The supposed “monster” this time around is a hammerhead (presumably a great hammerhead, based on its size), which is being reported at various lengths. The Daily Mail reports that the hammerhead shark weighs “one and a quarter tonnes” and is “20ft long.” Most other outlets are reporting the shark to weigh 1,200 kg and measure 5m (approximately 16′) in length. Researchers estimate the shark to be forty years old.

Various media outlets have reported that Hislop potentially will put the shark on display at his “museum.” However, MSN NZ quotes Hislop as saying, “I haven’t decided yet what I’m going to do with it.”

Hislop’s purchase has drawn criticism from some researchers and conservationists, including the Australian Marine Conservation Society. According to Australia’s ABC News, Ben Birt, a campaigner for the society, said that the specimen would be better off in an accredited museum to be used for research and education. Birt noted that shark would not likely be used in a positive manner at Hislop’s attraction.

According to the Courier Mail, Hislop had some “chilling news.” He claims that this is not the largest hammerhead he’s seen. “I’ve caught bigger,” said Hislop.

I’m not sure whether the implication was that Hislop’s statement was chilling due to the fact that larger hammerhead sharks exist or that Hislop was out there killing them. Hislop claiming to have caught larger hammerheads is hardly outlandish compared to some of the other statements that I’ve read from the man. However, it makes me wonder why he purchased the carcass of a hammerhead that was caught by somebody else, when he has personally caught larger ones.

A proposal introduced by the U.S. and Palau to protect hammerhead sharks (including the endangered scalloped hammerhead, great hammerhead, and the threatened smooth hammerhead) was defeated yesterday in Doha, Qatar at the CITES conference, according to an AP report. U.S. Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland said, “The greatest threat to the hammerhead is from harvest for the international fin trade and the fin of the species is among highly valued of the trade,” and that regional fisheries bodies have done nothing to regulate the trade of this species.

Opposition to the proposal, led by Japan and supported by countries dependent on the shark fin trade, argued, “it would be difficult to differentiate the hammerheads from other species and would deprive poor fishing nations of much needed income.”

The notion that it would be difficult to differentiate any of the three species of hammerheads from other species is laughable, at best. Hammerhead sharks have a very distinct appearance, hence the name “hammerhead.” The latter half of the argument seems like a valid one from a financial standpoint, but it is also a flawed argument when it comes to establishing regulations to keep hammerhead shark populations at sustainable levels. If “poor fishing nations” rely on income from harvesting these species, it would only make sense that regulating the trade of the species would be beneficial to those nations. If these species become extinct or reach near-extinction levels due to over-harvesting, where will that leave the fishermen and those whose livelihood depends on this particular trade?

As was the case with last week’s multiple marine species protection proposal defeats, at the end of the day money talks. The wealthier markets that import these shark fins sell them at a huge mark-up, while the fishermen of the “poor fishing nations” only end up with a tiny fraction of what the shark fins are ultimately sold to the consumer for. I wonder if the countries with the major markets for shark fins would be open to the idea of paying the “poor fishing nations” a much higher percentage of the fins’ market value, since they are clearly concerned with the livelihood of these poorer nations.

YouTube user DiveDownBelow posted this video, which was filmed at Sipadan, Malaysia. It’s refreshing to see a healthy school of hammerhead sharks in their natural habitat. Kudos!

• oceanic whitetip sharks
• scalloped hammerhead sharks
• smooth hammerhead sharks
• giant hammerhead sharks
• sandbar sharks
• porbeagle sharks
• spiny dogfish

While the article doesn’t really feature anything new or groundbreaking as far as shark conservation news goes, it is fairly well-written (aside from a lame Jaws theme reference) and does a good job of detailing some of the commercial practices that threaten shark populations, which the general public and regular readers of FastCompany might not have been aware of. More articles like this in mainstream (and other non-shark focused) media can only help to promote awareness about the need for responsible shark conservation efforts. Kudos to FastCompany and author Lydia Dishman.

The film which will be released internationally in the coming months, took 2 years of planning and 4 years of filming to complete. Advanced underwater-breathing equipment which allowed divers to film without expelling air bubbles into the water and new underwater filming technology were employed throughout the filming of the documentary which hopes to set a new standard for nature films. The film features marine life of all kinds, including footage of cage-less human and white shark interaction. Oceans also features footage of several other species of sharks including some great whale shark footage and some amazing schooling hammerhead footage.

Disney Nature will be bringing Oceans to the big screen in the U.S. on April 22, 2010.

“They’re dangerous. They eat people, and people like that.”

I’m hoping the part about people liking that sharks “eat people” was a misquote. It’s incredibly rare for a shark to eat a person. Even in the rare event of a shark attack on a human, a shark typically does not eat a person, nor would I expect other people to “like that” if they did.

The article also featured quotes from spectators who were there to see sharks “up close.” One spectator who witnessed the weigh-in of 399 lbs hammerhead was quoted as saying…

You know they’re out there in the waters, but you don’t ever really get to see them. They’re so magnificent, and you’re seeing ‘em up close.”

Now, just imagine if you saw them up-close…and they were still alive. They really do look much more magnificent when they’re swimming around, than they do when their carcass is hoisted up in the air by its tail. The reality of it is that it’s simply not easy for most people to witness sharks in their natural environment, and many people have underlying fears of snorkeling, diving, or swimming with sharks. Unfortunately, the most readily-accessible option for some “shark fans” to see sharks is at a shark-fishing tournament.