Crunch time for Shark Shield
Last week Swellnet ran a Q&A with Lindsay Lyon, CEO of shark deterrent company Shark Shield. Lindsay was on the publicity trail as there was a lot happening at Shark Shield HQ. First was a story on '60 Minutes', which appeared last Sunday night, about the veracity of Shark Shield including real time testing in front of the camera. The reception to this piece was mixed, due in part to a lack of conclusive footage - or so said the feedback I read.
Then yesterday the scientific journal PLoS ONE published a paper showing results from tests with Shark Shield. The paper concluded 2 1/2 years worth of study conducted by a number of scientists. A distilled version of the paper appeared on The Conversation today titled 'Finally, a proven way to keep great white sharks at arm’s length'. The article says in part:
"Our research, published in the journal PLoS ONE, shows that the device does indeed make sharks keep their distance. Upon first encounter with a Shark Shield, all approaching great white sharks were effectively deterred, staying an average of 1.3m away from a baited canister with the device attached."
"After multiple approaches, individual great white sharks showed signs of habituation to the Shark Shield, coming an average of 12cm closer on each successive approach. Despite this increase in tolerance, 89% of white sharks continued to be deterred from biting or interacting with the bait."
The article concluded:
"There are many shark deterrent devices on the market, particularly those that use electric or magnetic fields. But without robust, independent scientific evaluation we can’t be sure which of these products actually work. In fact, not only may some devices not be as effective as others, but it is also possible that some of them could actually attract sharks rather than repel them."
"But at present, under the conditions in which we tested it, this is one device that does seem to offer a genuine benefit. So if you feel that you need extra protection from sharks when entering the water, this device will offer you exactly that."
Shark Shield are yet to release their surfing version, called the FREEDOM+ Surf. That'll happen in September and it'll cost $599. It's no small sum, and so the thinking starts now: Do you believe the scientists or not? And if you do, then do you pay the money or take your chances with sharks?
For surfers in South-west WA or Northern NSW it's no light decision.
Comments
Gotta hand it to shark shield because they are trying to provide genuine protection.I wasn't won over at all with the sixty minutes story,too many holes in it and to really sell this they need to produce solid evidence,not get on a boat with a white swimming around and go the boards not sitting in the water properly etc,really?It was the perfect spot to trial it,why didnt Tom Carroll get on the board then and there and paddle around or at least have a dummy style figure on it weighted properly,had plenty of time to sort this out.Anyway its no secret where the whites pointers are ,as in the neptune islands,so endless chances to prove this works.One thing that puts me off a little is the size of the kicker as i hate kickers anyway but thats just me.I hope they nail this with better evidence.......along with a lot of other people i suspect.
Like Simba, I appreciate the R&D that Sharkshield are putting in to this product. I watched the 60 minutes item and I thought the test was a little under-planned. Although they tried to use an object that didn't look like a surfboard (it looked like two body boards lashed together at right angles) so as not to inadvertently train sharks, it resulted in the shield not being fully submerged during one of the tests which led to an inconclusive outcome. Apart from that one glitch, the shark shield looks like it does the job.
It would be nice if the field was just a little larger. The sharks are repelled at a distance of 4 feet; mighty close when the beast itself is 4 metres long. But at least the shark does swerve away, and at that close range you'd be alerted to the shark's presence.
The battery does put a noticeable lump in the kicker and might take some getting used to. However the positioning of the terminals on the bottom of the board is a nice design.
I'll definitely consider buying one.
Coaster the field is 6 metres x4 metres [from 60 mins vid]
im sure he meant to say feet?
I think the field size you're quoting is for the diver's version of the shark shield. In the article about the surfboard version it says the distance is 130cm with a margin of error of plus or minus 10cm. I think it also said that the shark develops an increasing insensitivity to the field, allowing it to come 12cm closer each time it approaches the field.
The shark shield used by the divers has a greater field due to the length of the terminals and possibly a larger battery.
