Shark deterrent summary

It's OK, choice are onto it :)

https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/diet-and-fitness/surfing-and-s...

and, the spin report in a mainstream media publication:

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/public-defender-which-shark-repellen...

uh-oh, not this old unscientific chestnut again.
Fucking hell, someone should compare attacks on the Gold Coast with the highest number of surfers in the world and NENSW...... then take this:

"And if you're fearful there are more sharks about, West says it's a rise in people, not more sharks, that's driving the rise in attacks.

"More people are going into the water and they're going into the water more often. This increases the risk of encountering a shark," he says."

..............out the back paddock and put it out of it's misery.

Save a bullet for these as good as useless guidelines too.

"The following tips are provided on the Australian Shark Attack File website as ways of minimising your risk of a shark attack:

Always swim, dive or surf with other people.
Avoid dirty or turbid water, which make it hard to see a shark approaching.
Avoid going into the water at dusk, dawn or at night, as many sharks are more active during these times of the day.
Avoid swimming or surfing around river mouths, especially after rain.
Don't swim with pets.
Be careful wading through shallow water, particularly where kelp is about, as you may accidentally step on a wobbegong shark.
Take off jewellery before entering the water. Jewellery reflects light in the same way fish scales do, and sharks can be attracted to the reflected light."

Seriously? A fucking wobbegong?

freeride76 wrote:

uh-oh, not this old unscientific chestnut again.
Fucking hell, someone should compare attacks on the Gold Coast with the highest number of surfers in the world and NENSW...... then take this:

"And if you're fearful there are more sharks about, West says it's a rise in people, not more sharks, that's driving the rise in attacks.

"More people are going into the water and they're going into the water more often. This increases the risk of encountering a shark," he says."

..............out the back paddock and put it out of it's misery.

Hahahaaa ... if only it wasn't so serious, we'd be pissing ourselves laughing at BS.

Maybe this will help keep our toothy friends away........
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/shark-attack-not-worry-anymore-australia-will-...

The new (soon to be released) Shark Shield looks like a winner to me. The current Surf 7 and Freedom 7 devices work well against sharks, but are in my experience only feasible for surfing in Winter. The electric shocks that you receive during wipe-outs are too severe to enjoy the surfing experience, but with a winter wetsuit you rarely get shocked, because it electrically isolates you from the electrodes in the antenna when you touch it or get wrapped up in it. The not yet available Freedom+ Surf has the electrodes designed as a sticker on the bottom of the board. I hope they will manage to bring it to market soon as planned, but have some doubts. The devil may well be in the detail when trying to mass-produce such devices at reasonable cost. https://sharkshield.com/shop/freedom-surf/

Dodgy 'Shark Deterrents' flooding market should be regulated.
(GCB : 22/12/16)
Bond Uni ecologist Dr Daryl Mc Phee calls on ACCC to regulate SD's.

(Alarmed into false sense of security)
: Surfers and swimmers, risking lives further with false confidence.
: Product claims not supported by 'independent scientific community'.
: Divers wearing 'Independent tested products' were still attacked.
: Vital to check you're deterring the relevant local shark species.

Senate inquiry: (Submissions close: 3/3/2017)
Effectiveness of shark mitigation measures and deterrents.(June 2017)

NSW $16m 5 year Shark Study focuses on 'Shark Management'.

Hooroo ....Silly Seasonings Swellnetonians!

Easy , cheap, reliable fix is to have good old smelly piss into your wettie so the shark can smell your not a seal.

Probably the ultimate deterrent is finding one and ripping it's liver out. 3 times in a week.

South African orcas have Had Enough, and go on a nutritious rampage:

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/killer-whales-eat-enormous-great-whit...

Maybe we should train orcas? Killer willy?

What happened to Chillax wax and its testing at Neptune islands ?

I haven't heard a peep about the Chillax testing but I know it's for sale around Adelaide at the moment so I might give it a whirl. I heard it smells like cinnamon? Might be nice to mix it up from coconut for a change regardless of how effective it is.

