Teen wearing Sharkbanz attacked by shark
Zack Davis received a Sharkbanz shark repellent for Christmas and took it out for the first time at his home break off Florida.
In the whitewater, at the end of the wave a shark (believed to be a black tip) grabbed his arm, inflicting deep gashes which required 44 stitches.
Zach told the local TV station "It was supposed to keep sharks away and the first time I wore it, and I go surfing a lot, but the first time I wore it, I get bit."
Zach describes the attack in the video below.
Comments
Like, like that's crazy first time wearing it and he gets like bitten, that sucks dude, wont be buying one like fark that.
didn't take that long for the sharks to build up a resistance...
i'd put this scam up there with that band you wore around your wrist for better balance a few years ago (remember a few gullible sporting folk wore them for a while)...
Fools and their money are easily separated...
Wow that’s like, totally no way, like, I can’t, like, believe that, like, that kid can ,like, say like so many, like, times.
That’s like crazy.
Wow the kid now gets to sue the sharkbanz crew retire and use the money to invent a real anti shark device , ah don't you love the USA!
F-ck that! Who is regulating this shit?
I have only heard horror stories about these 'shark repellant' bands and belts. They apparently work on an "attract and repel" system from what people have told me. So first they attract a shark?! I had a woman tell me she was going to wear one at Cactus with great whites! I wasn't going anywhere near her. Assume the shark didn't eat her in a fast mode attack (as I doubt it would worry too much about turning around at high speed), so assuming it planned a Fanning bump, then I guess it might get repelled away from her but then would be swimming near me!! This shit is really dangerous and ought to be stopped before someone is eaten. This particular kid was very lucky to have survived. I would like to see a nice video of the guys who sell them jump into the water with a great white or two and show us how sure they are about the safety of what they are selling to the public. The governments of Australia ought to look into this and regulate it as there are many innocent swimmers and surfers who probably don't want sharks being attracted in near them by people with "attract and repel" technology as they will have nothing on them to repel. See an article in The Australian 1march 2008, entitled Great White 'ate anti-shark device', where at an inquest it was shown that a South African test of a shark shield resulted a a great white biting into it, not swimming away as one might have hoped!!
Couple of comments to assist and sorry for the length
Both state and federal governments are looking into how to regulate shark deterrents. NSW are conducting research into how to determine what is an effective deterrent and what is not, and the federal government has a senate enquiry into this also. There is without question a number of products that have no basis for their claims of significantly reducing risk, which without doubt Shark Shield has been proven to do over the past 15+ years. It’s a bit like the Power Balance band which ended up with an ACCC issue and a class action costing $56M for misleading consumers.
Electrical shark deterrents do not attack sharks and every research study conducted confirms this. As Ross at Soul Surf in WA once said to me "if Shark Shield attracted sharks every shark fisherman in the world would own one". The science reason is based on the laws of physicals called the inverse square law which says that field strength is weakened by the square of the distance you travel away from the source. So if you travel 10 meters away the field is 100 times weaker, if you travel 100 meters away the field is 10,000 times weaker. This is the reason why a magnet would not be effective, at a distance of <10cm the magnet field strength is zero, it cannot be measured.
The Australian story 2008 referred to testing in South Africa of the SURF7 being dragged along the surface. It was choppy and not submerged so the field not working correctly during the testing so yes the shark too a bite, that’s what testing is for, figure out what works and what does not, there was no inquest. Independent testing with the device correctly submerged under a seal decoy resulted in outstanding results in preventing a shark interaction. The latest research in 2016 reviewed by the Australian Geographic reported that Shark Shield was nearly 100% effective, noting that this is a safety device an no safety device can ever remove 100% of risk, simply not possible.
Shark Shield is the world’s only scientifically proven and independently tested electrical deterrent. You can read the research on our website https://sharkshield.com/scientific-research/
"It was choppy so field not working correctly"?!!!, is that what you are really saying?? Not submerged correctly? That is exactly what happens in surf conditions. Us surfers are often in choppy conditions, and sometimes in the whitewater, or partly in and out of submersion. I am afraid what you have said only adds to my doubts. Hey incidentally, have you guys asked the kid who was bitten if he plans to wear his shark band next time he goes for a surf??
Shark Shield is not claiming and never will to be a guarantee, but it will without doubt and proven to reduce risk, just as a motor bike helmet or seat belt reduce risk but can never eliminate it. The risks of shark attack are ridiculously low, but if you are concerned and as a result not enjoying your surfing, you can now reduce the risk. Testing helps define what works and what needs to be improved in products, which is exactly how after the test your referring to conducted nearly ten years ago we now have a product that is significant improvement designed for surfing, the FREEDOM+ Surf. There is no comparison between the effectiveness of Shark Shield and SharkBanz the kid was wearing, if you would like to get technical and compare the technologies you can read about it here https://sharkshield.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/14000040771...
