Why save sharks?

Why should we make efforts to fund shark conservation in Ecuador ? For me this question has led me on a long journey already, a journey of discovery, both personally and ecologically. Back in 2003 whilst on a quest to expand my photographic ability and collection of images, I happened to stop off in a small town called Puerto Lopez in Ecuador , where I went on a diving excursion with the local diving centre, Exploramar Diving. The diving was impressive to say the least, and my desire to return and discover more there was fuelled.

As it turned out, a few months later I returned to Puerto Lopez to embark on further training in my diving career which I aimed to take to instructorship at some point. Fast forwarding almost four years and having gained instructorship, as well as collecting a wife and daughter along the way, with many months spent in that small town, it soon became apparent that there were many sharks to be seen in Puerto Lopez, daily in fact, being hauled dead from the small colourful pangas operated by the local fisherman. But it didn't take me too long to start asking myself why we never saw sharks whilst diving. Not one, solitary, single shark did we, or do we still ever see, whilst diving those places along the coast. Why?

I began to look into the bigger picture, and some elementary web searching led me to discover that shark decimation is a worldwide problem, with campaigns to try to prevent it headed by a handful of organisations dedicated to that cause alone. There are very few of the large conservation bodies, or even the media talking about shark decline. Pandas and orang-utans whimper much more cuddly cries of help, and the eco dollars follow. Sharks are deemed as innumerable monstrosities that patrol surfing beaches eating people. The truth could not be farther from the shore.

Whilst it would be foolhardy to suggest that sharks are cuddly, or that they don't occasionally attack people, when was the last time you saw a group of game rangers playing football in a lion's territory? Sharks invoke in us the same awe that we feel when we see a big cat. Mother natures prime suspect, fauna enemy number one. The fearful killing machine: sleek, muscle bound, staring-death-in-the-face instinct for us all to admire, fear and uphold as the worlds natural top of their respective food chains. But if we heard reports of roaming gangs killing lions, leopards and cheetah's wholesale, with not the slightest ounce of worry for looming extinction, or even concern for an honorary death for a revered, legendary animal, I suspect the global community would be reacting in a way somewhat more outraged than the feeble mumblings we muster over the seemingly endless and wholesale destruction of each and every shark species in the oceans.

But why worry, would we miss the sharks? Big cats provide tourist dollars because people can go on safari and see them, learn from a knowledgeable guide all about their lives, habitat, past and future, and then fall asleep in a luxury hut listening to that magical, primeval roaring only metres away outside. Appreciating sharks is a little more difficult. To go on a big cat safari one only needs to know how to sit still for a few hours whilst in the back of a topless jeep, and perhaps some insight into the workings of Imodium. To see a shark, and by that I mean populations uninfluenced by feeding shows etc, one has to embark on a relatively lengthy dive training process, and even then, sharks love of strong currents and far flung ocean locations means that even if one can afford the trip, it might be at least several months, even years diving experience, before one can consider going on a trip specifically to see them. Without wishing to put anyone off, it's not something one can do on a whim.

That said, not everyone who donates funding to save big cats or any animal or national park will perhaps ever go and see these things for themselves (although as we've become wealthier as a nation, then this becomes more likely). People donate to such causes for the knowledge that they are helping a greater cause, for the wellbeing of the animals and places that they see on the TV on those well made and beautiful programmes we do so well in Britain . The oceans receive less attention, probably because they are less accessible and less possible to film due to the complicated nature of their being. It is certainly not because life in the oceans is dull. Not that land ecosystems are less complicated, just that there are a lot less days at sea when there might be suitable filming conditions.

Amongst the small amount of mainly web based exposure that shark fishing and finning practices receive, it is oft quoted that sharks have a publicity problem. Shark attacks on humans make for more interesting reading than do human attacks on sharks. It is all very well bemoaning that, but such same articles simply quote that sharks are top of the food chain and fail thereupon to say why and what the effect will be if they are removed from the top of the chain. As with terrestrial national parks we need to address the health of the oceans as a whole. It is not possible to save an ecosystem without saving those at the top of the food chain, nor is it possible to save those at the top of the chain without saving the ecosystem.

