ELECTRORECEPTION IN VERTEBRATES AND INVERTEBRATES
Collins S.P. (2010) In: Breed M.D. and Moore J., (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, volume 1, pp. 611 – 620 Oxford: Academic Press
This research by Collins proves that Shark Shield’s electrical impulses do not attract sharks: “It is true that the electroreceptive system is extremely sensitive (in the µV range). However, in practical terms and this has been born out in many behavioral tests, the electroreceptive system is a relatively short distance sense often working in the 30-60cm range.
Since these animals use this sense to detect the presence of living prey items that may not be otherwise detected (i.e. under the substrate), they are really working at their detection limits. Therefore, although theoretically the Ampullae of Lorenzini can detect very low strength electric fields, they do not use them to track animate objects over these long distances.
WORLDS MOST EFFECTIVE SHARK DETERRENT PROVEN BY FRENCH GOVT RESEARCH
Ocean Guardian’s Shark Shield Technology proven again as the world’s most effective shark deterrent by French Government Research.
Following the success of the West Australian Government’s Shark Deterrent Rebate program and several independent studies proving the effectiveness of Ocean Guardian’s Shark Shield Technology to deter sharks, now the French Government has released new research conducted in Reunion Island.
The research affirms Ocean Guardian has the best deterrent technology available on the market worldwide, proving efficacy on white sharks. The research findings from the French Government present Ocean Guardian as the front-runner in technology offerings currently on the market and also suggests that other technology being marketed as “shark deterrents” may not actually work and will not protect humans from shark bites as effectively as Shark Shield Technology.
The French Government tested and researched a range of products, including ESharkForce, No Shark, RPELA and Ocean Guardian’s FREEDOM7, FREEDOM+ Surf and SCUBA7.
EFFECTIVENESS OF FIVE PERSONAL SHARK-BITE DETERRENTS FOR SURFERS
The number of shark-human interactions and shark bites per capita has been increasing since the 1980s, leading to a rise in measures developed to mitigate the risk of shark bites.
The number of shark-human interactions and shark bites per capita has been increasing since the 1980s, leading to a rise in measures developed to mitigate the risk of shark bites. Yet many of the products commercially available for personal protection have not been scientifically tested, potentially providing an exaggerated sense of security to the people using them.
We tested five personal shark deterrents developed for surfers by comparing the percentage of baits taken, distance to the bait, number of passes, and whether a shark reaction could be observed. We did a total of 297 successful trials at the Neptune Islands Group Marine Park in South Australia, during which 44 different white sharks interacted with the bait, making a total of 1413 passes.
The effectiveness of the deterrents was variable, with the Freedom+ Surf affecting shark behaviour the most and reducing the percentage of bait taken from 96% to 40%. The mean distance of sharks to the board increased from 1.6 - 0.1m to 2.6 - 0.1m when the Freedom Surf+ was active. The other deterrents had limited or no measurable effect on white shark behaviour.
WHITE PAPER - SHARK SHIELD
Between 1982 and 2011 unprovoked shark bites were recorded from 56 countries with 27 recording fatalities.
Between 1982 and 2011 unprovoked shark bites were recorded from 56 countries with 27 recording fatalities; however 84.5% occurred in only six countries - United States, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Bahamas and Reunion Island. While shark attacks directed at humans are, and will continue to be extremely rare, the frequency is increasing, principally along with increasing numbers of humans participating in ocean sports, but also influenced by other factors. Fear of such attacks, partially fuelled by films such as Jaws is psychologically powerful.
Ocean users (casual recreational visitors, scuba divers, surfers, kayak fishermen, etc.) at risk of shark attacks, often cite the possibility of such encounters as a major concern (Eilperin, 2013). Evidence, both anecdotal and survey-based, shows this fear can keep many potential ocean users away from the water .That same fear may also be contributing to a slow decline in the scuba diving industry, as seen over recent years.
This prospectus explains how electronic shark deterrents function, and why it is a safe, practical, and most importantly an effective method of repelling sharks at distances of 2 metres and greater, thus reducing the risk of unprovoked shark bite. These products are backed by multiple scientific studies and over a decade of field-testing with multiple shark species.
ESTIMATING THE PROBABILITY OF A SHARK ATTACK WHEN USING AN ELECTRIC REPELLENT
CF smit, department of statistics, university of pretoria, pretoria, 0002, south africa and v peddemors, department of zoology, university of durban-westville, durban, 4000 south africa.