Please provide the readers with details of how many times sharks have bitten your devices in field experiments, the number of field experiments you have conducted in any year, the types of sharks worked with and how many of each type has bitten your devices. Give us all the stuff you are aware of where sharks have bitten and the circumstances. Then we might start having a more open discussion. I just feel from the "scientifically proven" perspective, we are just getting a conclusion without the sharing of facts, including unfavourable facts...
You can read and download the independent a peer reviewed and published scientific research papers at the link below. These are not research funded by Shark Shield, these are all independent government funded university lead programs. For those that don't wish to read fifty page research papers I've included a summary below. But please if you have questions read the research..............
https://sharkshield.com/scientific-research/
Estimating the Probability of a Shark Attack when using an Electric Repellent: University of Pretoria, South Africa and University of Durban-Westville, South Africa.
The research concluded that the probability of an attack in sharks allowed access to bait for a 5 minute period was reduced from about 0.70 when the SharkPOD was in power-off mode, to about 0.08 when the SharkPOD was in power-on mode. When sharks were allowed access to bait for a 10 minute period, the probability of an attack was reduced from 0.90 when the SharkPOD was in power-off mode, to 0.16 when the SharkPOD was in power-on mode.
Effects of the Shark Shield electric deterrent on the behaviour of white sharks. The South Australian & Research Development Institute (SARDI).
During the static bait test, the proportion of baits taken were not affected by the deterrent, however, the deterrent doubled the time it took for sharks to take the static bait, as well the number of interactions per approach, indicating that the sharks investigated how to approach the bait with minimal affect by the field.
During the dynamic seal decoy, no breaches and only two surface interactions were observed when the deterrent was activated, compared to 16 breaches and 27 surface interactions, when the deterrent was not activated.
How Close is too Close? The Effect of a Non-Lethal Electric Shark Deterrent on White Shark Behaviour. University of Western Australia Ocean Institute, Flinders University and Ocean Research South Africa.
The study analyzed 322 encounters involving 41 individual white sharks, ranging from 2m to 4m long. 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. Only one great white shark came into contact with the bait in the presence of an active Shark Shield, and only after multiple approaches. The interaction in question simply involved a bump of the bait canister rather than a full bite. In contrast, bites were common during control trials.
No one regulates it. Fullstop.
i.C.B.S Everywhere sharkbanz
worth a read.
And to the very well known high profile surfboard shaper pushing Modem legropes to his customers as a 100% shark detterant you should be ashamed of yourself !
C'mon Udo , who ?
Who actually thought all these shark repellant gadgets would actually work in a real life /in the wild situation ? The greedy money sucking low life's pushing this stuff are gambling with people's lives. And the well known surfers putting their names to this shit are just undermining their own integrity. Bloodsucking parasites thriving on people's fear.
Please see above reply to SI.
So Modom and Sharkbanz are partners in this Magnetic Legrope Wank ?
Arrived today from Lan Lin at Surfhub Store, ph 13799360415 Fujian Sheng Province China where they are made I guess? just to check out the field strength. About $53 brand spankers so worth a look. As an engineer in Active, Passive and microelectronics I expect a neodymium magnet of some sort but a gauss meter will tell. Not that strong with a "screwdriver" test which would indicate the field strength would be fairly weak in water surely.
Nothing is 100%. Sounds like from what i read in another story he landed right next to the shark and spooked it. The shark just bit at the air to protect itself and Zach's arm without the Sharkbanz got chomped. Still wearing mine. I trust the tech in other situations like just sitting on my board or wading.
Hah hah, yeah, and in another story Zak came down with a spaceship and tried to karate chop the shark before abducting it for experiments, the shark lashed out and would have bitten him in half, except it picked up on the "technology" and tried to escape, thus Zak's life was saved by the shark shield!!!
Zach should re-gift it as a secret Santa present.
Good thing he had his "golf cart"?
Jack Perry from Modom care to join in and comment ?
Cray fisherman around here tell me they attract sharks as as soon as they put a shark shield in the water it was approached by a shark. It turned away but what does that do for the guy on the outside or inside of you? I just hope its not true.
Groundswell please see here, attracting sharks is a proven myth
https://sharkshield.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/14000025457...