I 'm not really sure if it lets the shark get that close tha a really hungry agressive shark is gunna stop and swerve..but you can sorta see they do work too..i might be keen when they come down about half price or under $200...i agree the kicker looks massive i wonder if they can shrink the battery size..i also heard it has to be fully recharged every night or before next use which makes it hard when ya in the desert..
The different coloured wetty thing interested me..why are we all still wearing black and not blue?
I am HIGHLY skeptical of this review. First, a note about scientific journals - the premise is that a journal article is only published after review by peers who are also experts in the relevant field. Access to these is very expensive - the reader pays for access. This typically means that research outcomes are only available to those in the industry in question or academia. A few years ago a new type of journal cropped up - pay to publish. The author pays to publish his/her work. These articles are only reviewed by the editorial board of the publisher (who is paid by the author). The conflict of interest is obvious. This is not real science and using a pay-to-publish journal is dubious at best.
Totally agree. With 2 1/2 years of testing why could this not get into a peer reviewed journal that is not a pay to publish? too many unanswered questions?
The product seems to work MOST of the time but is the chance that it may not work all of the time what is forcing it down the pay to publish path?
The other side of the debate about pay to publish journals is that they are open to the public. If this had been published in Nature you would be looking at $100 plus to read it. As a practising skeptic I judge papers on their merit. If a paper stands up it doesn't matter where it was published.......unless you are suggesting outright scientific fraud. In this case the first impression is that the data is solid on the device having an impact on shark behaviour that would be likely to prevent most attacks. The experiment itself probably has scope for improvement but it would seem highly unlikely, on these results, that these improvements in design would lead to substantially different results. More likely is that further research and technological development will produce cheaper, more effective devices. So yes, a big thumbs up to the Shark Shield team.
Touche! judge on merit. The thing that leaves me confused is there is a huge discrepancy between the captured 'encounters' between the shark shield(SS) on and off (much higher with it off). This suggests that the SS may be repelling sharks much further away. Why were the experimentors detection capabilities so limited (visibility is of course an issue)? Surely they could have found some way to detect sharks further than the distances recorded with the stereo gopros. These distances are way too close. If you're off your board (say immediately after a wave) you're done. Thats even outlined in the paper.
The other issues is no one, as far as I can tell, has actually addressed the issue of attracting sharks. Imagine (as others have below) that 10 guys out near Gracetown (for example) have these buzzing away. There is surely going to be some constructive interface that increases the signal strength?
The article is peer reviewed, as are all PLoS ONE articles. There is plenty of info on the journal on the web. Although there are rubbish journals out there, this is not one of them. PLoS ONE is considered mid-level.
Editorial or advitorial?
Editorial.
Here's something to nut out , 15 - 20 surfers all wearing the device closely packed together in a small take off area ......what happens to the elec field... become 1 large field ...or.. ?
Yes udo the overlapping fields would form a single large field but I can't see this making much difference as the the field strength close to each individual surfer is unlikely to change much.
Every time i've had a shark encounter it has swum up to have a look first and gets within 6ft. I've never had one take much more than a few seconds swim past & eyeball and then move on.
Based on this and similar behaviour shown on a great white breaching documentary i watched a few years back, I wouldn't be surprised if most sharks cruise past within 4-6ft of their prey initially before they decide to attack.
Haven't there been about 3 divers attacked wearing the shields? with one abalone diver being taken in half while trying to pull him into the boat?
I don't trust that they don't initially attract the sharks and I wouldn't be to happy about sitting amongst 15 - 20 surfers all setting off electronic signals into the water.
Old story but scary
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/damning-video-shows-failure-of...
