Will "Shark Shield" become popular in the US?

[Gilligan]

SeaChange Technology in Australia markets two versions of an electronic shark shield, one specifically for scuba divers. They have an interesting website complete with videos of the product in action claiming to fend off Great Whites and Mako's.
Their Website (http://www.sharkshield.com/productset.html)
The item costs $525.00 US out of Australia + any applicable Customs Duties. One of these sold on eBay in May of this year for $283. How many of you believe this product will become popular in the U.S.?

[the sharkman]

I think one of the problems with this product is that, like many "fail safe" products (like some fishing lures), it is designed to catch people willing to spend their money. I am no expert in shark activity, but if a large shark is commited to giving you a good taste, I don't think the electrical impulse will do much to stop him, considering the momentum of such a large, fast animal. Also consider how many large sharks (especially great whites) are actually in captivity, and available for testing such a device... try none. Considering a lady just got bit, and killed, by a 15 foot White here in California, I would be interested if these things actually worked. I would buy two...
Also, I read a news report of a diver in florida who was killed by a shark attack while wearing one of these shark-shock-devices. The shark bit the person almost in half. As the divers buddy retrieved the body, he kept getting shocked by the shark repellant device. Wish I remembered where I read it.
Lastley, and people will probably beat this to death, but we have more of a chance of being shot by some gang-banger, than by a shark bite (and either would suck...)
:guitar:

[sumguy]

IMO, no, it won't catch on. Some people LIKE to see sharks.

[zeN||]

When the technology is perfected and the price goes down it will become as common as sausages ~zeN

[ElectricZombie]

No, this product will never catch on because there is no need for such a device.

[TechDiverSaline]

You may think it is cool to be on the sharks menu i certainly have no desire to be a meal for a shark. So I beleive there will be a need and a want for them. Not all of us have become one with natural. Speak for yourself in the future

;)

[Scubaroo]

A scallop diver in Australia was killed last year by a great white while wearing a shark pod - he had it turned off. Apparently that model of the device (I've heard rumours that there are several iterations released) produces an annoying mild shock that lead the divers to wear the device turned off, only to be turned on in the event of sighting a shark.

Saw them in a dive shop in Florida this week (didn't enquire about the price), but the sales dude was saying apparently they scare rays and non-dangerous shark species as well, so for the majority of divers, they would be a hinderance.

[docmartin]

if i were diving a lot in waters frequented by great whites the device would become very popular with me.

[drbill]

Anyone who dives Catalina or the other Channel Islands dives in waters frequented by great whites. So why don't we see them often? Based on the sightings by those I know who have, they just aren't that interested in divers (at least here).

Of course BOTH my underwater video housings were disabled last week so I'm now diving "naked" and I've always said I carry my camera as insurance against great whites coming into view. Now I'll probably have a group swim up to me and ham it up!

Dr. Bill

[DA Aquamaster]

ElectricZombie once bubbled...
No, this product will never catch on because there is no need for such a device.

I think it is probaly a lot like carrying a handgun for self defense...very politically incorrect, difficult to justify and something you don't need at all....until you need it REAL bad.

It is apparently ok to carry extra or redundant equipment to guard against really long odds mechanical failures when scuba diving, but not ok to guard against top of the food chain predators like bull sharks, tiger sharks and great whites....sort of an act against nature kinda thing maybe?

Personally I think that if you accept that most shark attacks against humans are either mild exploratory bites driven by curiosity (can I eat it?) or cases of being mistaken for natural prey (seals, etc) then a shark pod seems like a really good idea as it may clue the shark into their mistake before they take your leg off making it.

[mgri]

I'm sure everyone on this site tunes into Shark Week on Discovery so everyone should have good understanding of the statistical possibility of being bitten. I can only recall one scuba diving instance of a diver's body being recovered with evidence of shark bites. I think his death was ruled a drowning so even then the shark attack was post mortem.

I'm to lazy to go looking for the stats but I would imagine we are all more likely to drown rather then be eaten by a shark while diving.

But then again what away to go....
:sharky:

[ElectricZombie]

DA Aquamaster once bubbled...

I think it is probaly a lot like carrying a handgun for self defense...very politically incorrect, difficult to justify and something you don't need at all....until you need it REAL bad.