The magnetic bracket or leg rope as a shark repellant simply don't work. I've previously tried to engage on their websites and Facebook pages but promptly got banned/removed. Very disappointing to see surfing Vic and Surfer in Suits accept money from Moden and pro - semi pro accept sponsorships from them. They don't work.
I think the sharkshield probably works and that it is likely they are right when they assert that it will not attract sharks. That said there are a few things I think they need to consider. Wikipedia give extremely low values for the sensitivity of the ampullae of Lorenzini, 5nm/cm, so the assertion that the fields produced by the device could not be detected on the basis of the inverse square law is weak, particularly as the strength of the initial field is not given. I appreciate that this may be critical information useful to rival companies. The second point is that as the field detection sensitivities vary amongst different species, it would be nice to see field data from more types of shark. Conclusion? One, if I was regularly surfing in SA I would have a shark shield on my board. Two, with so many frauds in the field it is worth encouraging businesses like shark shield who base their products on good quality science.
Here's some recent research I found from UWA testing Sharkshield.
http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201607048795/international/shark-shield-prove...
Rpela electrical deterrents, made in WA are undergoing research at present but work on the same principle as Sharkshield.
A warning I got was if you have a heart condition, these little suckers put out 200v pulses, just a bit more than a few magnets. The electrodes are about a metre apart so it's easy to test if they are operating. They need the salt water to complete the circuit.
Shame on you swellnet for letting the Orion code advertise on your site the biggest load of bullshit I have ever seen possibly even worse than the sharkbanz crap above wake the fuck up to yourselves
Mate, we don't take advertising from Orion. You're probably seeing these ads because you have visited their site before, and they are displaying ads through Google's ad system (which we use).
There's more info on how this works, here: https://support.google.com/adsense/troubleshooter/1631343?hl=en
Hey Sharkshield
You will, i am sure, recall the story Stu did on your product some months ago and I took the time to list a few simple questions that you must know the answers to and would clear up any ambiguity about the effectiveness of your 'surfboard' compared to the 'dive' product.
You went completely silent when I posted those questions, but now all of a sudden are frothing to respond to these recent questions.
So sounds like you are ready to chat, is that so??
HI, Shark Shield has only three employees, we are a small company, so monitoring every forum / social media channel on the planet and answering every questions is not an easy task, so to be honest I didn't see your previous question and my answers here are because someone emailed about the string. The answer to the difference between the dive product and the surf product is on our website where we have create a very comprehensive Frequently Asked Question section which is searchable, and if you don't find an answer there please do email us at [email protected] and we'll post one. Hope that helps.
https://sharkshield.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/14000026337...
Had Barry Bruce at a meeting of commercial divers. Barry heads up the CSIRO White tagging project. The question was asked on the effectiveness of Sharkshield for divers and the reply was from memory "If it makes you feel better go for it!" Also know another older guy that has done 50 consecutive years in the industry and he refuses to wear even a battery operated dive computer because of the electrics. He is still alive and kicking at over 70.
Big tree man, interesting comment about the heart warning. Who gave that warning? I've wondered whether there would be any effects on the heart, with only 2.5 to 3 inches of surfboard as a barrier providing minimal insulation from the electrical field. The FAQs on Sharkshield's site say that if you feel discomfort you can reduce the power of the device in 3 stages: 75%, 50% and 25%. But that would allow the shark to come a lot closer, and maybe within reach of legs dangling in the water. Maybe Sharkshield can provide some more information?
Get well kid!
Yeah! Sharkshield site weirds me out also.
(Get outta my way you)
Let's say some surfers develop a suspect device and thru their own admission should never be used near the most vulnerable of our populous.
Let's also say these skegz then conceal this alarming device within their surfboards and enter our holy surfers shrine.
Within the World surfing reserve these armed surfers are wishing to clear the line-up.
The mothers to be and children even elderly can't see the hidden danger.
The suspect device is activated.
The pointbreak is lighting up...Alarms are going off.
The unarmed surfing populous is hastily evacuated from fully mined Surfing Shrine.
The Authorities waste no time apologising to armed surf terrorists whilst handing them the keys to surf reserve.
Sorry 'bout the unfair 2016 ending....
Surf products and their pets have more rights than humans.
Enough Surf/Fi & No It wasn't ridicule, simply waking people up to the here and now and yes I do offer alternative shark deterrent that's tried and tested for ever and a day.
Australia's first people used various shark deterrents.
Get your shaper onto (Cypress boards/cypress oil) or for SUP'rs Cypress Paddle oar.
(Note) Old seal hunters back it up...they swear Cypress shavings also kept whales at bay.
Now for your legrope!
