Complex Human-Shark Conflicts Confound Conservation Action

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflicts are a growing phenomenon globally as human populations expand and wildlife interactions become more commonplace. While these conflicts have been well-defined in terrestrial systems, marine forms are less well-understood. As concerns grow for the future of many shark species it is becoming clear that a key to conservation success lies in changing human behaviors in relation to sharks. However, human-shark conflicts are multidimensional, each with different ecological, social and economic implications. Sharks have functional roles as occasional predators of humans and competitors with humans for fish stocks. In addition, and unlike most terrestrial predators, sharks are also important prey species for humans, being a source of animal protein and other products taken in fisheries. These functional roles are complex and often inter-dependent which can lead to multiple kinds of conflict. Shark management for conservation and human safety is also leading to conflict between different groups of people with different values and beliefs, demonstrating that human wildlife conflict can be a proxy for human-human conflict in the marine domain. Sharks are iconic species in society, being both feared and revered. As such human beliefs, attitudes and perceptions play key roles that underpin much human-shark conflict and future work to understanding these will contribute significantly to solutions that reduce conflict and hence improve conservation outcomes.

Fisher–shark interactions: A loss of support for the Maldives shark sanctuary from reef fishers whose livelihoods are affected by shark depredation

“…This may be exemplified in SSFs as the economic cost of depredation has direct impacts for individuals rather than operations (Smith et al, 2021), with even relatively small losses perceived to have a proportionally large impact on livelihood, leading to economic distress and prompting fishers to complain more about depredation (Gonzalvo et al, 2015). Moreover, 63% of the reef fishers in this study were former shark fishers, thus sanctuary regulations themselves could shape perceptions or be a proxy for human-human conflict (Iwane et al, 2021;Simpfendorfer et al, 2021), with reef fishing generating lower economic returns than shark fishing (Ali & Sinan, 2015).…”

“…Hunting and habitat modification has depleted predator populations throughout terrestrial and marine ecosystems globally (Estes et al, 2011), placing them at the forefront of conservation efforts. While recovery is the intent of interactions (Simpfendorfer et al, 2021). Such interactions result in substantial socioeconomic costs and safety concerns for humans (Nyhus, 2016) and can undermine conservation efforts due to retaliatory killing of threatened predators (Ontiri et al, 2019).…”

‘A human values issue’: Actors, arguments, and regulatory change in the Florida land‐based shark fishery

“…These uses, values, and perceptions are rooted in history, and so therefore are the associated conflicts (Rock, Sima & Knapen, 2020). Sharks themselves are also a focal point of contention – simultaneously representing an icon, competitor, predator, and food source (Skubel, Shriver‐Rice & Maranto, 2019; Simpfendorfer, Heupel & Kendal, 2021). Indeed, it has been hypothesized that human–wildlife conflict with sharks will increase as populations recover (Carlson et al, 2019).…”

Planning for Human-Wildlife Coexistence: Conceptual Framework, Workshop Process, and a Model for Transdisciplinary Collaboration

“…The wildlife and human axis combined define four archetypical representations (Fischer et al, 2017;Hartel et al, 2018) that cover all possible HWIs: (i) negative for both wildlife and people (left lower quadrant), like when endangered wildlife causes damage to people and preventive or retaliatory killing or harassment ensues (e.g., Das and Jana, 2018;LaDue et al, 2021;Simpfendorfer et al, 2021); (ii) negative for wildlife and positive for (some) people (left upper quadrant), as in overharvest associated with poaching or wildlife trade (e.g., Shepherd et al, 2017;Gomez et al, 2020); (iii) positive for wildlife (at the population level) and negative for people (right lower quadrant), as when abundant wildlife is a nuisance (e.g., Gamalo et al, 2019;Carpio et al, 2021); vehicle collisions and zoonotic diseases produce negative outcomes to people and are associated with both endangered and abundant wildlife (e.g., Pagany, 2020;Namusisi et al, 2021), therefore they belong in the two lower quadrants; and (iv) positive for both wildlife and people (right upper quadrant), like when abundant, native or exotic wildlife, is used in tourism (e.g., Macdonald et al, 2017) or sustainable harvest (e.g., Campos-Silva et al, 2017) (both, but most obviously the latter, may only apply to population-level parameters and not to individual-level).…”