I know that a pack of orca's came through the Neptune islands and took out a great white a year or two back while we're discussing the two. Apparently the charter boats didn't see a white for a few months afterwards.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-04/great-white-killed-by-killer-whale...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-09/sharks-evacuate-neptune-islands-af...

Chillax got a crowd funding happening. Joeycrowd ..nearly half way there

An article about the politics of shark culling , the author often writes in surfing mags.
https://spectator.com.au/2017/05/shark-notes/

Fred Pawle goes full clickbait retard, comparing pro-shark environmentalists to Hitler-era Nazis straight out of the blocks.

It's a shame he makes the references to the Nazis, North Korea and Saudi Arabia as it gives his opponents an opening to criticise his article and ignore the remainder of the valid points he makes about a section of the environmentalists' lack of humanity and hypocrisy.
Far more appalling than anything he said in the article are the insensitive comments made by so-called environmentalists about the latest victim in blogs.
Did you hear that the shark net trial in the Ballina area is due to end in June or July? How many attacks has there been since the nets were deployed? None. And how many in the months before?
There will hopefully be a period of no attacks after the nets are removed, but then you can expect the environmentalists to crow that it proves nets make no difference whilst ignoring the fact that the nets along the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong stretch are also completely removed during the winter months.
There appears to be a lag after nets are removed until the sharks return to stake a territory. It looks like the ending of the Ballina trial is about to reveal just how long that lag is.

My comment is on their site. I was going to post it here too but forgot to copy it!

"sad, irrelevant piece of poorly written sensationalist crap."

Both barrels BB!

For me it's not the sensationalism, and it's not how he equates Facebook abusers as greenies or other flawed arguments, it's his unwillingness to ask why people think the way they do. He fills in that blank space with sheer bunkum: "lack of humanity", "bickering about your rapacious culture", "bloodlust", and "the thrill they get from telling someone else what to do".

There's not one attempt to understand the argument from the other side, just the thrill of assuming what other people are thinking.

Fred Pawle is a sensationist would be journalist , and uses a few peoples ignorant hurtful comments to stereo type those who are against knee jerk reaction emotional culling of sharks without considering that we might be suffering some kind anomaly in all the surf spots such as Ballina/North Coast/WA/San Clemente/California.

We all do not want to be attacked by a shark , but we have always taken the risk , and I have no doubt that we will find a deterrent for sharks

Here is a question - If it was proven that the reported high mercury content of White Pointer meat wasn't a health issue , would anyone be opposed to the hunting of these fish for food ?

Kill two birds with one stone .

Harvested sustainably I've got no problem with it.

Quote from the article :
"This mob’s lack of humanity can also be seen in totalitarian regimes, but with a difference. In places like Nazi Germany, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, barbaric punishments are inflicted upon those who violate a formidable system. One imagines, or at least hopes, that the poor souls born under such benighted states dream of a life where freedom and compassion are the norm. The more imaginative of them might even dream of a society where the pursuit of happiness — in the form of surfing, for example — is universally encouraged and celebrated.

Here, the inhumanity is voluntary. In a prosperous, free society, increasing numbers of people are brazenly supporting and applauding the barbaric death or maiming of fellow humans.

Their warm and fuzzy concern for ‘the planet’ is a transparently thin cloak for their inhumanity. One of the common characteristics of these narcissistic sadists is that they only ever pick campaigns that don’t affect themselves. Every shark conservationist in Australia lives in a house or neighbourhood where native flora and fauna, unique to this continent, have been displaced or made extinct. These species are of little concern to them. What really concerns them, indeed infuriates them, is the thought that other people are having fun. To them, great whites are a magnificent gift from Gaia, a weapon in their modern version of the American prohibition in the 1930s.

A generation of nerdy, nature-loving researchers has stepped up to play the untouchable, pious officials in this joyless campaign. No adequate explanation was given for the introduction of protection for great whites. When the federal Environment Department’s Great White Recovery Plan was written in 2002, ‘nobody had any idea’ of the species’ global population, one of its authors told me this month. There were vague indications that the species was declining, but even if those indications were reliable, they have long since been disproved by countless photos of great whites lurking off our beaches and the increasing number of deaths and injuries they inflict. The researchers, of course, dismiss the observations and concerns of surfers and fishermen. What would those plebs know?