Twine together with own hair the branches from Acacia Wickham Wattle .
Also if you wipeout you'll feel the fool without your twined acacia hair activity belt.
Hooroo ...Happy New Year ! Swellnetonians.
i was thinkng banded sea snake legropes.. why the fuck haven't they been done yet.?
The bottom line is every product has its limitations. Media and consumers love to sensationalize any product that touts it protects even if the company/brand sets expectations and claims to what their product can do. We seem to skip that part of the warning or website. How about a deeper dive into this story. No avalanche backpack, car seatbelt, bear spray or big wave inflatable vest is perfect. No protective device is going to save you every time you use it. Maybe this is the bigger conversation we need to have. We are not invincible and no product is guaranteed to protect us from every variable out there. If you buy the product read the warning label. Know what it will and will not do.
So if these sharksheild thingys can be dangerous around people with dodgy tickers they will do 2 jobs in one, deterring sharks and electrocuting grumpy old cunts and inducing heart attacks, sweet jesus I'm getting one.
On a more serious note, I have heard the boys out on the tuna farms at Port Lincoln used to shove the shark shield that used to trail off the back of the board down great whites throats, they had no problem chewing on it.
I have been thinking of sewing 2cm cubes of yoga mat to my rashy and back of my shorts. Possibly even an MX spine guard. This should hopefully give me enough time to deploy my lilo life raft with a zippy bag full of dog biscuits (seal pup flavoured).
Sharksheild must not be used by children under 12 yrs of age
Sharkshield can you explain a bit more about this ?
I've updated the FAQ for you
https://sharkshield.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/14000025484...
great stuff shark shield , your product and the tech behind it seems, very believable , and has been shown to work.
I just watched Shark week on Fox and was amazed at how different all the species of sharks are , and their behavior.
Have you tested sharkshield on all shark species?
The bulk of the research and testing has been done on White Sharks, and then Tiger and Bull. These three species represent some 90% of all human shark interactions.
Thanks. Also your team such as Tom Carrol...do they use Sharkshield on every surfboard every surf or only when they think theres a shark threat.
Tom's involvement is primarily conservation motivated and as a surf performance design input consultant, he does not use the product on a regular basis because unlike me he doesn't give a lot of consideration to sharks as the risks are so small. As previously stated, if your fear is ruining your surfing experience now you can do something to reduce the risks so you can go back to enjoying your ocean adventurers.
A minor inconsistency in the info in Sharkshield's FAQs about age restrictions:
Why is the FREEDOM+ Surf not suitable for short performance boards?
"Because of the physical size of a performance boards (boards <5'10") the forward electrode ends up very close to the nose which enables the electrical field to travel up and around the board. For example when you duck dive the field touches your fingers interfering with your surfing. When the board has a small width and is thin the user is effected by the electrical field even when sitting and paddling which ongoing is unpleasant.
The above are also the reasons why the product unfortunately is not suitable for children. The board mass is too small to shield the user from being zapped and as children also have a smaller body mass they are likely to be more effected by the electrical field zapping them unintentionally. As a safety precaution Shark Shield does not recommend the use of any of our products for children under 14 years of age."
Thanks Coaster, I've corrected the inconsistency.
OMG. This is such a 1980's timeshare style pitch. If you really want to be safe try wrapping your board with a Holden HQ station wagon. It makes paddling in a bit more work but I reckon it's worth the extra effort.
Ahh, i had an orange HQ station wagon. Thing was duel fuel, LPG was down to 18 cents a litre...
Fantastic time were had and amazing waves were scored . Damn back window jammed up ....Drum brakes were a little sketchy , Overall a solid surf vehicle.
They f u c k i n g work?
NOT.
As 'sticky' above wrote:
"... know another older guy that has done 50 consecutive years in the industry and he refuses to wear even a battery operated dive computer because of the electrics. He is still alive and kicking at over 70..."
Personally, I listen to old dogs like that bloke. Ya know, someone with YEARS of actual experience in the environment, having observed the behavior of the wild animals and know from experience what impacts them.
Remember who told us that asbestos was OK, cigarettes are OK, etc.
sharkshield, I had a look at the research on your site and it suggests, as I said before, that you should not rely on the inverse square law to prove that sharks cannot be attracted. The paper, which I could not access, apparently says something pretty different. Presumably their research was thorough and valid. If you cannot provide a link to the paper it might be a good idea to summarise it.
sharkshield, thanks for giving a reply this time around but as highlighted by blind boy's post above, the problem I am having with your approach is your not being forthcoming with the core information that consumers need to make an informed decision as to the veracity of your product.
