Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1

    Shark shield update

    Not sure if you all seen the news this morn but a a lady was attacked by 3m white pointer while wearing a shark shield diving with dolphins. I've seen these units work well and am wondering if she had it turned off for the dolphins

  2. #2

    Re: Shark shield update

    Interesting point D river, would be good to find out for sure. From what I heard it came up from underneath her so it may have aborted a kill attack.
    Scary s%^t, glad she is OK, lucky she had crew with her.
    Cheers.

  3. #3

    Re: Shark shield update

    I have seen reports where she was quoted on her facebook site as saying "I might have to turn my shark shield on one day, but if i was to die, i'd like to die in the sea" so who knows.

    I bet the guys who make and market the shark shields are hoping it was turned off. Could be a major set back for business. Just imagine if it was a big shark?

  4. #4

    Re: Shark shield update

    Yeah, wonder if the South Africans use them?
    Plenty of nasty big beasts over there.
    Reading the ABC article, not sure whether white or whaler was involved.
    Some bloke grabbed it by the tail as it 'attacked' the girl, doesn't sound like a kill attack to me. Would have been way too quick and powerful I think. Possibly just an exploratory 'nibble'

    unlike this poor victim

  5. #5

    Re: Shark shield update

    They were invented in SA Nigel.

  6. #6

    Re: Shark shield update

    Shark sheild featured heavily in a coronial enquiry a while back. I think a ab diver was taken in south oz, he was wearing it and it was not turned on (though not sure). It was a oh&s issue.

    Through the course of the enquiry some information came to light regarding the sheild and how it worked during the testing stages at a white pointer infested location in South Africa. I beleive that the sharks didnt really give a stuff about it and ate the unit whole. All the info is out there and it featured heavily in the aussie papers.

    Saying that just found this on shark shield web site.

    [FONT='Arial Black','sans-serif']MEDIA STATEMENT[/FONT]
    STATEMENT FROM SHARK SHIELD PTY LTD
    [FONT='Century Gothic','sans-serif'] [/FONT]Shark Shield Pty Ltd welcomes the findings of the South Australian Coroner Anthony Schapel in relation to the tragic death of Jarrod Stehbens.
    We are pleased the Coroner has quickly cleared the air and acknowledged the effectiveness of Shark Shields, and in particular the high level of support for the technology from South Australian police divers who, the inquiry was told, would be unlikely to agree to go into the ocean without wearing their devices.

    Similar confidence has been won around the world, with Shark Shield technology in use not only by police in other Australian States and Australian Army elite forces, but employed by military divers in France and Japan, as well as the Hong Kong Government and Brazilian surf lifesavers.

    The technology, which first came to world attention when it protected triathletes in the Sydney Harbour during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, has also attracted many testimonials from divers who have graphically described its remarkable performance in the water (www.sharkshield.com).

    Still we remain gravely concerned that many unfounded allegations aired during the Coronial inquest could put lives at risk, even though the Coroner today found that most, if not all of concerns expressed about the technology, lacked real credibility.

    It would be a terrible tragedy if one more life was lost because divers, surfers or other water users – or their places of employment - had lost their faith in such life-saving technology as a result of these wrongful claims.

    We therefore welcome Mr Schapel’s recommendation that the University of Adelaide should in future “actively encourage” the wearing of shark repellant devices and that commercial and recreational divers should wear such devices when operating in waters where there is a risk of the presence of sharks.

    This latter recommendation echoed a 2003 Coronial finding in South Australia and will help provide a safer working and recreational environment for divers around the world.

    The Coroner highlighted evidence from SA Police Water Operations Unit officer-in-charge Sergeant Bob McDonald. It referred to initial scepticism and lack of enthusiasm for the Shark Shield technology from his officers, but noted “their resistance was in due course overcome by the receipt of convincing information about the efficiency of the devices….(and) he did not think he would now be able to get his officers to operate without these devices.”

    We welcome in particular the Coroner’s view that: “there is good reason to believe that these (Shark Shield) devices have an ability, to a greater or lesser degree, to repel or otherwise deter the approach of sharks and that they do offer a measure of protection to divers”.