The decision to maintain protection, endorsed by every shark-researching academic and almost every politician in the nation, long ago became an arbitrary method of killing the joy in other people’s lives, much to the delight of the miserable harridans of the environmental movement.

‘If you don’t want to be eaten, don’t go in the water’ is their most common response whenever anybody suggests trimming back the number of sharks. But it’s not about the sharks. It’s about the thrill they get from telling other people what to do."
https://spectator.com.au/2017/05/shark-notes/

I think it's absolute insanity to think we can continue hammering the middle and bottom of the food chain whilst protecting the top and not expect some kind of imbalance, particularly in the instance of great whites.

True gaz .

Cant beat a good old fashioned powerhead. Just be careful when you tuck it into your boardies.

'Dead shark' juice seems to work pretty good..,and so easily marketed... maybe soaking your wetsuit in 'dead shark wetsuit wash'. Or how about a 'dead shark skin cream with inbuilt UV protection' ,non greasy of course. Perhaps a 'dead shark' deodorant stick , shampoo and aftershave. Would make a great gift pack.

I'm actually sewing up a shark skin suit as a fail safe repellant.

Getting most of the work done down in my basement .

https://m.

I'm basically the Buffalo Bill of Aussie surfing.

It rubs the lotion on its skin.....

Hmmm, very interesting Blowie. You do realise what ol' Bill was trying to achieve in his own psychotic way?

Hmmm, Freud would have a field day.

Anyway, here's an additional thought: who loves crowds in the surf? Rather, who hates crowds and is guilty of decrying and whinging about them incessantly?

Now, what has the potential to keep the crowds in hand and on land whilst also sorting the wheat from the chaff?

Any budding (mis-readers of) Darwinist philosophising out there?

I'm thinking Fish finder & transducer. Might also help find a few decent banks

Good Idea, I hope the fish alarm is loud enough,.... but I still think that the only good shark repellent , is a dead shark repellent.

That's where the shark suit idea came from - if you can't beat ' em , join 'em.

Not only does it confuse the sharks but it certainly gives fellow surfers cause for a double take.

Crew were leaving the beach with aghast expressions before I even hit the water !

Can't deny I make for a pretty formidable looking predator with the shark suit on. Though to be honest it would be much more effective if only my fins wouldn't keep falling off.

Whoever says flour and water makes glue is talking rubbish .

Yeah I know where youre coming from , after dipping my wetty in the dead shark wetsuit wash I got a few funny looks in the lineup, more so in the car park when i shook the blow flies off of it

I don't think his stuff is any worse than the conservationists who downplay the risks, exaggerate the impact of shark nets and complain tirelessly to have them removed. The conservationists get a lot more air time. I'm not in favour of culling, but I am in favour of shark nets.
I'm sure they will come up with something better in future. Maybe something like Gaz suggested; surfboards with sonar that detects large objects at a distance with all boards networked to provide a local alert to all surfers when a dangerous object is detected. They'll need a GaryG filter of course.

Gary G's bronzed pecs should definitely be classed as dangerous objects.

Stu - "it's his unwillingness to ask why people think the way they do. "

I'll have a go at this one. Early on in my career I was faced with looking over the results of clear fell forestry in an isle formerly known for seeded fruit - and in the despair of this destruction, determined to join the environmental movement, do what I could. Later I would get to work with those who'd identify as green in the field, meaningful environmental work, and discovered something. They hate people. I left, disillusioned.

To put myself in their perspective was like looking over that magnificent forest, reduced to burning clumps of ashes, two metre wide tree logs simply being incinerated where they lay, and surrounded by 1080 baits. The anger it summoned was strong. It seemed so wasteful, so insane.

Recently, school assignments brought home concerning the 6th mass extinction piqued my interest, and I began looking into it. It's undeniable. And when you look at it, it becomes the only thing that matters. Some (a lot of it) caused by people. The loss of speciation, of genetics, is terrible. Would it be going to far to suggest every biol/enviro grad will look at this in some part of their study course? The anger returns... People are the culprit. It becomes a cornerstone behind a professional career in science.