You answer with reference to time consuming convoluted 'research' and many of the FAQ's are just marketing waffle that don't install any confidence in me.
It is finally now clear from dredging responses that, as I originally predicated, an electrical field of varying intensity is generated by your devices. How strong it is and how far it travels is still unclear to me but it seems that it causes discomfort (or even danger) to the user such that a 'short' board isyour deemed not suitable to have it attached.
If that be the case, why does your video show how to fit one by example fitting it to a 'short' board?
A tail pad with kick tail as your product has, would be next to useless on a longboard and even if it was fitted one major flaw arises in the concept.
All surfers sit on their boards with legs over the side at the rear area of the board when waiting for waves. So as your legs don't get zapped every time one sits or paddles, the part of the device emitting the electrical field, would need to be around the nose area.
Now I am far from an expert on such matters but most attacks seem to be around the surfers lower area and rear of board. My theory is that is because sharks strike with stealth from behind and below, not front on and at the nose.
Maybe your product does afford some protection to a surfer in a regular lineup, the jury is still out on that, but the actual logistics of what makes (or doesn't make) your product work are so unclear as to be deemed, by some, as a an expensive hoax , promoted by an ex pro who, by your own admission, does not even use the product!!
Please explain!
The download links seem to work on all three research papers on the website, I just checked so I'm not sure where you are looking https://sharkshield.com/scientific-research/ but I've summaries all three above.
You have to rely on the inverse square law, its a law of physics unless someone has come up with a different theory on physics and how electrical / magnet waves act...
For example, the Shark Shield's volts per meter at a distance of one meter from the source is measured at 1.68 v/m then based on the laws of physics the electrical field strength at a distance of eight meters is 0.00041 volts per meter, and at a distance of 64 meters from the source it is 0.0000000000000381 volts per meter or in case I've screwed up the decimal places 3.81988E-13 volts per meter, certainly way smaller than the billionth of volt a shark can sense.
There is no guessing here, this is mathematics and physics
Just on the maths here.
If distance 1m = 1.68v/m2
Then 8m = 1.68/64 = 0.02625 Yes?
And 64m = 0.00041015625 (you're first estimate).
Yes you are correct, my error but you have the theory:)
The inverse square law argument does nothing to make me feel safer. The same law also applies to signals transmitted from human splashing, heartbeat etc or signals emitted by a sick marine creature etc. That doesn't stop sharks from homing in on that from a very long way away. Their senses are (I believe) exponentially more sensitive than human senses.
Thanks guys, but I’m out of answers for this string. If you do not believe the Shark Shield technology works given the twenty years of data and independent research then I’m afraid I can add no more value to this conversation. The most recent independent research was led by Professor Shawn Collins, who by the way wrote the entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Animals for electrical receptors, you can read his ten page resume here http://www.web.uwa.edu.au/people/Shaun.Collin This research was reviewed by Australian Geographic and I quote the heading “Great white shark deterrent almost 100 per cent effective” http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/07/great-white-shark-de... We can provide no more conclusive evidence than what has been produced.
Ah, seems like you have done it again...cut and run.
This is exactly the reaction that breeds the concerns I (and I suspect, many others ) hold about Sharkshield products for surfers.
Yep your dive super shocker might have got some handy reviews from various fields but here at Swell and using the marketing of Tom Carroll to flog further product to the core surfing community requires getting fair dinkum and telling it how it is, good or bad.
I would love your product to work and be able to surf with 'freedom', but something just does not add up here.
I think you have a point ljk whenever I raise the issue of the field being potentially large enough to be detected at significant distances, the conversation ends. My reading of the evidence is this. Sharks could potentially detect the field at distances well over 1km. This is based on a field strength large enough to produce a shock and the equation for field strength at a distance ( the inverse square law). There is a reasonable body of research that they do not use their electroreceptors over those distances so sharkshield is almost certainly right in stating that their device does not attract sharks. I suspect he either does not understand some of the science or is worried that stating that the field could be potentially detected at distance might reduce the market for his device. That said, if I was surfing SA regularly I would use one.
Gents whilst the banner is great, if you do not read the research and/or take the time to understand the science, which granted very technical, then you have to accept it as a given, you can't keep saying the world is flat unless you have some data to say it is so. This conversation just re-hashes the same stuff, does it attack sharks and does it work, both of which have conclusive answers, no and yes. I accept this is very technical which is why at the end of the day you have to consider as likely the advice of experts in their field. Based on facts once you know what works and what does not work you can design a device with the exactly right output, which is what we have done with the FREEDOM+ Surf, we don't have to guess if its going to work, with twenty years of test data we know it will.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourn...