I was also a little disappointed in the 60 Minutes report , editing ,time constraints for what goes to air etc. comes into play .Being more interested in how the surfboard device worked rather than the long tail device ,which have been available for quite a long time .It shouldn't have been that hard to solve the weighting issue with the board setup and get a bit more of a realistic idea on the effectiveness of the device. . Blending into the water through cammo wetsuits and board bottom patterns or stripes etc.for effectiveness or not ,might warrant a bit of research.Black wetties are still in the majority.
What about the rest of us who don't have them in the water and a few or one does? I heard the field might attract them then they turn away when close? So there could be a chance of it turning on a surfer who doesn't have one on as it leaves. Just throwing that out there.
I think this is an issue that they need to address Coops. As far as I know they have not conducted any tests or offered a theoretical explanation of why it cannot happen. That said they seem very confident on this point so hopefully they will tell us why they feel that way.
Up front I am a total skeptic of this device, here is why. BTW I have not seen 60M as I have no time for their style of sensationalism dressed up as informative journalism..rubbish.
No rocket science going on with these devices. Simply an electric current generated by a battery thru a conductor attachment into the very conductive element H2O. We all know to avoid the electricity/water combo. Likewise our skin avoiding naked flame, boiling water, various chemicals, radiation etc etc.
So it comes down to simple science and the degree of exposure that separates what constitutes real danger and risk of serious injury or death as opposed what different individuals under various circumstances can tolerate or condition themselves to sustain.
Fire eaters, free divers and freaks who can withstand exceptional exposure to elements well beyond what most of us could endure.
So lets apply that to what appears to be what Sharkshield et al say will protect you from sharks. Electricity generated into water. pretty simple to do and even more simple to actually measure the current output and dissipation at measured distance from source.
Upon contact with water the electric current is not able to be effectively be selectively directional (please tell me if I have this wrong). Hence the 'field' of water conducting the electricity of simple controlled by how much electricity is conducted. Voltage released is therefore directly relative to area around the source that becomes 'charged'.
The electronic cable that trails off from a divers leg is a product that has been around for some time. SS and others originally wanted surfers to use this devise until they were politely told to 'get real' for so many reasons it was ridiculous. To my understanding this devise conducts a fairly powerful kick that if the wearer makes contact with delivers a fairly uncomfortable zap that emulates from the tip area.
So to revisit the surf market SS and others have tried to develop a product that the market would accept and cater for all the nuances we as surfers demand. No easy task and this is where one can argue the science and the bullshit meet head on.
Lets say the average board is 20" wide and the conducting device is mounted on the dividing stringer. That means that the water where your paddling arms and sitting legs are dangling is only 10" from the source of electric conductivity, both sides!
So this is where so simple science questions come into play.
1. What is the actual amount of voltage that a surfer would be exposed to in a paddling and sitting position and taking an average person in to account, at what level of current exposure in water does it become annoying, uncomfortable or even dangerous?
2. If the surfer is paddling or riding a wave, does the current maintain the same area of 'field' from the point of conductivity?
3. Does the level of conductivity diminish in different levels of salinity or time spent in the surf?
4. What is the difference in power output between the cable type and the surfboard type and if notably different, why?
We would all love SS to work and effectively protect us from shark attack. But we are a tough audience when it comes to toying with the equipment we ride being influenced in any way that can't be 100% warranted
karma all the issues you are concerned about are dealt with in the paper. The device can cause an electric shock but not enough to cause injury. I think you are unfair to the developers in that they are clearly acting in good faith and their paper demonstrates that the device is effective in discouraging sharks. The surfboard device is not yet available so there is more work to be done but give them credit for their innovation and skill in getting the device this far. The only concern I have is that they need to demonstrate conclusively that the device will not attract sharks from a distance. They included some evidence that it would not in the paper, and on the balance of probabilities that is likely to be right, but they need to nail it down.
Although, as I disclosed, I am skeptical, I really hope this product will work and evolve to be the answer we are all hoping for without having to read some long winded paper that has an arguable basis for it's inderpendance.