From there the die is cast, and any horror that may befall man, woman or child... becomes excusable. "It's the animals, they are fighting back". Enter the vitriolic text and blog posts Mr Pawle mentions.

I much prefer a vision where man is a part of nature (and thus has responsibility - the 'ability' to 'respond' to situations in nature), as well as be wise steward. This also includes steward over, and protection of, his own kind.

PS - also noticed Glen, who posts on these forums, in that article. Go well Glen.

well said VJ...I think you've nailed the current academic attitude in biol/life sciences and it's origins.

I don't agree with a lot of Fred's positions or arguments but the misanthropy he describes is real. Just go into any comments section in any newspaper after an attack and scroll through.
You won't go far before you get to some variant of: "serves 'em right, what the fcuk do they expect going in the water where sharks live".

There's still a tremendous misunderstanding even amongst ocean people like surfers too about the cause and effect of increasing white shark numbers inshore with comments like this: "I think it's absolute insanity to think we can continue hammering the middle and bottom of the food chain whilst protecting the top and not expect some kind of imbalance, particularly in the instance of great whites."

No offence Gaz, but thats really not the case. That defies all biological reality. To get an increase in the top layers of the trophic pyramid ie predators like sharks, you need plenty of numbers at the bottom levels of the pyramid. Prey items for white sharks are flourishing. Seals and whales are heading back to their theoretical maximum populations.
Inshore commercial fishing effort in NSW has declined by about 75%, mostly due to licence buybacks and our reliance on imported seafood. Thats led to massive bouncebacks in inshore biomass.
Come to the North Coast here over autumn/winter and spend a day cruising the headlands: you won't go far before you see baitballs, feeding frenzies: a thriving ecosystem. There's plenty of food for sharks. No surprises, thats why they are here.

The commonwealth legislation around white sharks is designed expressly to increase their numbers. The ethics around a policy of deliberately increasing abundance of an apex, ambush predator into heavily populated coastal areas where high ocean use is a function of culture, recreation and the economy has hardly been touched upon.
But it should be.

Hating people, or hating what people do to the world? I've spent 40 years with "environmental people" and find the stereotype absurd . I don't think too many people will argue there's been a decline in the natural world (term used broadly: don't stick on that word) over the last 200 years and the cause is people (VJ said as much above). I believe it's possible to house the same population under different economic and political conditions - both of those being HUMAN constructs. See what I'm saying?

A normative approach is what it is; aiming high to bring out our better selves, and leave a better world for our kids.

personally I find the cynical approach to media employed by Pawle and his master more "people-hating" then the Green movement. It's manipulative and it's speaking to our lesser selves, while linking any vitriolic comment on social media to a Greens voter is sheer nonsense.

Well freeride you've flipped my opinion on it's head, but it stands to reason so I'm happily corrected. Further research looks like we have a plague of NZ fur seals in SA providing all day brunch for the large number of great whites.
So instead of bringing commercial fishing into the argument as a problem it looks like they are more than likely to be part of the solution, ignoring the fact that whites are the only thing that will bring down seal numbers without a bullet or a canadian.

It looks like you've blown a seal.

OK VJ, why do you think people might resist shark culling et al? I'll grant, or at least hope, that you don't share Fred's belief that it's because greenies have "bloodlust" and a "lack of humanity".

Here's what I think:

There's a narrative that sharks have been seriously overfished in parts of the world and we have to do what we can to save them. Call it a 'trying to balance nature' theory, and yeah, of course it's flawed, but I'm not searching for veracity, just why people end up with a certain viewpoint.

People don't think a cull works because unless you wipe out all the sharks an element of risk still remains. It therefore appears futile.

People don't think that tracking down a shark that's just maimed someone works because sharks appear and disappear so easily. No-one saw the shark that almost took Mick Fanning, so how can they be sure they get the right one after?