"Furthermore, the findings provide no support to the theory that electric deterrents attract sharks."
Shark Shield Electric Field Gradient (for those that feel they need to know..................)
Measurements of the electric field generated by the Shark Shield™ showed that the voltage gradient was greatest in close proximity to the electrodes of the Shark Shield™ and decreased rapidly with distance (Fig 7). The Shark Shield™ measured in this study discharged at a frequency of 1.67 Hz, with a peak voltage gradient of ≥100 V/m within 5 cm of the electrode surface (Fig 7). The gradient of the electric field at equal distances around the Shark Shield™ varied slightly (± 2.7%) depending on the angle of the recording probe relative to the Shark Shield’s electrodes. For consistent measurements, the gradient was plotted along the same axis, parallel to the end of the electrode. Based on the average proximity to an active Shark Shield™, when controlling for the effect of encounter number (82 ± 12 cm; Table 1: #14), the estimated average voltage gradient necessary to elicit a deterrent response equated to approximately 15.7 (± 2.1) V/m (Fig 7). However, as proximity has been shown to decline over subsequent encounters (Table 3: #6 and #7), the estimated voltage gradient to elicit a deterrent response during the first encounter (131 ± 10 cm) is much lower than the average and equates to approximately 9.7 (± 0.9) V/m. Therefore, based on an average decrease in proximity by 11.6 cm per encounter, the voltage tolerance of individual sharks would be expected to increase by approximately 2.6 (± 0.5) V/m per encounter.
.....sorry sharkshield but, while I agree with what you have posted, it does not address the issue I raised. If you accept that sharks can potentially detect fields as small as 5nV/m then, using the inverse square law and your 100V/m figure, the field at 1km would be = 100 billion/ 1 million nV/m = 100,000nV/m
Apologies if there are errors in my calculation. I stand ready to be corrected.
Try this https://www.intl-lighttech.com/support/calculators/calculator03
d1 = 0.005 meters
e1 = 100 volts / meter (as measured at 5cm in the research)
d2 = 200 meters
e2 = 0.00000000625 volts / meter or 6.2nV/m
This ignores issues with transmitting a wave through a water mass
d1 = 0.05m ;)
hahaha correct! Time for a beer..............................
......which means, using your own formula, the size of the field at 1km is still much greater than 5nV/m.......unless the permittivity of water saves you! I am off to find a real physicist who can do the definitive calculation. Good luck with the product, I'm sure I will need one at some stage.
Sharkshield, no criticism of the product intended but the science supporting it should be clear, for your own benefit. As it stands, I'm sorry but to the best of my knowledge there is no such unit as volts per metre squared. If it was a typo for volts per metre then the value for the field seems too low to generate the shocks people report getting. Glad to be corrected on either point.
On a side note, I'm curious about people who use the Shark Apps as a part of their daily web diet. Is this information modifying your surf habits?
I understand why people may want to know if there have been recent shark sightings in the area, but I honestly can't see how that knowledge will assist in creating a better surf session.
No apps for where i live ......Plenty of landlords (whites). Not to sure if i would look at the apps personally.
Obviously it's probably affecting Swellnet numbers.
For me the mentality changes / when someone mentions sharks before i enter the water.
Kinda just puts me in a weird head space.
I grew up surfing in a great white breeding ground. Fisherman and scientists refer to the area as Shark alley. Coming from a family with generations tied to fishing. i may have had more knowledge of sharks than others.
I posted some key points that had been told to me by other elder surfers and fisherman.
There was some distaste from fellow commenters. Overall though rather than looking at the shark apps . Surfers should be educating and training themselves with first aid and preventative measures. Awareness of poor conditions for safe surfing.
What really surprises me is some surfers who have been surfing for decades say" they have never seen a shark in the water. " I have seen far too many.
I have sharksmart on my iPad. It hasn't had any hits in Sydney so it hasn't influenced my surfing. If I was outside Sydney at this time of year I think it would be worthwhile to keep an eye on it as there are some clear patterns of activity, presumably the same shark hanging around the area.
Ok shakshield good to see you are interacting on this, albeit not getting to the nub of the issues that your average punter can understand. So so us try and address those issues.
The attracting sharks issue seems pretty big in the posts on these forums and it is a really 'out there' position IMHO. Science may give indications but no body can be 100% sure, Is that a fair statement?
The main issue I have is the confusion that exists between various models. We have been led to believe the dive type cable unit has the most output and has been around for many years and is the unit that most (if not all) of the research/papers is based upon. Is this correct?
