Sharks Are More Valuable as Tourist Attractions Than Soup

More sharks are caught yearly than is sustainable, but efforts to mitigate those losses have been met with opposition for decades. That tide is slowly changing, which a new study could help: according a new study published in Oryx, the shark tourism industry could produce more revenue per year than does shark fishing. In other words, sharks are worth more in the water than on our dinner tables.

It's important to note that shark tourism, which is still a relatively nascent industry, isn't worth more than shark fishing just yet. The authors write that a around 590,000 shark watchers spend $314 million per year, while global shark fisheries are worth around $630 million per annum.

But the devil's in the details: the annual value of shark fishing has declined, in part due to a decade of decline in fishing volume—which isn't reflective of demand, which remains high, especially in Asia. Meanwhile, the authors cite studies suggesting the global number of shark watchers could double by 2033, which would generated a project $780 million in revenues.

So yes, the assessment that shark tourism is more valuable than shark fishing is based off of projected trends. But here's the upshot: stricter fisheries management and more marine sanctuaries that support tourism will help guarantee sharks' futures, as well as the future of both lucrative industries. Continuing down the path we're on means sharks will continue to decline until species begin to disappear, and eventually both industries will collapse.

Making an argument for species protection based on their monetary value can be a slippery slope. For one, not all species offer directly quantifiable benefits to humans, even though biodiversity as a whole is a key to healthy ecosystems. Additionally, expecting that animals must have monetary benefits in trade for protection is an argument twisted into justification for things like China's tiger farms.

But in this case, using the economic benefits of sharks to help justify for their protection does make sense. For one, the currently-unsustainable shark fishing industry doesn't have to remain that way; a sustainable shark catch is indeed possible, and highlighting to countries that they're losing money in the long term by having lax fishery management now is a good way to make changes, as fishermen aren't going to simply catch fewer sharks on their own volition.

Additionally, highlighting the tourism value of sharks could go a long way towards getting coastal nations to protect more of their battered, dying reefs. And, really, it doesn't matter if you're creating a marine sanctuary to protect sharks or sea slugs, as all the species living within those boundaries benefit. Of course, there is one damper on things: Tourism can be really rough on reef systems.

Still, when we're talking about the loss of top predators—which wreaks havoc on ecosystems—the choice seems like a no-brainer. And plus, cutting back on shark fishing in order to protect two industries is likely to end up worth more in the long run than fishing to the point of collapse.

@derektmead