I have read this blog post here about this thread here and I have read all 158 comments. So far my assessment of the two most viable release methods are summarized as follows:
The release method advocated here on sfsc is to manually revive the shark by moving the shark relative to the water it is in, thus helping the shark's respiration by increasing its blood oxygen levels and decreasing its blood CO2 levels back to a natural state. Lactic acid buildup is dealt with by wagging the shark's tail in broad, sweeping strokes.
The release method advocated by a small sampling of the blogger-scientific community is the following recommendation:
*In cases where a hammerhead is positively identified early in the catch process, the angler needs to make a judgement call about whether or not to cut the line long, knowing that every extra minute spent trying to reel in the line decreases the chance of the hammerheads survival, but that trailing line may also be detrimental to survival.
**In cases when a hammerhead is identified late in the catch process, after a prolonged fight has already taken place, the methods employed by Mark to walk and revive the shark before release are preferred, but the shark should not be taken out of the water and extra time should not be wasted measuring and posing for pictures (but there ain’t nothing wrong with getting a few snapshots during the revival process, provided it doesn’t detract from getting the animal back in the water).
There were a lot of toxic emotions over there in that discussion, and nothing good ever comes out of heated exchanges nor uncivil debates on matters which can polarize people into two "groups" of us verses them. That particular adversarial setup defeats the purpose we should all nobly pursue--i.e. truth verses untruth, which is why I recommend we resolve this debate on our own. It is the sharks who will be the beneficiaries of whoever discovers first what is the most viable method of releasing the finicky, willing-to-die hammerhead sharks.
Imagine if we were all doctors and that sharks were our patients. Imagine after our patient gets out of the operating room off the surgery table, that we spend only 20 minutes with them during their post-op recovery care, and then watch them walk 50 feet down the hall and walk out the exit. Do we really know if they survived once they became out of our sight? No, of course we don't; but, neither do the scientific-bloggers, who went as far as to erroneously say this:
As soon as you identify the animal on the other end of your line as a scalloped or great hammerhead shark, cut the line with as little line attached to the shark as possible.
Obviously this minimizes their risk of death from CO2 & lactic acid issues, but it leaves uncertainty about the shark dying directly or indirectly from having lots of fishing line dragging behind him. The hammerhead sharks would gladly tell us which method is best, but it's not up to them. It's up to us! (in fact, if there are no takers, then it is up to little ole me, to catch a hammerhead somehow and perform the first test trials and report back here to the forums with my results!)
I will dig a 3/0 circle hook into the thick part of the shark's back and then connect it to about 200 feet of 17# fluorocarbon fishing line, connected to a contraption of 10-20 floating corks all linked one to another, in series so that the very last cork will almost surely be above water for the most part. Then on the last cork, I will attach some of the lightest, featherweight line as possible and connect the final cork to a series of 10-20 helium balloons about 100 feet into the air, all tied one to another in pretty much the same fashion as I tied the floating corks together:
..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._..._...ㅇ...ㅇ...ㅇ...ㅇ...ㅇ...ㅇ...ㅇ...
(corks linked parallel, in series) (balloons linked parallel, in series)
And, according to this video, it looks like their experiment was not set up to carefully examine the claims they have made. It only shows lactate & CO2 concentrations as a function of fighting time, rather than mortality rate as a function of fighting time. If there is a link between fighting time & lactate/CO2 levels, and a link between lactate/CO2 levels & mortality, then they have to prove both steps rather than only the first step.
If we at sfsc are advocating our method of catch & release, then the onus is on us to demonstrate that the shark survives under our method. If the scientific bloggers want to test & prove that hammerhead sharks can happily survive with 50+ feet of 200# test monofilimant on top of a heavy wire or cable leader, then the onus is on them to devise a means to test their hypothesis, rather than lazily recite "based on scientific data" or "based on opinion from colleagues in the ivory tower". The only helpful, baseline statistics I could gather from their study is that 11 out of every 18 hammerheads survive if you don't try to revive them after de-hooking.
If both sides are at an impasse, then why not conduct our own study and devise a simple, low-cost method of gathering primary data about shark mortality? The jury is still out, and I'm not convinced that either side has made the case strong enough to convince me yet. The problem with the arguments from sfsc is that we don't truly know what happens after the shark swims off. The problem with the arguments from the scientific bloggers is that they assume direct & indirect deaths from line & leader are basically negligible, which has been contradicted by stories from shark fisherman who have observed shark deaths caused by unremoved fishing line.
Feedback, thoughts, comments?
(also, if this idea is controversial, can a mod please move it to the private forum?)