It is apparently ok to carry extra or redundant equipment to guard against really long odds mechanical failures when scuba diving, but not ok to guard against top of the food chain predators like bull sharks, tiger sharks and great whites....sort of an act against nature kinda thing maybe?

Personally I think that if you accept that most shark attacks against humans are either mild exploratory bites driven by curiosity (can I eat it?) or cases of being mistaken for natural prey (seals, etc) then a shark pod seems like a really good idea as it may clue the shark into their mistake before they take your leg off making it.

Shark attacks are so rare that I don't see how one can justify the expense and hassle of purchasing and using a "Shark Shield". You are much more likely to have some sort of equiptment problem than be attacked by a shark.

You need a handgun a lot more than you need "Shark Shield".

[DA Aquamaster]

You have to be cautious when quoting stats as they have to be taken in context. It is not always an apples to apples comparison. Everybody who dives is exposed to the risk of drowning as water is involved on every dive, so the number of drownings is numerically higher as everyone who dives takes a finite risk of drowning on every dive. The risk of a diver being attacked by a shark is drastically lower in large part because not every diver dives in waters where sharks are found and even divers who do, often do not encounter sharks, and if they do, they are unlikely to encounter sharks that are prone to attack divers. The numbers are much lower as relatively few divers are at risk on relatively few dives. (Similarly, how bad you need a handgun depends entirely on where you are and who is in the neighborhood with you.)

If I were frequently diving in murky seal infested waters with great whites, I'd consider buying one just in case as the risk of a shark attack would take on a greater degree of relevance to me personally.

[yak]

How many of you believe this product will become popular in the U.S.?

Is this the same unit?
If so, then it looks like you would be better off saving your money and using your brains when it comes to diving in shark-infested waters.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/17/1047749719519.html

[zeN||]

My original post was referring to a futuristic shark repellant that would be extremely effective, reasonably priced, and inevitable, technologically, I personally would not use any device I have seen so far zeN

[sumguy]

You may think it is cool to be on the sharks menu i certainly have no desire to be a meal for a shark. So I beleive there will be a need and a want for them. Not all of us have become one with natural. Speak for yourself in the future

I WAS speaking for myself. That's kinda what the "IMO" means.
And I don't consider myself to be on the shark's menu.

[zeN||]

Funny when I see so many divers discounting this technology, but I don't see any of 'em diving Avila Beach lately:) ~Z

[Knavey]

$250?

Go play the lottery with the money you would have spent on one. Better ROI.

1/80 million chance of being bitten by a shark. Think thats what I heard.

[Spearfisher]

There is definitely a need for the product. In fact, I just purchased on off Ebay for $235. I spearfish recreationally and the testing this product went through and the results is enough for me to spend that much for the peace of mind. I go in the water in Northwest Florida about 5 days a week. I go close to shore in generally 10-15 feet water depth. Lately, I've been spotting sharks anywhere from 1 to 4 of those 5 days per week. A few days ago having a 7 foot Bull Shark pass about 10-12 feet in front of me. I don't think there is "normally" concern about the sharks attacking but sharks are deadly creatures with small brains and are unpredictable. There are also a number of reasons they may attack mistaking identity of the target. I don't want to trust that the shark is not going to view me as a threat or mistake me for prey. The range of these devices is just a few meters, so, it would only effect a shark that was too close in my opinion. What I am doing in the water, spearfishing, is one of the worst things you can do around sharks to attract their attention. I don't mind spending the money to have the added peace of mind. The other spearfishers I've spoken with feel the same. However, the device is not complex and would not be difficult to duplicate. Therefore, I think the Manufacturer is simply asking for competition by pricing them as high as they are. A retail of half their current price would keep other companies from trying to market imitations. I haven't seen one yet but it's only a matter of time. The person that was almost bitten in half wearing one in Australia by a White Pointer was determined to be using it incorrectly. He didn't keep the device on the entire time in the water and was trying to move the electrodes too far apart for increased range. Instead it caused the field to dissipate.

I am sure they can't be 100% effective in every situation even if used correctly but if they just cut my chances in half of an attack, I'd be willing to spend the money.

I'm sure most reading this have seen the statistics and do's and don'ts of what puts you at risk in the water. There are just certain water activities that put you in the higher risk category and for those people I think they'll pay for the devices. Surfer's, Bodyboarders, etc. should really consider them too. A foot with a white bottom and tan top in the turbulent watter of a wave would look remarkebly like a mullet or some other fish. I think that's why you hear of surfer's feet getting bitten.