We also understand that the dive unit gives off a pretty hefty shock to many people if touched and hence many will not use it. We know that unit is no good for surfers hence the recent developments of 'surfer' oriented models to suit this market. Is this correct?
Can you please get more specific about what size minimum board would be suitable for the 'surfer' units and what field area around the fitting would the electrical field be potentially uncomfortable/dangerous to the user. That is not unreasonable to ask is it?
If you are so confident that the 'surfer' unit is effective why do you not have the endorsement of Fanning (the obvious choice) or backing from the various surfing bodies (ASSA, NSWSA or even WSL) or Government Depts. who are spending a fortune trying to find a solution particularly on NSW Nth Coast?
Cut and Paste from earlier posts in this string;
Both state and federal governments are looking into how to regulate shark deterrents. NSW are conducting research into how to determine what is an effective deterrent and what is not, and the federal government has a senate enquiry into this also. There is without question a number of products that have no basis for their claims of significantly reducing risk, which without doubt Shark Shield has been proven to do over the past 15+ years. It’s a bit like the Power Balance band which ended up with an ACCC issue and a class action costing $56M for misleading consumers.
Electrical shark deterrents do not attack sharks and every research study conducted confirms this. As Ross at Soul Surf in WA once said to me "if Shark Shield attracted sharks every shark fisherman in the world would own one". The science reason is based on the laws of physicals called the inverse square law which says that field strength is weakened by the square of the distance you travel away from the source. So if you travel 10 meters away the field is 100 times weaker, if you travel 100 meters away the field is 10,000 times weaker. This is the reason why a magnet would not be effective, at a distance of <10cm the magnet field strength is zero, it cannot be measured. https://sharkshield.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/14000040771...
Here is the information on comparing the FREEDOM7 to the new FREEDOM+ Surf
https://sharkshield.freshdesk.com/solution/articles/14000026337-how-do-y...
Ok lets do this by simple answers to simple numbered questions so avoid ambiguity. This is not the Spanish Inquisition, just stuff we should know if we are considering purchase.
1) Fair call on Governments still deciding. What about the 'surfing' bodies and why don't we see any notable surfer using or endorsing the 'surfing' unit?
2) I take it that in your post the word"attack" should read "attract" ? If so it would read that you are confident that Sharkshield does not attract sharks, agree?
3) what is minimum size board you recommend can use the 'surfing' unit?
4) The 'surfing' unit is new and is not covered by the 15 years of research you quote as proof that Sharkshield works?
1). We have not approached any surfing bodies, we are focused on government endorsement with the WA labor government already announcing their intention to offer rebates on Shark Shield as proven technology, surfing bodies I'm sure will follow government. Tom Carroll is our brand ambassador, Tom was in Hawaii before Christmas doing testing with the FREEDOM+ Surf and you can see an Instagram post here
2). There is zero research that indicates Shark Shield attracts sharks, all existing research confirms it does not. I have never seen a research paper saying it attracts sharks.
3). We do not recommend performance boards under 5'10" please see why here https://sharkshield.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/14000053165...
4). When twenty years of research definitively confirms what a shark will and wont react to you can design a product to meet that requirement. So yes, we know the new surf product output definitively meets the requirements already known and tested. We'll still continue to do testing, as we have already done, with live shark testing and have engaged a university to do this.
thanks Sharkshield, will look forward to seeing results of testing on surfing unit.
At least we now know Sharkshield is not to be used for performance surfboards 5'10 or under and definitely not for grommies under 14 (or was it 12?). My guess that excludes at least 50% of the market but more importantly excludes almost 100% of the 'influencers' who drive sales.
Pity it has taken so long to extrapolate that basic info, but now it's out there.
Personally, I don't think your product is suited for surfing (even though the alternative products are just a hoax IMHO) without major re-design and measured comfort and performance data and of course an easy retrofit at a much reduced price.
The FREEDOM+ Surf detailed product information has been "out there" for nine months, its been on the Shark Shield website live taking orders since May and covered back in June on this website, so there are no secrets as to what the product is or does. The Shark Shield FREEDOM+ Surf is co-branded and distributed globally by Ocean & Earth with design input from Tom Carroll. Not everyone has a concern with sharks, as I continue to say, the risks are super low, however if you find it is ruining your surf and you don't want to take up tennis, then here is a solution to enable you to get back in the water. Around 10% - 20% of the global surf population are "performance" surfers, the rest of us just want to get a wave without thinking about sharks every time we see a shadow. The weight means maybe I should have one less beer the night before, and as weight is in the center of the tail, it has minimal impact for the average surfer. Here's Tom surfing in Ballina with the FREEDOM+ Surf on a short board
noting that if that was me on that short board it would be called a submarine..............Can you make a shark shield legrope that will deter sharks, but works even if I don't wear it because legropes are for kooks?
