The role of law in shark-based eco-tourism: Lessons from Australia

Sustaining marine wildlife tourism through linking Limits of Acceptable Change and zoning in the Wildlife Tourism Model

“…Protecting blue sharks and manta rays through a regional sanctuary would be a possible intervention and/or to review and restrict shark fishing in the area. Additionally, managing the shark diving activity through license system would be beneficial [39,58]. Marine protection seems especially important for Santa Maria, where shark and manta sightings have declined heavily and with it the satisfaction of users.…”

The economic role of sharks in a major ecotourism archipelago in the western South Atlantic

“…Thus, economic benefits achieved through shark diving in Noronha ($2.64 million USD annually) exceed the value attained by shark-diving industries established for years in such other places as South Africa (approximately $1.8 million USD annually; [6]). Considering that other species of mega-fauna, such as turtles and dolphins, account for the main interest in marine wildlife observation [37], and given that the diving industry in Noronha has not been driven by shark observation up to this point, this outcome is striking.…”

Determining the Role of Hand Feeding Practices in Accidental Shark Bites on Scuba Divers

“…The most common technique for allowing tourists to see Great White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) and pelagic sharks such as the Silky (Carcharhinus falsiformis), Galapagos (C. galapagensis), Sandbar (C. plumbeus) and Tiger sharks (Galeorcerdo cuvier), either from boats or through scuba (and cage) diving, is known as 'chumming' [4,5,6]; it is also known in Australia as 'berleying' [7,8]. Chumming or berleying involves placing blood and/or liquidized tiny fish parts in the water to create an oily slick that sharks can sense and follow to the boat (or the divers) [5].…”