In that light my questions directed to MR Lyon at SS (who is on this thread) are get some factual clarity, as opposed to marketing hype and vague generations. I would hope that SS can answer or at least, address the uncertainty that seems to abound in the surfing community, with some basic answers to the questions i have and many that others may have. You yourself, BB have very relevant questions that echo others concerns and surely if SS are wanting surfers to fork out big $$ based on protecting their lives, full and open disclosure of the facts must be forthcoming. Nail it down, as you said.
Just putting TC's name to it(how much has he been paid and does he use it on every board?), marketing it on 60Min and a editorial piece here, does not, IMHO provide the confidence I would need to use it for myself or kids.
Not really fair karma. A scientific paper is inevitably long winded since it has to be a complete description of everything they did and every piece of equipment they used. I have gone through it a few times now I am confident that their results are valid. The device they tested, the dive version, works and given the basic science it is a reasonable inference that the surfboard version will be equally effective. The risk of electric shock is significant but below the level that would cause injury. I still think they need to do more work on the slight possibility that it may attract sharks but if I was paddling out at Cactus I would love to have one of these on board.
Fair call BB re the paper as I have not read it.
But if the paper is only deals with the dive cable version, then that is exactly one of the questions I have asked SS to answer i.e. what is the difference between the dive and the surf version.
As I said in my original post, the dive version (or it's earliest inception) is well over a decade old and quite powerful, bulky and heavy so not for surfboards. Reliable word is many divers (and even recreational swimmers) will not use it as the level of shock they can get, although not injurious, is very uncomfortable to many (again my early post raised the subject of different tolerance some may have).
So it appears that the paper would lead you to infer the surfboard version will be equally effective. To be as effective the power output must be same or better and that is what I have also asked SS. That amount of power 10" away from your arms/legs may not be injurious or dangerous but would be so uncomfortable as to spoil the whole act of surfing. I suspect the surf version is way less powerful for good reason and therefore virtually ineffective unless the shark virtually nudges the source point on the board. From all reports I have read of deadly attacks the shark has hit from below at speed launching the poor victim into the air and then taking them down.
Why not let SS answer good or bad. Am I missing something here?
As you like, I will leave it to them.
bb, they are available online $599
30 day trial...not impressed 'money back guarantee'.
You can order now but delivery is September........unless I missed something! Oh and that $599 is US dollars.
Yes you did + $20 postage.
Post the link?
Hahahaa, so let me get this right. We've got a few scientists, from a marine biology background having written an article based off their research. The very same type of marine biology scientists that are at the core of another article publish on "the conversation" titled "How time-poor scientists inadvertently made it seem like the world was overrun with jellyfish" ...
https://theconversation.com/how-time-poor-scientists-inadvertently-made-...
Yes folks, these marine biology type scientists are a tad too busy to get the facts correct when it comes to jellyfish, but, we can trust their colleagues with their work on the shark shield?
Hahahaa ... fucking scientists.
Who was it that said there was nothing wrong with asbestos and cigarettes?
Hahahaa ... fucking scientists.
Believe what ya want. But, if you want the truth, talk to old school professional fishermen, you know, the ones who have been around for 30 years and working in the ocean, observing the behaviors of the sharks. You'll find a common link ;)
yeah - scientists. the ones responsible for all the technology the fishos (and everyone reading anything on the interweb) use. the ones who are hung out to dry every time an error is made while multinationals getting rich on tobacco and asbestos piss off scott free. great argument. of course listen to the fishos - professionals and experienced experts on the ocean. that doesn't invalidate the knowledge or experience of researchers
Bizarre post Wingnut...
Breath-taking analysis. Straight from the Andrew Bolt comment section.
How do they effect performance?
Don't ask us, ask old school fishermen. They know everything.