The title of this article said the boy was wearing "sharkbanz", but all the discussion in the comments has been about "shark shield". Which one was the boy actually wearing? do we know?
They are based on different technologies, "shark shield" emits electronic pulses and "sharkbanz" emits a magnetic field (its hard to tell whether sharkbanz is any more than just a magnet in a wrist band, but if its effective then I'd rather wear that than something that could shock me).
On further reading the sharkbanz is pretty much just a magnet in a wrist band, but apparently some particular kind of magnet, so not sure whether one you could buy from the hardware store would do the job.
No magnet will do the job edt, but there is good evidence that sharkshield works.
https://www.instagram.com/juansharks/?hl=en
Theres a shot of Tom Carroll testing out his Sharkshield in Hawaii and if you the scroll down and read some of the feed back it sounds real positive so far for Sharkshield but not so good for Sharkbanz......gotta say Juan Sharks and Ocean Ramsey are the real deal,incredible photos on there instagrams....
hey simba, great link with amazing pics but that shot of Tom does not add up.
The board looks shorter than 5'10" (tom is a very small guy) so shark shield say not to fit on boards that small and from what i can see from the pic there is no Sharkshield fitted which should be able to be seen on bottom of board and on rail feeding the cables under.
My whole tilt is that the whole shark shield thing is shrouded in ambiguity. Showing Tom paddling with a shark in the background along with 50 shots of pretty girls swimming with sharks has zero to do with wether a shark shield works or not.
Even Juan's comments cover his arse in saying he is not totally convinced.
He dosent actually say hes not convinced...and heres what he did say....quote
'shark shield seems to be working as a deterrent with the sharks here, we just gotta get a few more things in place to make a proper field testing on it.'
He dosent actually say hes not convinced...and heres what he did say....quote
'shark shield seems to be working as a deterrent with the sharks here, we just gotta get a few more things in place to make a proper field testing on it.'
I thought the same about Toms board length..even if its of right length isnt there also a problem with board thickness...on full zoom that board is showing flotation wise to be 2 1/4 or less - most of Toms body looks to be underwater ?
Where can i find a vid of Anglers using it to deter sharks from there fishing ground?
Pretty sure its the same board in the link below.......
https://sharkshield.com/video-tag/how-to-videos/
Am i reading board length correct at 5'7"
Simba, yep you are correct, my mistake, I should of said the word 'seems' not totally convinced.
You seem to be right onto all the links so just interested to know if you have any association with SS in any way?
Back to Juan's pic, if Tom has his SS tuned on then that shark is very close, swimming along side and does not seem at all freaked out by an electrical current. I am sure if it did the Juan would have the images and have made a more positive statement.
BTW the post of Tom being shown how to fit SS and how it works and the questions he asks only leads me to doubt the SS claim that Tom worked collaboration involved in designing the device (or words to that effect)
It all just keeps raising more questions that there are clear answers to convince one to part with $600+ bucks, fit, charge and monitor the device, keep ya kids away from it, ride a non performance board which a tail pad is useless. Wonder how much Tom gets paid to appear committed?
ljkarma no im not associated with sharkshield just curious and hopeful someone will come up with a shark deterrent that works soon.As for TC i dont know him personally but i believe hes passionate about shark conservation and that instagram you viewed was in no way trying to sell something or push anything onto anyone imo.At least hes out there trying to find a solution.
I think the bigger variable too is that the research so far has not focused on behavioural changes, and the ability for these species to make quick decisions whilst adapting to unusual environmental changes in their environment. Shark species have a complex behaviour, and it is difficult to pre-empt what their decision making processes are as they come across human influence and unnatural variables in their environment. I feel we as humans try to find comfort in thinking we are the smarter species. This is why I am proposing this type of product could have a short life-time span.
Are there any devices that are particularly good for spearfishing? I found some devices on this wesbite about shark devices but I am not sure the best one.
https://sharkdefence.com/category/reviews/spearfishing/
Well Jim spearing is always risky but after checking out the sharkbanz 2 and seeing the vids they have produced i would say your better off wearing one or two sharkbanz than not .I wear one surfing and am still here,touch wood haha,but they have improved their product since i last commented and you can see in the vid it does have an adverse effect on bullsharks which besides whites are going to be your biggest worry.Probably nothing will stop a white if he wants you .