And about statistics....you have to take into account your situation and why you may be higher risk. For example, I saw a report that said you are more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than killed by a shark. Well, there are no coconut palms in this part of FL so that would drastically reduce my chances. I'd say if I see sharks 1-4 times a week in the water and I am in the water with them, and I'm swimming back to shore with a twitching bloody fish, my chances are greatly increased of needing a device like this.

[jplacson]

Ok, I'm not to familiar with the Shark Shield, but it seems similar to an older device called the Shark POD.

The pod had 3 parts for a diver, a fin unit, tank, and wrist controller. Each section emitted a strong electric field to protect the diver.

The problem with electric field shark units (at the time that I was researching on one of these units as well) was that it relies on the shark's electric field sensors.

But just like mace is to humans... different species of sharks have different tolerance levels for these electric fields.

The good news is that these units are hell for Great White Sharks. And at the time, it had a 100% success rate against great whites. They simply freaked and swam away from as far at 30 feet.

The 'tip' sharks however (black, blue, silver, white..etc) and smaller blue sharks... seemed more tolerant...and some could actually still go up to you and bite you. The problem doesn't stop there... IF one of these sharks gets to bite you through your electric field, it can't seem to let go...even if it wanted to! For some reason, the electric field seems to lock the shark's jaw shut AFTER the bite... maybe it has to do with the proximity of the field or whatever... but it seems less effective on smaller sharks.

The tests were conducted in open water on a dummy diver, automated dummy diver, and a diver with a shark suit.

I think I'd rather stay OUT of the shark's way... rather than try to control it. Mother nature has her way of showing you who's really boss...and I have no intentions to try to prove her wrong.

If you really wanna dive with sharks... go for a cage, or the lexan cylinders..or better yet, the Deep Flight subs.

[CALI68]

DA Aquamaster once bubbled...


If I were frequently diving in murky seal infested waters with great whites, I'd consider buying one just in case as the risk of a shark attack would take on a greater degree of relevance to me personally.

Yea, like Moneterey on a bad vis day.

Is a charging Great White really gonna stop or turn on a dime if it get's a little shock (so to speak)?:confused:

[jagfish]

I think this unit has a place for high risk scuba activites such as spear fishing. I have several buddies that are avid underwater hunters in wouthern Florida and have heard several stories about underwater tug of war with sharks over a fish. And the Bulls in FL are not to be messed with. One guy had most of his bicep taken off two years ago when a Bull tried to grab the grouper he was carrying football style up to the boat.

I think if I ever do take up spearfishing, that would be one time I might consider this device, or one like it.

JAG

[vr4boostin]

take a look at www.rivaldistribution.com

[SeaChange]

Having just discovered your web site I would like to respond on behalf of our company as I was inspired not only by the interest in our product, but concern and respect for sharks.

The electrical wave generated by Shark Shield causes discomfort to sharks only while they are in the field. Other marine creatures are not affected which our General Manager can attest to when recently fending off a Groper from trying to take one of her lobsters from her catch bag.

We believe this breakthrough in technology will have a dramatic affect on participation levels on all aspects of water sports

Earlier this year we undertook a survey in Sydney Australia with a view to understanding peoples attitudes and fears with regards to water activities, sharks and deterrent technology.
This survey showed that 85% of scuba divers would consider purchasing a shark repellent because the primal fear of sharks is so entrenched.

Over 82% stated that the “peace of mind” factor added a new dimension to diving.
91% stated that Shark repellent technology was a great idea. 82% of people stated that they would take up more water sports if a shark deterrent were available.

When Shark Shield was first launched there were many sceptics who for years and years had dived, surfed, spear fished without any shark protection. They questioned the need for such a device. But then, some of these seasoned water sports enthusiasts bought the product and gave it a go. This has had a domino effect and more and more people are now using the product. The feedback from all these people is that they now won't go in the water without their Shark Shield, as it gives them and their family peace of mind.

