jbshack said..

"They are unproven" Not true,

"two abalone divers taken in SA in recent years wearing them" also un true.

Something has to change, Maybe start with facts would be a good place..

Both surfers in the recent attack knew their was a large shark in the water when they went in. Stupid cant be helped..

Mate you're an absolute Champ.

Feel free to present facts supporting your own point of view.

From the Australian:
"Abalone diver Peter Clarkson was wearing a Shark Shield ?designed for divers when he was killed near Coffin Bay, South Australia, in February 2011. He was known to switch his device on at all times while diving but nobody knows for certain whether he did so on this occasion.Paul Buckland was wearing a SharkPOD, an earlier version of the Shark Shield, when he was ?attacked and killed off Ceduna in April 2002.At the subsequent coronial ?inquiry, it was concluded that he had not turned the device on when he dived into the water. He reached the bottom and was collecting scallops when a shark ?started buzzing him. He turned the device on and swam to the surface. Once on the surface, the device's effectiveness was reduced. He was then attacked."

Researcher Dr Charlie Huveneers from the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) :
"In South Australia with the static bait, we did not find any differences in the proportion of bait being consumed by white sharks whether the shield was turned on or off," he said."There are situations where the white sharks were still capable of getting very close to the shark shield, within half a metre, and was still capable of consuming a bait.

Bara said..

LateStarter said..

jbshack said..

"They are unproven" Not true,

"two abalone divers taken in SA in recent years wearing them" also un true.

Something has to change, Maybe start with facts would be a good place..

Both surfers in the recent attack knew their was a large shark in the water when they went in. Stupid cant be helped..

Mate you're an absolute Champ.

Feel free to present facts supporting your own point of view.

From the Australian:
"Abalone diver Peter Clarkson was wearing a Shark Shield ?designed for divers when he was killed near Coffin Bay, South Australia, in February 2011. He was known to switch his device on at all times while diving but nobody knows for certain whether he did so on this occasion.Paul Buckland was wearing a SharkPOD, an earlier version of the Shark Shield, when he was ?attacked and killed off Ceduna in April 2002.At the subsequent coronial ?inquiry, it was concluded that he had not turned the device on when he dived into the water. He reached the bottom and was collecting scallops when a shark ?started buzzing him. He turned the device on and swam to the surface. Once on the surface, the device's effectiveness was reduced. He was then attacked."

Researcher Dr Charlie Huveneers from the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) :
"In South Australia with the static bait, we did not find any differences in the proportion of bait being consumed by white sharks whether the shield was turned on or off," he said."There are situations where the white sharks were still capable of getting very close to the shark shield, within half a metre, and was still capable of consuming a bait.

Guess ya got off ya" fat arse " and did some research.

I've said it before but the problem with repela is the electrodes are not far enough apart or powerful enough to provide a large enough electro mag field to deter a great white. 90cm is all the more powerful shark shield can manage under ideal static bait conditions which is why the electrodes are separated by a 2m leash.

Then there's the whole issue of static bait testing vs real world "charging attacks" like they do on seals. No field has been shown to stop that.

If we ever get to see some research from repela it will probably just be static bait study when what we need is towed decoys to replicate a real world attack.

All in all Jb is deluding himself that he is protecting his gromet on an even smaller board with even smaller field but unlike him I'm not gonna tell him how to live his life.

Someone had to say it

A recent Study by me proves that anyone with a letterbox in Australia at their house has 100% success repelling bears, tigers and lions from their property.
based upon this study there is also a 100% chance at current that no one has been attacked wearing a letterbox on their head by a shark.
A letterbox is 100% effective in avoiding shark attack.

This is what shark shield people sound like, I'd like to add a little side note as wel in regards t the divers who were attacked wearing the shark shield, many many abalone divers do not turn the shield on until hitting the bottom as they fear it attracts sharks On their descent.........

please, any any takers to this part of the argument I want facts that they don't attract sharks, people on here I've called me irresponsible for saying this, I call them irresponsible for not being 100% honest about the known risks of actually wearing a shark attracting device

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 ......

Far out you guys are hard to please

Hi carumba!

Razz your research is outstanding and invaluable.

However at the Shark Huggers are us meeting last night while we all stood around holding hands sing Kumbaya it was decided not to send you a membership invitation.

An invitation was previously extended to Mick who said fu(k off no.

Peter Perfects death was surrounded in controversy

www.adelaidenow.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes

www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/1598984/shark-attack-didnt-add-up-diver/

Bara nice work 900mm isn't as big as 2000mm in terms of field size but field strength is adjustable and the shark still has to get its ampullae of lorenzini through the field to bite.

Its is interesting the reaction of you lot are no different than my mates none of which use a deterrent....well there is a difference is they don't squeal or blink.

Maybe ballet is your thing.

Your odds of dying from shark attack are somewhere between 1 in 5 ish to 1 in 3 million ish depending how you want to measure the risk.

My and JB's odds is currently zero.

Gents good luck I don't want to see anyone taken....except that wanker that burnt me the other week.

SRrat said..
With this apparent aggregation of sharks wouldn't now be the ideal time to tag a heap of
large sharks? Not the easiest coastline to work of course and weather conditions not always ideal.
If you are not gone to cull the toothy bastards then gather information. Helicopter patrols are expensive and ineffective ways to pretend that something is being done.

You would think so eh but while nsw has racked up 200 odd tagged whites I think we have tagged just the one in WA and that was only after local protests in esperence.

Anyone got the details on the bump at main break today?

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..

Just noticed the guy at main break had a stripey tiger shark pattern on the bottom of his board. Lots of theories going around, think we can cross this one off the list.

That's great JB, at least the testing is being done on the right species. No other species have really caused significant attacks close to shore or are overly dangerous.

Some questions you might be able to answer?
1) Has he (or anyone else) willingly tested it on themself against a white shark outside a cage? If so how many times, what locations and how many different sharks?
2) is he/they using live "bait"? If so what and under what conditions? How many tests, how many sharks? Every fisho who's targets serious fish know's that live bait gets a very different reaction to a dead bait or lure, however you can't just let them swim off, you need to attach it properly. You will also need to get it back for research and to get the devices back so might as well put it out on 130lb gear and charge someone $2k for the experience should it get taken.
3) Will there be video based evidence from several angles? A picture speaks a thousand words and a video, 10 thousand.
4) Do you trust it enough to volunteer to spend 2 or 3 days spearfishing and free diving around Salisbury Island?
5) How big is the biggest white they have tested these devices on? have they seen many in the 6m region? Anything bigger?
6) Has anyone conducting research been able to visit Salisbury Island and islands nearby if they are out there? If so have they found anything of importance?

jbshack said...
As for down south right now, dead whales are up and down the entire coast, they are washing in daily. Most are left to decompose naturally. Why not follow that up with the relevant shires.

Wrong! Where did you get this info from?

Is no-one asking why there are dead whales all up and down the coast?

Buster fin said..
Is no-one asking why there are dead whales all up and down the coast?

Got tired of swimming?