    His finding reflects the exhaustive testing we have done on the technology in some of the worst shark infested waters in the world.

    The Shark Shield technology works by generating a particular type of electrical field which surrounds the user. As the shark approaches, the protective field interferes with the animal’s central nervous system, causing pain and forcing it to flee. The field has no impact on marine life other than sharks, rays and estuarine crocodiles.

    Media contact: Chris Rann 08 8211 7771



    Dear Dive and Surf shop owner

    Recently a Coronial inquest was held regarding the 2005 shark attack death of a University diver whilst working for the University whereby SharkShields were left in the boat and not worn.

    If one had been worn he may still be alive. However, it appears that a University employee in charge of OH&S issues relating to diving had previously questioned the products effectiveness and advised against their use.

    It is interesting to note that the Adelaide University (AU) sent a delegation to our company following the incident to inform us that the person involved with this OH&S issue was no longer working in that capacity and AU has developed a SharkShield use policy.

    Most unfortunately there have been many misleading and inaccurate reports on the Hearing in the world wide media in the last few days.

    Over the next few weeks you may be asked to elaborate on the various statements included in these reports that will no doubt be copied on “chat” rooms or discussed by your customers. In order to help you and your customers understand the facts I have listed the most prominent issues below so that you can help us in setting the record straight.

    1. “Run time only four hours” - NOT TRUE
    This refers to an uninformed statement that our new generation product (FREEDOM 7) has only a run time of 4 hours and thus the figure 7 misrepresents the run time.

    We have never had a run time of 4 hours with the FREEDOM 7 unit, the literature states 6 to 7 hours and this is what it is. Please understand that this product was released some 18 months after the shark attack incident and has no relevance to the incident and has only been used to discredit our company.

    2. “Model that was eaten by shark in South Africa had malfunctioned” – NOT TRUE
    Our products undergo stringent testing by the Natal Sharks Board of South Africa (NSB). No product can be released without the sanctioning of the NSB and it is common practice for us to test various innovations in order that we advance our products.
    In trialling one having a different antenna, a number of tests were carried out, with the antenna attached to a floating tube on the surface in choppy wave conditions. In order for the waveform to be correctly discharged in the water the electrodes in the antenna must be submerged. Predictably in this particular test the shark was not repelled. It cannot be said that the unit malfunctioned. The model was not eaten by a shark. These tests were part of a controlled scientific trial and every scenario must be tested including worst case scenarios in order to get valid results. These results can then be taken into account in the final design and operating procedures. The unit performed very well against sharks when the antenna was in a vertical submerged position.

    3. Stories that SharkShields attract sharks - NOT TRUE
    This is a misconception that has absolutely no credibility. Evidence by independent “experts” is that there is no evidence to support this myth. This issue is answered in detail in the Frequently Asked Questions section of our website. http://www.sharkshield.com

    4. “Testing regime on new products is not rigorous enough” – NOT TRUE
    The media has reported a claim made during the hearing that our testing regime on new products was not rigorous enough. This is completely untrue. In fact, it would hardly be possible for them to be more rigorous. There is very heavy pre-launch testing of every newly designed product including tests against sharks. Our manufacturing quality control requires every single product to be fully bench tested for functionality, voltage and quality before despatch.

    5. “Sharks in full attacking mode will stop for nothing” and by implication not for a Shark Shield
    Company policy is to recommend the use of SharkShield against sharks only in their investigative mode. Nevertheless, we have a number of examples where SharkShield has stopped large sharks in full attack mode. The most spectacular was a diver off Perth who was the subject of a savage attack by a large Great White. He was in the shark’s mouth with his blood in the water, when his dive buddy who was wearing a SharkShield, swam to him and the shark immediately fled the area.

    6. Many Institutions use SharkShield
    Many institutions have made it mandatory for SharkShield to be worn on all dives. This includes the SA Water Police, the South Australian Research Development Institute (SARDI) and many other Australian Government Departments. SharkShield is made available to Police divers in most States of Australia. Virtually all abalone divers in Australia use SharkShield.
    These practices are now beginning to spread overseas.

