southace said..pweedas said..southace said..
I have to correct you on a few things here.
1) The tagged shark and listening station works at any depth the shark does not need to come to the surface.
2) The tagged shark needs to be 1 km to the listening station and by installing 2 or 3 simultaneously would cover more area.
3) Cost would be way cheaper than any technology used currently.
4) Taking out a few offending sharks is not going to solve the problem.
Well it seems we will just have to wait for the go ahead to cull these random rogue sharks.
Re point "4) Taking out a few offending sharks is not going to solve the problem."
Is there any proof of that or is it just an opinion.?
If it's just an opinion, my opinion is different and I think provided the sharks removed are the ones which made the attack, it will make a BIG difference.
If they are just random sharks, then you would be right. It would make no difference.
Re point " 1) The tagged shark and listening station works at any depth the shark does not need to come to the surface."
That's interesting. How do they do that since radio waves, VHF, UHF etc don't travel through water.?
I know VLF waves do but that technology requires huge antenna of the type in Exmouth.
I don't think you could fit anything like that in a shark tag. They are so small it would have to be UHF.
More information please.?
The shark tag pings to the listening station via underwater frequency at present the listening station has a satellite dish (like foxtel) that beams the info via Canada and then to Tasmania the marine biologist receives the info (if he checks his email!) and then can forward this to local authority's.
My idea is to use the current technology but do away with the satellite dish (40k) and just mount a VHF antenna which then communicates with a onshore siren.
It would be a cheaper alternative and obviously reduce some risks. They could be located on each side of a break or beach and it might even be possible to have a vibrating wrist band or something similar.
Why not? it seems like a option to me that could be in place within weeks.
1 shark attack victim in the year is not really any different than other years and with this much cause for concerns and ordering culling seems a bit crazy. I remember a number of years ago South Australia had 3 or 4 attacks in the one year...it seems to vary from year to year and I personally think we get to focused on culling rather than working on technology to solve it.....like I posted before 17 people drowned in WA this year what are we doing about this are people not getting the warning or education?
Thanks, but you left out the critical information I was looking for.
What is the nature of the "ping"?
Acoustic?
VLF?
Witchcraft?
Witchcraft might work but reliable technicians in this technology are hard to find..
Also, regarding the one or two attacks quoted, I think it's because the recent few attacks follow closely on a six month period over the previous summer when we had 5 fatal attacks in six months.
People are a bit concerned we might be up for a repeat performance.
I'm not knocking the idea. If it canbe made to work cheaply I'm all for it.
At least it would make a significant difference and not kill any sharks.
So a big plus on two fronts at least.