Ijkarma - some of your questions can readily be answered by reference to physics/engineering formula. Electric field strength is inversely proportional to distance squared so yes the field will drop off quickly away from the electrodes. The circuitry in the SS would be a patented secret but surely incorporates a voltage regulation device to keep the output constant depending upon the battery charge. As the device moves the field will move with it (at the speed of light C). Having 20 SS's working in a group may not increase the field strength as it depends on the phasing of energisation of each one and its orientation (remember Lenz's law for all the professors out there!) The SS is very much like a mild electric fence used on dairy farms, the field pulses regularly as the pulsing energisation of the antenna is driven by an oscillator. You can feel the shocks from about 300mm away and it is uncomfortable if you actually touch the antenna, your muscles will spasm in tune with the pulses. I treat the SS much the same as an electric fence, it should work most of the time but it won't stop an angry bull (or charging shark). The science and engineering of the SS is just fine, if the shark has a high tolerance to the field in its Lorenzini receptors then the repulsion effect may be diminished or absent. Electric fences, cattle prods, shark shields - sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, it all depends on many factors. I've worn the SS while diving for many years in South Australia and I've never seen a shark so I don't believe they attract them. I don't wear it surfing and am prepared to take the risk.
Thanks for the informative reply nat, you sound very informed so are you associated with SS?
The interesting thing that keeps popping up is the reference to the dive version which I believe to be a very different product to that being sold for the surfboard.
So why won't SS just answer the several simple questions I have proposed in relation to the latest surfboard product. The more it is avoided and skirted around the more skeptical I become.
These guys want surfers to spend US$600 for a product that they can't even answer some basic questions about. I hope to hell it works but if it doesn't and some poor sucker who buys one (IMHO based on misleading or confusing marketing that blurs the difference of two very different SS products) and gets taken, SS will get their arses sued off and some family will be left devastated.
So Nat, you yourself admit you don't use a SS product when surfing. So with your amount of knowledge, why not?
Well explained nat.
Very insightful, thanks Nat!
Near 99% want a Shark deterrent ! NSW has best minds working together on this,if there is a solution, step forward and be counted. Best product or natural solution is hopefully uniform for swimmer/diver/surfer etc.. to enjoy ocean freely with no harm to critters. Whale watching is but one slip of a selfie stick away from a ginormous sore throat.Shark study is all but futile as selfie Drone dragliners, unnaturally deviate gamefish through popular northern NSW surfbreak/wading zone. To create then corner shark attack market by fear or fraud sucks! This size alarm only fits this size tailpad and only fits this size blank supplied by this 'shark' sanctioned shaping company or warranty is void. As mentioned in comments before and above,lineups are most likely to have multiple acme transmitters all cross wired and fitted all tweaked to 'extremely scared' or 'panic mode' well above EPA sound levels) hyping shark into frenzy pissing off our endangered seapals me included. (Lets not run normal everyday tests huh!)( Not like I'm volunteering,nor would any here and that's the message!) We at sea level, had it up to to back teeth with nerve rattlin' brain pain from Jet Ski's circling within 500 mtrs (hint) Shark has way more teeth than us. Then again just over 1% wanna surf dead whales,simpler to launch the SSS Shark Selfie Subdrones...Subscribe for celeb's most recent harrowing shark surfing likes. No need for Swellnet or comments ! Hooroo!
So who has ordered one ?
Now $599 AUD.
Will sharks become tolerant to the shark shield? Me thinks a hungry fast moving shark will go straight through the field because it will be in a berserker frenzy. Peace of mind is important but I always give a prayer of thanks to the ocean to protect me and I wholeheartedly believe and know that I will not be harmed. Now that is a shark shield and not as expensive. But each to their own. Great comments in thread. Thanks for the knowledge. Had first body surf today and got some good ones. I'm sore but stoked.