There have been some recent studies that show that if you remove sharks from the food chain, then the middle predators become too predominant, and the reef becomes overwhelmed by these prolific species and the reef suffers badly as a result. The health of the reef is the thing that we need to be most concerned about. Reefs are the lungs of the ocean; they are home to many different types of micro-system, the homes within the home if you like. These places are where most fish species are born and where they grow unhindered by the great dangers of the ocean around about. To damage a reef is to damage the ocean, directly and without question. To damage and destroy shark populations is to directly damage the reef systems over which they hunt. Sharks make good reef gardeners, they are selective, low population predators, who keep the gentle balance of the reefs in the place it should be. Whilst sharks have a more powerful successor, man, these human super hunters are particularly bad reef gardeners and the only way they can control fish numbers is by over-fishing with nets and long-lines which damage a reef. Rather like trying to pick weeds amongst a flowerbed with a lawnmower. Failing that, they build a hotel nearby so that curious badly trained snorkellers can damage the reef directly with hands and fins. Humans can never replace sharks as guardians of the ocean.

Nature blessed sharks with a low reproductive rate so that they didn't overwhelm the reefs that they are there to protect. That same low fecundity is what threatens them now. The extremely slow reproduction of sharks (some species produce only 1-2 pups per year if they ever reach their late reproductive age) is unable to cope with such massive demand from the shark fin soup trade of the far-east, and numbers have plummeted by a shocking 98% in some species in only the last 15 years or so. It is estimated some 100,000 tonnes of shark are removed yearly worldwide.

If the reefs are the lungs of the ocean, then the oceans are the lungs of man. Estimates vary in stating that between 65% and 90% of all oxygen comes from there. If we continue to damage our oceans, and we damage them in many ways, not just through the destruction of their guardians, then what future do we face? The first studies warning of worries over CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere were published in the mid eighties. The first warnings of shark extinctions have only recently begun to be publicised, with still no serious airtime given over the subject. If this situation drags on for similar time, it will indeed be too late. Action is needed now and it is needed rapidly.

Many anti shark finning protesters state that more protection for sharks is needed because sharks are finned and thrown still alive back into the water, to die a slow painful death. I feel that banning finning will not give the sharks respite. The fishermen will continue to fish for sharks if finning is outlawed, just that they will keep the body onboard and sharks will continue to decline. It is exteremely unlikely that we will get a ban on all shark fishing worldwide, but we should be pressing our MP's or political representatives with urgent calls to increase legislation to maintain sustainability of present shark stocks.

In Ecuador , the fishermen bring the whole shark to shore. The fins are sold via traders to lucrative Asian markets and the bodies are sold for around 20 pence per kilo to the frozen fish product market. Unlike common portrayal from other parts of the world, the fishermen are not gun toting pirates. They are poorly paid, highly exploited people, living well below the poverty line in a society that pays little attention to their wellbeing. Options for them are extremely limited. It is unrealistic to expect them to drop their fishing nets overnight and understand that the world is in need of their immediate compliance. The solution is long term and complicated. If we don't start now on that long and winding road, then we may never be able to resolve this issue.

The shark populations that we have observed being landed on the coast are below reproduction age. At a certain time of the year, we observe large females, containing unborn young and sometimes even male and female pairs being landed. All this would suggest that these sharks are using coastal areas for reproduction purposes. Our greatest fear is that breeding populations from the Galapagos are leaving the archipelago to breed on the coast, so endangering this most famous of international shark reserves.

We aim to make two productions from the fundraising that we are embarking on. One production we hope to market in the UK and perhaps beyond, as a TV documentary to raise awareness of this problem to a wider audience. Secondly we aim to produce an educational DVD that we can distribute amongst fishing communities in Ecuador and perhaps beyond, so that these communities can begin to comprehend the problem.

For the sake of financial responsibility and accountability, I have joined forces with the NAZCA Marine Research Foundation in Ecuador . All monies raised will be accountable to them, and 5% of all funds raised for this project will go directly to NAZCA projects independent of this production. The NAZCA Foundation is Ecuador 's premiere marine research body and produces studies and work programmes of international importance for the equatorial pacific region. A full CV of their history can be downloaded for interested investment parties.