    7. Effectiveness of SharkShield
    There is no doubt that all approved SharkShield models deter sharks very effectively. Since the first model, “DIVE01”, became widely available in 2003, no one has ever been attacked by a shark whilst wearing a SharkShield. We have so far received over 300 contacts (written and phone) from grateful users, detailing dramatic instances of SharkShield’s excellent performance.

    8. Technical Input
    Shark Shield Pty Ltd has the benefit of detailed technical input on shark behaviour and electronics from a number of excellent sources. These include component suppliers, a design consultant and a highly experienced electronic engineer. Of great significance we also have on-going access to the Natal Sharks Board (NSB), the world’s pre-eminent authority on sharks.


    Should any of your customers need answers as to the effectiveness of this technology or our product, please direct them to me.

    Yours sincerely





    Paul Lunn
    SALES MANAGER]
    Telephone 08 8355 4700
    Email paul@sharkshield.com.
    Website http://www.sharkshield.com

  7. #7

    Re: Shark shield update

    Quote Originally Posted by snapperdan View Post

    5. “Sharks in full attacking mode will stop for nothing” and by implication not for a Shark Shield
    Company policy is to recommend the use of SharkShield against sharks only in their investigative mode. Nevertheless, we have a number of examples where SharkShield has stopped large sharks in full attack mode. The most spectacular was a diver off Perth who was the subject of a savage attack by a large Great White. He was in the shark’s mouth with his blood in the water, when his dive buddy who was wearing a SharkShield, swam to him and the shark immediately fled the area.

    Not really a scientific statement. There have been many shark attack survivors that have been mouthed and the shark has left the area when others (non shark shield users) have entered the zone. It is interesting why they cover themselves with that recommendation.

  8. #8

    Re: Shark shield update

    I've seen these devices work really well time and time again. Sad thing is I cant go near them they shoot massive pain through the nerves in my teeth. I have no doubt they work very well. Was just curious if the girl who got bitten had hers turned on. I know bull sharks hate the thing more than me I've seen them test 1 out for ages trying to get 2 trout we had on a float which had a shield on it also. Dumb ass things just got madder n madder and kept trying but had no luck. Wish I'd filmed it actually cause it was good to watch.

  9. #9

    Re: Shark shield update

    Just to clarify if the shield was off or on, the following article says she had left the shark shield off because the water was so clear.



    "The West Australian ©, November 4, 2010, 3:00 am

    Tour guide Elyse Frankcom -

    Then I noticed the grey figure and realised it was a shark... as soon as I realised it was a shark, I just thought (turn on the) shark shield."
    She said she had left the shark shield - which emits electrical pulses that repel sharks by giving them muscular spasms - off during her previous swim because the water was clear and she did not "expect anything to happen".
    She believed turning it on after the attack saved her and Mr Burns from further injuries.
    She had not realised until later that he had pulled the shark's tail.
    The 19-year-old who was mauled by a shark believes Trevor Burns, 48, saved her life during the attack near Garden Island on Saturday"

    I like her last comment in the article.

    "It didn't get away scot-free," she said. "The shark got a bit of my flesh and I got a bit of his tooth."

    Ian

  10. #10

    Re: Shark shield update

    yeah well an ab diver got taken since then in SA and he had his shark shield on - he got eaten by two. Even appeared in a shark shield ad saying he would never dive again without one. obviously dont work 100 percent of the time

  11. #11

    Re: Shark shield update

    wondering how these things would go off fraser island chasing red emperor on shark riddled spots ? Am thinking about investing if its feasible...only $600 for a unit.

  12. #12

    Re: Shark shield update

    You diving vertico, or thinking of using it 'static' at the boat while you linefish?

  13. #13

    Re: Shark shield update

    static mate about 40m down on a chain

  14. #14

    Re: Shark shield update

    Would be a good test for sure.......I've got no idea how effective it would be though.

  15. #15

    Re: Shark shield update

    does the shield scare fish?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us