IJ - I don't have any association with SS even though they were based here in South Australia for many years. I am an electrical engineer by profession tho. Why don't I use the SS when surfing ? - good question. Generally when diving the conditions are calm and dive sites contain a lot of fish compared to surf sites. When you are doing deco on the ex HMAS Hobart wrecksite in 30m of open water with tons of snapper below you, there is a sense of being a piece of burley down there! It's similar when a school of salmon swim around you in the surf. I accept that I may encounter a white shark at any time or place in SA waters but I just feel that I am more likely to encounter one when diving rather than surfing, where there is plenty of water movement and turbulence. Clear water is also a factor - I didn't use a SS when bluewater spearfishing tuna at Rocky Island, which is 50km out in the Bight off Avoid Bay.
hey Nat thanks for the reply and honest appraisal. Seems like you have more balls and experience than the average surfer when it comes to sharks and SS type devices.
It would appear SS has gone to ground on this thread and my questions which is really disappointing in that they are happy to use the site for market hype but do not seem to make any attempt to back up their claims.
With your experience as an electrical engineer what do you guess the output difference between the SS dive version to what could be the maximum the surfboard version would have without giving the surfer such a jolt that it becomes intolerable to most.
Interesting story in Gold Coast Bulletin today July 11 about Dale Carr who got attacked pretty much as I had mentioned before in that it just charged him from side/below and sent him flying. He also says in story he tried SS to get back in the water saying it was the worst experience of his life and "by the time I was out there I caught four waves the Shark Shield shocked me as many times"
Over to you Mr Lyon/SS to help us understand the surfboard version (not the dive version) what you are selling at what price, how it actually works in regard to the output and how wide the protective field is? Plus it would be at least a basic courtesy to reply to the questions earlier posed.
"...they are happy to use the site for market hype."
I approached Lindsay Lyon for the first story and he had nothing to do with this one. If a product hits the market that's of interest to surfers then it's my prerogative whether to run it or not. No-one elses.
And if a person involved with the product wants to answer question that's their prerogative.
From what I've read you've paid little courtesy to the answers put forth so I'm not the least surprised the correspondence has ended.
Fair enough Stu, if I got that wrong re the correct thread, full apologies.
I want this product to work as much as anyone, but there are many confusing aspects that IMHO need clarification. The performance and protection afforded by .dive versus surfboard models needs clearing up.
Is that an unreasonable position to take?
No it isn't, but the insinuations - to both Swellnet and Shark Shield - are unfair. If you're really that concerned then I suggest contacting them directly.
Diving Rocky island fucknhell Nat that's madness !
13ft GWS cruising in Pt Lincoln marina yesterday.
Science is there for all to pick and poke.It's the A+B =C and avoiding home truths that could prove fatal. Why do Marine Parks ban their use? Why so many zapped divers, fear using them in shallows? Bodybasherz and swimmers for hours have several senses feeding off current in shallow surfing reserves.How many 100's of pick and mix-'max charged' transmitters before our surfing reserve fields a more lively current and signed so by council. Without being smart we are asked to keep well clear of these devices but are to believe that multiple 'SS armed surfers' will provide swimmers with a virtual shark barrier.History shows that for our own safety we free spirited endangered critters shall be cleansed from our surfing reserve in favour of mayor's autobots with their fully charged,fully lit,fully ramped Surf-rink'reserve'. Sorry for the delay.. any stickers? Hooroo!
Sorry to resurrect this thread, and since swellnet is on the take from shark shield it's probably going to be posted by stunet anyway. No doubt he's on the blower to the owners crafting the propaganda right now. But while we wait for that...
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/shark-shield-saves-perth-angler-from-s...
Some cool drone footage of Lighthouse bch Ballina on Dorsalwatch
Special interest around 2.10 secs .....this is the type of proof i would like to see that a Sharkshield works
Can we find out if the surfer was wearing a device of any kind...looks like something turned this shark away ?
Far out..looks like he didn't even see it?
From SharkSheild Insta
Imagine a world where our next generations dont get to appreciate these guys
[breaching GWS pic ] - SharkShield removes the need for culling or other lethal means of managing human and Shark interactions..