The Ripple Effects Of Shark Overfishing

However, shark finning does not just endanger the different shark populations. Known as the ripple effect, the overfishing of sharks puts the entire ocean ecosystem at risk (Fairclough). Sharks, the top predators of the ocean, keep the marine ecosystems under control, so when their numbers are imbalanced, the entire ocean is as well. As stated by shark activist, and author of Jaws, Peter Benchley in an interview, “Without sharks, you take away the apex predator of the ocean, and you destroy the entire food chain” (Fleshler). Without sharks to regulate the populations lower on the food chain, species usually kept under control by sharks can run rampant. Without sharks, the sudden increase in the prey populations can then also take a

toll on the animals they then hunt, causing them to decline. When the marine ecosystem becomes unbalanced, then not only does the instability hurt the biodiversity of the ocean, but human fisheries as well (Fairclough).
Furthermore, a large incentive presents itself to fishermen to hunt sharks, whether legally or illegally. The shark market lasts as a lucrative industry; in fact, “an estimated $9 billion [in profits] of illegal fishing occurs yearly” (“State of Sharks”). Most fishermen also prefer to take only the fins, rather than bring the whole carcass to port. This fact is because not only is the fin more valuable than rest of the shark, at up to $500 a pound, but fins take up a significantly less amount of space (Fairclough). Fishermen can then make more money despite having the same amount of space on board because of the compactness of fins.
Furthermore, the shark is invaluable to the ecosystem.

Studies suggest that a “live shark, over the course of its lifetime, is worth $1.6 million, which is a great deal higher than the $200 the dead shark can sell for” (Fairclough). This statement holds true because of shark ecotourism, or shark-related activities such as shark viewing, is an industry that is expanding rapidly. If people would instead invest in shark ecotourism rather than shark fisheries, business would be far more profitable: “Shark ecotourism currently generates more than $314 million worldwide and is expected grow to $780 million in the next 20 years” (McGuire). For example, “a single whale shark fin can fetch up to $15,000 in some Asian markets,” but in stark contrast, the annual profit made worldwide from whale shark viewing "brings in an estimated $47.5 million” (Williams). When compared whether shark finning or shark tourism reap more profit from an economic standpoint, then it is clear that a live shark is more valuable than its fins. Furthermore, both industry and sharks alike would benefit from shark ecotourism, without the damage caused by shark finning

(Fairclough).
Due to common fear and misconception of these animals, many do not care about shark finning and/or shark endangerment.

If anything, they may interpret the act as a just course of action. If shark numbers are to make a significant recovery, then the public requires education. Recently, in order to stop shark finning, shark advocates have tried new methods. With the help of many celebrities and the public alike, conservationists continue to advocate the negative aspects of shark fin soup in order to decrease the demand for the dish. They hope to make the consumption of shark fin “socially unacceptable” (Tsui). Instead of trying to create international bans on shark finning, these groups, such as WildAid, believe that by changing public opinion, the desire for shark fin products will go down. Because shark fin soup represents status and prosperity, hosts at formal celebrations want to impress their guests with the expensive dish. But if shark fin soup falls out of favor in the public eye, the demand for it will naturally lessen. Instead, more sustainable products, such as French wine, can replace shark fin soup to serve to guests

(Tsui).