Police, search and rescue, professional and scientific divers, Australian and the US Military are a few of the impressive organisations now using this technology. They obviously believe there is a need for the product. This was further hi-lighted on the 11th April 2003, following an inquest into the death of a commercial diver who was using the South African Shark POD when he was fatally attacked by a Great White Shark. The South Australian State Coroner, after hearing all the evidence (please note everything reported in the Press is not necessarily correct), concluded that the POD was not being used correctly at the time. He also recommended:

“Pursuant to Section 25(2) of the Coroners Act, I recommend that commercial and recreational divers, when operating in waters where there is a risk of the presence of sharks, should wear a shark repellent device of the Shark “POD” or Shark Shield type, provided that the equipment should be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and should be turned on for the entire duration of time in the water.”

The unique electronic wave-form, which is the basis of the technology was developed in the early 90’s and since then has been thoroughly tested in Australia and Sth.Africa under the worst possible conditions using blood and offal predominately with Great Whites. This testing has proven conclusively that sharks detest the effect the field has on them and will keep a safe distance between themselves and the Shark Shield TM

We completely understand the scepticism surrounding what is considered by some as relatively new technology and we would like the opportunity to answer any questions you may have in order for us to help you understand our product. Our e-mail is info@sharkshield.com

Please visit our web site at www.sharkshield.com for product information, frequently asked questions, and testimonials.

Bill Hosszu
Business Development Manager
SeaChange Technology Pty. Ltd.

[onfloat]

What effect will all of these electric fields have on a divers compass?

[Don Burke]

The South Australian State Coroner, .... also recommended:

“Pursuant to Section 25(2) of the Coroners Act, I recommend that commercial and recreational divers, when operating in waters where there is a risk of the presence of sharks, should wear a shark repellent device of the Shark “POD” or Shark Shield type, provided that the equipment should be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and should be turned on for the entire duration of time in the water.”I generally don't take diving advice from political appointees.

"Shark repellant" has been vaporware for years. I'm not ready to take the word of someone selling it at face value just yet.

Count me among the skeptics.

[MSilvia]

we have more of a chance of being shot by some gang-banger, than by a shark bite

I don't think that's a valid statistic, as it applies to the general population, and not to people who spend a lot of time around sharks. If you think you can make the case that a diver has a greater chance of being shot by a gang banger than bitten by a shark while diving, that might be relevant.

[Don Burke]

What effect will all of these electric fields have on a divers compass?Probably little or none.

I'm wondering about when the sharks learn to associate the fields with spearfishing ...

[SeaChange]

Dear Sir, in reply to your question;
What effect will all of these electric fields have on a divers compass?
There is no effect on a divers compass.
In regards to sharks learning to associate the fields with spearfishing, the electical wave that is emitted from the unit has such a strong effect on the sharks Ampullae that all they want to do is leave the area.

[pescador775]

This seems like a sensible post. For one thing, only a Californian would assume that the problem is solely with White Sharks. Large bull sharks are extremely dangerous. I lost a fin to a bull shark and have been bumped by grey sharks (spearfishing). Only my quick reaction and the fact that I was wearing a nylon skin prevented a frontal assault by a wolf pack of greys. We feinted and bluffed for the entire 100 yds back to the boat. I have been charged repeatedly by bull sharks and had to shoot one animal with my speargun. I shot a black tip through the head when he attacked. I was spearfishing but had killed nothing. I was also wearing a SCUBA, rare for me. My friends in Hawaii are very cautious around Tiger sharks. One of these fellows showed to me a severely chewed up wood gun which he had jabbed at a tiger. I dread seeing a big tiger while hunting and I can tell you from my experiences flying over the keys and Bahamas that 18 foot monsters are far more common than most would expect. These creatures, sharks, are nothing to joke about. If there were a protective device which was compact and reasonably priced I would consider it favorably. One final comment. There is nothing 'mild' about an exploratory bite unless amputation has been redefined. I have, once, seen a 'mild' shark bite off VA Beach. A wreck diver was bitten on the hand by a small sand shark which was trying to steal a tautog from the diver.


I think it is probaly a lot like carrying a handgun for self defense...very politically incorrect, difficult to justify and something you don't need at all....until you need it REAL bad.

It is apparently ok to carry extra or redundant equipment to guard against really long odds mechanical failures when scuba diving, but not ok to guard against top of the food chain predators like bull sharks, tiger sharks and great whites....sort of an act against nature kinda thing maybe?

Personally I think that if you accept that most shark attacks against humans are either mild exploratory bites driven by curiosity (can I eat it?) or cases of being mistaken for natural prey (seals, etc) then a shark pod seems like a really good idea as it may clue the shark into their mistake before they take your leg off making it.