its ban on shore-based shark fishing to property owned by the town.Photo by The Pinellas Current.

REDINGTON BEACH — Another Pinellas beach town is backing away from restrictions on shore-based shark fishing after confronting the same legal issue that prompted neighboring Indian Shores to repeal its ban.

Redington Beach commissioners gave initial approval Aug. 24 to an ordinance that would allow state-permitted shark fishing from private property while continuing to prohibit it from property owned by the town. A second and final reading is scheduled for Sept. 9.

It's a notable step back from the ordinance commissioners passed less than a year ago. The existing measure prohibits shore-based shark fishing throughout the town's jurisdictional waters, regardless of whether an angler holds a state permit.

A sign on Redington Beach warns that shore-based shark fishing is prohibited. The town is considering scaling back the ban less than a year after adopting it.Photo by The Pinellas Current.

Now, the town says Florida law may not allow it to go that far.

The proposed ordinance acknowledges that state law “generally preempt[s] the power to regulate the taking or possession of saltwater fish to the State,” while allowing local governments to prohibit saltwater fishing from property they own for public health, safety or welfare reasons.

It also notes that similar ordinances elsewhere in Florida have been repealed or revised because of preemption arguments and concerns about litigation.

Under the revised measure, a person with the required Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permit could fish for sharks from property not owned by Redington Beach.

But the ban would remain in place on town-owned property, even for anglers holding state or federal permits.

The initial action comes less than a week after Indian Shores repealed its shark-fishing ban.

The Pinellas Current reported earlier this month that Indian Shores' ban had become a model for several other Pinellas beach communities before the town concluded that its own ordinance ran afoul of state preemption law.

Indian Shores adopted its precedent-setting ban in 2023, after a dead 10-foot pregnant tiger shark washed ashore. But officials reversed course Aug. 19 after Town Attorney Noah Daiker concluded its prohibition was broader than state law allowed because it extended beyond property owned by the town.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regulates saltwater fishing statewide, with the limited exception for local government-owned property.

But Redington Beach went beyond that exception when it adopted its shark-fishing ban in December.

Redington Beach commissioners are moving to scale back the town's shore-based shark-fishing ban after questions arose about the limits of local authority.Photo by The Pinellas Current.

Before the ordinance was drafted, Town Attorney Rob Eschenfelder “confirmed that the Town has the authority to ban this activity from its beaches,” according to meeting minutes. Commissioners then directed him to prepare the measure.

The resulting ordinance prohibited shark fishing throughout Redington Beach's jurisdictional waters, not just on town-owned beaches.

The proposed rewrite removes the prohibition throughout the town's jurisdictional waters, replacing it with language allowing permitted shark fishing from property “not owned by the town.”

The town isn't abandoning all of its shark-fishing restrictions.

The rewrite keeps rules defining shore-based shark fishing and covering the gear and techniques involved. Those include restrictions involving long metal leaders, fighting belts or harnesses and methods of deploying bait offshore.

Redington Beach's move could also add pressure on Redington Shores, Belleair Shore and Treasure Island, which have similar ordinances.

Treasure Island has already drawn scrutiny.

FWC biological scientist Kyle Miller identified Treasure Island among local governments whose restrictions may exceed their authority under state law and warned that the provisions “could be challenged.”