New "Shark Shield"

New "Shark Shield" device designed & manufactured by West Australian surfboard guru Dave Smith / Katana Surfboards. Should be easily adaptable for skis.

surfsafe.net.au/

Mike Schilperoort built a shark shield into a surfski in 2007.

www.surfski.info/latest-news/story/100/s...ielded-surf-ski.html

But it wasn't very pleasant to paddle because it would give shocks to the paddler. I wonder if the new product does the same thing?

There's some debate over the effectiveness of shark shields:

www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-18/shark-shi...ested-attack/4076368

The Shark Shield manufacturers claim however that they are extremely effective - check it out for yourself.

www.sharkshield.com/view/scientific-rese.../SharkShieldResearch

One of our group wears a shield when we paddle (officially to be known as Dave the girly blouse). He says if the bucket fills with water you do get shocks. A bit like paddling with a TENS mmachine strapped to your leg. We like to tell him he won't get eaten by a shark but it will probably give him cancer.

So as long as you can deal with mild electrical shocks and your mates picking on you, buy one.

Mind you, if a 6 metre great white sidles up to us, I'll be the first one to jump in his ski and hug him.

We've just had the helicopter patrols start for summer and everyday there are sightings. At the start of yesterdays paddle there was a beach closed sign. I've surfed, sailed and paddled for 40 years and have never seen one (touch wood). I much preferred water sports before the advent of facebook and fishermen with cameras in their phones. Ignorance was bliss.

Don't worry Dicko ,next time we will get Mike to start an hour in front of us.Shark bait comes to mind.??

Yep, shark sightings here are much more frequent - since the advent of the shark spotting program... Now I get a tweet every time a shark is spotted.

It's not that there are more sharks - it's just that no-one was looking for them before!

I've had 3 close encounters with them - in twelve years or so. Not too worried. (Well - after my first encounter with one my knees literally shook for twenty minutes, nothing like an adrenalin spike!)

I tried a shark shield once, but it felt like I was dragging a big piece of kelp and I flogged the thing immediately.

robin.mousley wrote: I tried a shark shield once, but it felt like I was dragging a big piece of kelp and I flogged the thing immediately.

My concern is not the first bite a curious white may take of my ski.... from what I have learnt they usually like to attack from behind so will most likely hit the back end of the ski first.

The part that scares me is the thought of the ski then sinking and me floating around a km or so offshore wondering if it's going to come back for a second nibble.

In this case perhaps just carrying a shark shield device with you but not having in on. That way no drag from the electrode, and then in the event you need it then switch it on in the water?

So has the two fatal attacks we've had in Australia in the past week made news elsewhere in the world? (in Western Australia alone we've had 11 fatal shark attacks since 2000 and lots of near misses/attacks)

The new shields have no tail. They look like the leg strap attachment on your leg leash. They only work once you are in the water. Very compact. So if a shark knocks you in the water then it works. Up till then it just sits on your leg. That's why it zaps you when your cockpit fills with water.

Let me throw this product into the ring for comment.

www.esdshawaii.com/

It appears to work like the Shark Shield mainstream product but has a slower pulse rate and smaller effective field. It has the advantage of no antenna and you wear it around your ankle. The leg leash version could serve a dual purpose.

It works as soon as you fall in the water. ie it needs to get wet before it activates.
Useless for paddling I hear you say? ...my theory would be that no raging GWS charging full on is going to be stopped by any sort of shield (imagine a bull rhino charging at you full speed hitting a discomfort zone 4 metres from you). However if a shark cruises up and takes a bite of your ski and you fall in, it then might offer some protection while getting to shore.

Quite a few WA South West surfers are using it.

(apologies, I didnt see Diko's post when writing this, he may be referring to same product?)

therookie wrote: ...my theory would be that no raging GWS charging full on is going to be stopped by any sort of shield (imagine a bull rhino charging at you full speed hitting a discomfort zone 4 metres from you). However if a shark cruises up and takes a bite of your ski and you fall in, it then might offer some protection while getting to shore.

I agree, seems that many attacks are just sharks being curious rather than aiming to take someone out, otherwise I would've thought every attack would be fatal. I just hope that mouthful of carbon/glass is enough to turn them off

Dicko wrote: The new shields have no tail. They look like the leg strap attachment on your leg leash. They only work once you are in the water. Very compact. So if a shark knocks you in the water then it works. Up till then it just sits on your leg. That's why it zaps you when your cockpit fills with water.

From this tracsoc.com/images/Ep1%20Part%203.pdf and some other papers I would prefer that the device was operating the whole time as they do preclude the 'breach' strike from this evidence

robin.mousley wrote: It's not that there are more sharks - it's just that no-one was looking for them before!

Good point about the increased sightings being in part due to technology and the number of people looking.

However, there are a lot more White sharks around now than there were 20 years ago. Professional Fishermen I know in South Australia who've spent decades on the water are seeing more now than ever before. Protecting the white shark has removed its only predator and has allowed it to reach much higher numbers in recent years.

As a former Navy diver, and now an occasional recreational diver I have used a Shark Shield for the past few years. (so far so good:-)) The problem with shark shields - or any similar device discussed in these forums - is that it will probably deter a shark from 2 of the 3 modes of attack that they are known to have - both of which involve exploratory bites, but is almost impossible to test for the 3rd and most frightening mode - stealth attack at speed.

I personally don't think any device will deter a White Shark in a pre-meditated attack at over 50km/h, and I'm not volunteering for that test!!

A professional ab diver I knew said they wore the shields but didn't turn them on till they saw a shark because the devices first of all attract before they repel. Problem with this approach is that the ab diver taken off South Australia a couple of years back was on his way to the surface and was attacked from behind...at speed!

besides a PFD for ocean paddling, my best friend is a knife within reach. If a shark wants to find out if I taste good....he's gonna get some sharp steel in the eye!

captash wrote:

robin.mousley wrote: It's not that there are more sharks - it's just that no-one was looking for them before!

I personally don't think any device will deter a White Shark in a pre-meditated attack at over 50km/h, and I'm not volunteering for that test!!

The data suggests they work for rapid attacks ie breaches

www.sardi.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_fi...FINAL_19_06_2012.pdf

However, there are a lot more White sharks around now than there were 20 years ago. Professional Fishermen I know in South Australia who've spent decades on the water are seeing more now than ever before. Protecting the white shark has removed its only predator and has allowed it to reach much higher numbers in recent years.

With all due respect, the data do not support the contention that there are more GW sharks than before.

In 2011 a census in California revealed that there were far fewer GWs than expected.
The slow reproductive life cycle means that a population explosion is mathematically impossible.
The OCEARCH GW shark tagging project, while controversial, is bringing more data than ever before on the movements and behaviour of the sharks.
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/10278...n-than-believed.html

So I'm really dubious about the stories of fishermen (who have a vested interest in getting rid of sharks) who make statements that rely on their own sightings.

More recent - and relevant - research does show significant growth in GWS in the Southern Ocean since they became protected.

More important to shark attack frequency than their numbers is their feeding patterns and habitat. With the humpback whale population exploding and the migration along the east and west coasts, shark sightings and attacks will continue to rise.

sAsLEX wrote: The data suggests they work for rapid attacks ie breaches

So when the one ton shark rushes up at a high enough velocity to breach 2m out of the water and hits the electric field a couple of meters from the decoy how does it change direction fast enough?

Makes me suspect that the testing method was flawed and other factors were influencing the results.

Seems to be a lack of an data such as sonar readings to show that sharks were coming near and being deterred when they reached the field range.