The 'shark with a taste for human flesh' is a Hollywood device, totally bogus, and while 'eye for an eye' satisfies bloodlust - on some emotional level it makes us feel secure - it does nothing to increase safety.

So there's a few reasons that I can think of. They're not especially esoteric or hard to grasp. Why wouldn't a journalist on a mission make an attempt to understand them, then educate people otherwise, convince them via rhetoric and science, rather than call everyone who hesitates a Nazi sociopath with a lust for human blood?

Ya reckon Fred Pawle peruses the Swellnet forums? Maybe he's even a commenter?

Anyway, here goes...

Fuck off, Fred. Just fuck right off. Win-win for everyone...in every department.

How can you be so certain about dismissing the shark with form for attacking humans , that it isn't at least a possibility if not an infrequent reality ?

Not necessarily a shark that predates on humans exclusively, just an animal that has found success with an irregular food source if a need arises ?

I'm not dismissing it, in some situations it may be possible to identify ihe shark. Yet when that response becomes the norm it will happen after every event.

I'm talking about the rogue shark theory .

Are you as certain about that as the experts were about the "fact" that white pointers are exclusively solitary hunters .

Or the "fact " that they were limited to the temperate waters of the globe.

Or the " fact" that Australian whites don't breach ?

Remember those certainties from the very recent past ?

Most attacks are explained as a case of either mistaken identity or opportunism, neither fits the rogue shark theory. Perhaps they exist, if they can conclude repeat offence then by all means take 'em out, but if it's just to satisfy high emotion then it's heading into fraught territory.

no need to even employ a rogue shark theory to explain opportunistic and even repeated attacks on humans.

thats predatory behaviour 101.

After the Paul Cox fatal attack in Byron Bay Sep 2014, a large white was hanging around the bay all day.
After the fatal attack on Tadashi Nakahara Feb2015 a large white was hanging around inshore all that day and in the subsequent week
After the almost fatal Matt Lee attack July 2015 a large white was hanging around inshore at N.Wall/Shelley all day.

Is there a high probability those sharks were responsible for the attacks.

I would say, based on the balance of probabilities, yes.

I don't necessarily buy into the "rogue" shark theory but definitely give merit to the fact that Great whites are smart animals and they will eat whatever is easy and available.

You only have to speak with a few experienced Ab divers from SA/WA and you'll hear crazy stories about staring down great whites and not retreating/acting like prey and controlling fear/heart rates/swimming differently in order to survive the encounter.

The shark charter boat operators and divers in the neptune islands talk about sharks learning to associate boats and people with food so are more prone to hassle boats and divers in the area, and also now appearing there in greater numbers. If they can learn that behaviour I guess there's no reason they can't learn to associate people as food and go "rogue" although most research suggests they are completely nomadic.

These two sharks definitely didn't confuse the unfortunate teen in Adelaide 13 years back it was cold blooded.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Sharks-kill-teen-as-friends-watch/20...

Google Sir Victor Coppleson.

1920s -1940s : Four attacks at Coogee in 3 years , 3 attacks at Bondi in a year , 5 attacks on the Northern beaches in 2 years , 3 attacks in George's river in a year , 2 attacks at Sans Souci in 11 days ( 350 metres apart ) , Sydney Harbour 2 people attacked within 4 hours ( 3 miles apart ) , 5 fatal attacks in cairns within 4 years. Perth attacks at Cottesloe .

A single tiger shark in Madang Harbour , PNG attacked 3 people in a single day - killing 2- nine days later it attacked and killed another person.

Four people killed in 12 days in New Jersey USA at Beach Haven .

Black December , South Africa , seven attacks ( 5 deaths ) in just over 100 days around Durban.

Could go on....

Obviously these are likely not all clusters from rogue sharks, but how can you confirm that a single shark was not responsible for multiple attacks in at least some of the incidents ?

We seem to be granting the sharks a large measure of innocent until proven guilty , which is fine , but I'm definitely not a fan of the certainty thrown around by " experts " that are continuously having to reassess ideas that have previously been promulgated as hard fact due to conflicting evidence.

Such as the above disproven theories that were held forth as immutable truths till they were shown as garbage.