Seems to be a few bump offs happening and then the shark goes after the board giving time to escape,,, not sure if its just luck but pretty lucky maybe sometimes not to have shark eyes sticker or black stripes or orca pattern,, maybe its better if the board gets skunked not the human

jbshack said..
Hey if you've got a letter box, according to one expert you'll be fine

You sit on a wanna be sea shepard boat and you become an expert yourself?
Just curious?

So why don't you jump on the protect the crocodile band wagon JB ?
I watched a doco on Kakadu, there's a croc it tourist season ,BANG. Cut the tail off for the people of the land.
Another example, that black coloured croc took my dog, so jump in a helicopter and shoot it. Cut its leg off and bring it home for the dogs mother to chew on. Again a documentry with footage.
Person gets taken by a croc, we're pretty sure it's that one BANG.

Since the crocs were protected they are growing to maximum size and expanding the areas they live in.

Is is this what we have to look forward to with the GWS

jbshack said..
I've never said im an expert,

But your arrogant and pushy posts states otherwise.
We all know that the minority speaks louder.
Give it a rest.

Greenroom said..

jbshack said..
I've never said im an expert,

But your arrogant and pushy posts states otherwise.
We all know that the minority speaks louder.
Give it a rest.

If you have a argument about the subject put it up, fact, opinion, story, humor even emotion got for it.

As for the personalising negative BS grow up you child FFS you are suppose to be a grown mature man.

Haha fair enough lighten up bloke life's short..................BTW you're still fu(ken wrong

jbshack said..

Razzonater said..

Ctngoodvibes said..
www.news.uwa.edu.au/201607048795/international/shark-shield-proves-effective-deterring-white-sharks

What I like most about these studies is that in open ocean the sharks just hang around the shark shield, they come back for the bait repeated times, and you all vouch that the shark shield works.
every test is with a static bait, no pulse no sPlashing no movement.
Further once the sharks get their and the shield is on not only do they hang around but additional sharks show up ......

Have you ever talked to anyone who does these tests

Dave is away currently but i suggest you have a chat to him, he recently has spent three weeks in at Neptune and a week recently offshore and is out their currently again..

I think you'd be surprised..

Dave is not currently away. I saw him at the Derby today. Also, he was wearing Dockers gear.

trevor1 said..
JB, in all scientific studies, it is important that those conducting the study have no interest in the outcome.
Sorry, but citing any work done by Dave, has no objective value.

Yep thats called "Independent testing". Have you not wondered by the local government has not yet included the Rpela product on the subsidies list yet.. Again, every looked into how the testing takes place, and who does it or were?

Having someone else pay to test your product is not an easy task..Remember Barnet spent $600000 testing the shark shield dive unit. Again though, if anyone bothered to follow up with Dave, instead of pretending to have a clue, i think you'd be surprised..

So if the shark repelling tech works at the micro (personal) level, ie Shark shield and repela etc, and I see one of them now has a boat deployment system that sits in a float that u hang of your vessel, why not up scale to industrial size unit or units, 10 / 20 / 100 / 1000 times capacity and run a protective cordon of buoys around specific selected areas. Maybe they get moved around so the sharks, "learn" to keep away from these areas.

Without wanting to rant, Sharks are really worrying, I was at Gearies on the weekend for the first time since I witnessed the attack on Ben, and being part of a tragedy like that really makes u re-think the issue. I still surf and so do my kids all the time, but that doubt sure leaves a second guess in the background, I don't expect to be 100% safe ever, but I strongly believe that the unofficial controls that existed (Cray and other commercial fisherman) controlled the problem sharks, since that has been removed there has been an increase.

Think we need Elon Musk on this one!

It's a classic case of marketing vs science.

The shark shield website happily quote Huveneer's independent report on their website, hailing that 'no breach was observed' when towing a seal decoy behind a boat with the shark shield turned on.

What they conveniently failed to mention however, was that Huveneer concluded after 116 trials that the Sharkshield was ineffective in static testing, whereby 78 per cent of baits were taken within a 15 minute period, and that there was no noticeable difference between the unit being turned on or off.

Lucky I own a letterbox.

Legion said..
I reckon dave should politely ask bjshack to stop referencing him or his product. Unless he subscribes to the modern philosophy of "any publicity is good publicity".

I did think the same. Unless JB has some financial interest in the product.

Let me just make it clear I've got no problem with Dave. I like him and have always enjoyed talking to him and surfing with him. If I see him in the carpark or in the water we have a chat and I like to hear what he's doing with his product, with his r&d and with his boards. It's just bjshack who I think is not the best advocate. Forum sentiment indicates I'm not alone.

IFocus said..

LateStarter said..
It's a classic case of marketing vs science.

The shark shield website happily quote Huveneer's independent report on their website, hailing that 'no breach was observed' when towing a seal decoy behind a boat with the shark shield turned on.

What they conveniently failed to mention however, was that Huveneer concluded after 116 trials that the Sharkshield was ineffective in static testing, whereby 78 per cent of baits were taken within a 15 minute period, and that there was no noticeable difference between the unit being turned on or off.

Lucky I own a letterbox.

LateStarter do you have a link to the research paper I'd be really interested in what the units output was?


Oh and the rest of you bitches ............try ballet more your sport I think

Lol on the one hand per jb if you want risk reduction action taken on sharks your stupid for going surfing in salmon season ( 3 months) and then whale season ( 3 months) and on the other hand dinosaurs like you reckon we are gay if we dont go for a surf.

Too funny.

IFocus said..
LateStarter do you have a link to the research paper I'd be really interested in what the units output was?

Charlie Huveneer's Report:
pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/232235/Risk_Assessment_of_the_Shark_Shield_Report_-_FINAL_19_06_2012.pdf

Here are some others worth reading:
- Estimating the probability of a shark attack when using an electric repellent - Smit and Peddemors 2003
- Effects of the Shark ShieldTM electric deterrent on the behaviour of white sharks - SARDI 2012
- Effects of an electric field on white sharks: In situ testing of an electric deterrent - Plos one 2013
- How close is too close? The Effect of a Non-Lethal Electric Shark Deterrent on White Shark Behaviour - Plos one 2016

Hey LateStarter thanks again for taking the effort and your valuable time to post the research papers just quickly browsed the UWA and Charlie Huveneers .

A few things jumped out at me (my bias and electrical background)

The technology has an effect both papers alluded to this.

Charlie Huveneers however did not measure the output. He seems to mention this as an afterthought in his summary.

The bait / deterrent orientation to me seemed a bit "dicky" particularly the towed decoy test.

UWA study measured the unit output then made assumptions which I think is a failure. As the efficacy of the unit is based wholly on the electrical field continuous measurement should have been done as there is no guarantee unit output performs consistently in all conditions, battery charge etc.

All in all there was nothing new but going by the posts here clearly there is a lot of resistance to using the deterrents the reasons as I remember are uncannily similar to the start of compulsory seatbelts.

That's a real shame as a cull isn't going to happen, drum lines some time away who knows when or if and even if they come only some areas will benefit leaving many of us still be exposed.

I think deterrents are the way to go and for the required development / R&D / progress there needs to be viable sales / uptake so new entrants are attracted to come in with better ideas product and we end up with a I Phone equivalent tech.

But as they say, "your dreaming"

I had one comment the other day "why should tax payers stump up the bill for the recreation of small bunch bludgers"