In two series of tests of a new electric shark repellent (the SharkPOD), data was collected on the time needed to attack the bait, under power-off and power-on (active) conditions. Various approaches were followed to estimate the relevant probabilities and their standard errors, e.g. through Bayesian updating and resampling methods (especially jackknifing).
Conclusions were separately drawn after completion of the first experiment (in which there were 8 successful attacks in 98 five minute active periods), and after completion of the second experiment. In general it was concluded that the probability of an attack in at most 5 minutes was reduced from about 0.70 in power-off mode to about 0.08 in power-on mode and in a period of at most 10 minutes from 0.90 to 0.16.
In general it was concluded that the probability of an attack in at most 5 minutes was reduced from about 0.70 in power-off mode to about 0.08 in power-on mode and in a period of at most 10 minutes from 0.90 to 0.16.
- The probability of an attack was reduced from 0.70 to about 0.08
- Shark Shield prevented the sharks from feeding off the bait
EFFECTS OF AN ELECTRIC FIELD ON WHITE SHARKS: IN SITU TESTING OF AN ELECTRIC DETERRENT
Charlie Huveneers1,2*, Paul J. Rogers1, Jayson M. Semmens3, Crystal Beckmann2, Alison A. Kock4,5, Brad Page1, Simon D. Goldsworthy1
Elasmobranchs can detect minute electromagnetic fields, ,1 nVcm–1, using their ampullae of Lorenzini. Behavioural responses to electric fields have been investigated in various species, sometimes with the aim to develop shark deterrents to improve human safety. The present study tested the effects of the Shark Shield (now Ocean Guardian) FREEDOM7 electric deterrent on (1) the behaviour of 18 white sharks near a static bait, and the rates of attacks on a towed seal decoy.
In the first experiment, 116 trials using a static bait were performed at the Neptune Islands, South Australia. The proportion of baits taken during static bait trials was not affected by the electric field from 2 metres away. The electric field, however, increased the time it took them to consume the bait, the number of interactions per approach, and decreased the proportion of interactions within two metres of the field source. The effect of the electric field was not uniform across all sharks.
In the second experiment, 189 tows using a seal decoy were conducted near Seal Island, South Africa. No breaches and only two surface interactions were observed during the tows when the electric field was activated, compared with 16 breaches and 27 surface interactions without the electric field. The present study suggests that the behavioural response of white sharks and the level of risk reduction resulting from the electric field is contextually specific, and depends on the motivational state of sharks.
RESPONSE OF WHITE SHARKS EXPOSED TO NEWLY DEVELOPED PERSONAL SHARK DETERRENTS
In Australia, the number of shark-human interactions and shark bites per capita has increased, leading to a rise in shark-bite mitigation measures being developed.
In Australia, the number of shark-human interactions and shark bites per capita has increased, leading to a rise in shark-bite mitigation measures being developed. Yet, many of the products commercially available have not been scientifically tested, potentially providing an exaggerated sense of security to members of the public using them.
In this independent study completed in late 2017 and early 2018, researchers tested five shark deterrents developed for surfers (Shark Shield Pty Ltd [Ocean Guardian] FREEDOM+ Surf, Rpela, SharkBanz bracelet, SharkBanz surf leash [Modom], and Chillax Wax) by comparing the percentage of baits taken, time to take the bait, number of passes, distance to the bait, and whether a shark reaction could be observed.
A total of 297 successful trials were done at the Neptune Islands Group Marine Park. During these trials, 44 different white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) interacted with the bait, making a total of 1413 passes. Key points:
- In extreme conditions – chummed and baited waters the FREEDOM+ Surf reduced the percentage of bait taken from 96% to 40%.
- Other deterrents tested had limited or no effect on white sharks.
HOW CLOSE IS TOO CLOSE? THE EFFECT OF A NON-LETHAL ELECTRIC SHARK DETERRENT ON WHITE SHARK BEHAVIOUR.
Ryan M. Kmpster, Channing A. Egeberg, Nathan S. Hart, Laura Ryan, Lucille Chapuis Caroline C. Kerr, Carl Schmidt, Charlie Huveneers, Enrico Gennari, Karak E. Yopak, Jessica J. Meeuwig, Shaun P. Collin. university of Western Australia ocean institute.
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.
After multiple approaches, individual great white sharks came an average of 12cm closer on each successive approach. 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. Key points: Shark Shield effectively deterred sharks from interacting with the bait Shark Shield does not attract sharks