Sharks worth more in seas than in soups, study finds

A study of 70 fisheries and ecotourism sites in 45 countries found that sharks make more money as tourist attractions than as food.   

|
Shawn Heinrichs
Shark ecotourism currently generates more than $314 million annually, according to researchers from the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Sharks that are free to swim around in their natural habitats are a valuable part of tourism around the world, a new study finds, which suggests sharks are worth more in the world's oceans than they are on restaurant menus.

The new research provides evidence of the value of conservation against the rampant killing of sharks for food, said study lead author Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor, a Ph.D. candidate in the fisheries economics research unit at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada.

A team of scientists pored through data from 70 sites in 45 countries to compare how much money is generated each year by fisheries that fuel the global shark fin trade, and how much is generated by ecotourism, which encompasses all forms of shark-watching activities.

Currently, shark ecotourism brings in $314 million annually worldwide, and this sector is expected to continue growing. Surges in shark tourism are particularly evident in the Caribbean and Australia, the researchers said.

"That figure is projected to double to over $700 million per year within the next 20 years," Cisneros-Montemayor told LiveScience.

In comparison, the landed market value (which refers to the market value of goods on the day they are offloaded from a vessel) of shark fisheries around the globe is $630 million per year, but has been in decline over the past 10 to 15 years, the researchers said. [On the Brink: A Gallery of Wild Sharks]

Approximately 38 million sharks are killed each year to meet the demands of the controversial shark fin industry, which uses the fins to make shark fin soup, a dish that is considered a delicacy in some Asian countries. Sharks are often thrown back into the ocean to die after their fins have been removed.

But, there are other important reasons to promote shark conservation beyond economics, Cisneros-Montemayor said. For one, sharks play a vital role in the ecosystem of the oceans.

"Studies have found that if you remove top predators, like sharks, you change the structure of the ecosystem itself," he explained. "This significantly changes the ecosystem, and it puts you in danger of all kinds of bad things happening."

For one, sharks keep the ocean's complex food webs in balance by feeding on aging or slower populations of fish. This keeps fish species lower down on the food chain from becoming too populous, or from overfeeding on their respective prey. Without sharks, this delicate system could collapse, Cisneros-Montemayor explained.Shark conservation efforts are also imperative in order to ensure the health of the species, the researchers said.

"Sharks are slow to mature and produce few offspring," study co-author Rashid Sumaila, director of UBC's Fisheries Center, said in a statement. "The protection of live sharks, especially through dedicated protected areas, can benefit a much wider economic spectrum while helping the species recover."

The results of the study were published Thursday (May 30) in Oryx – The International Journal of Conservation.

Follow Denise Chow on Twitter @denisechow. Follow LiveScience @livescienceFacebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Sharks worth more in seas than in soups, study finds
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0603/Sharks-worth-more-in-seas-than-in-soups-study-finds
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe