A common valuation study question... how do we quantify the true value of a shark species, aren't aesthetic values subjective (or should be way higher)? This value is an incalculable amount of sorts. If we overestimate and drive the numbers to sums that we cannot back up with scientific papers and reported stats, then valuation reports will be dismissed as opinion papers that only serves advocacy. In orchestration of the reports, if there isn't a reference, we can't use it or else the whole report will be skewed. ⁠ ⁠ Although we agree that the species right to live is enough of an argument to skyrocket their value, the people that make decisions about shark conservation and fisheries management often do not care about the rights of nature or sustainability. It is economic numbers that matter to them. Therefore, the valuation reports need to be solid financial reports that use numbers that can be backed up so they can't ignore them. ⁠ ⁠ The reality is that we need tools to better argue for the protection of sharks, and beauty, balance, and empathy don't get us there. As it is, we predict that many people will dismiss the aesthetic value portion of the reports.⁠ ⁠ photo by @joshmunoz