New Shark Shields-=Over $200 Savings

I didn't think much about sharks before.  Now, with the difference of peace of mind, I won't fish without it.  These units are brand new with full factory warranty.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/spo/784162353.html

Is this the same product that was eaten during testing earlier this year? 

http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i080301.html

"ADELAIDE, Australia (1 Mar 2008) — An electronic device designed to ward sharks away from surfers failed so spectacularly during a trial off South Africa that it was eaten by a great white."

I wonder if there would be an issue with this unit having the same negative effect on fishing as a "Hot Boat" or "Hot Hull" (where the electronics are not isolated from the structure of the boat causing fish to avoid biting)

I need to preface this with some info.  First, I do business with Shark Shield so I'm eager to educate about the product.  I believe in the product, have researched it front to back and consider my endorsement a statement that reflects my credibility in the sport.

Early on, I didn't pay much attention to the trials and tribulations the Shark Shield company has been through because they are the only ones who brought it to my attention before this.  And I was receiving a steady stream of "It saved my life today" calls.

I thought controversy in my endorsement of Shark Shield would come sooner and your post is the perfect way to start the discussion.  As stated in the article, Shark Shield has been vindicated on all counts and issues.  They clearly state the product limitations and more.  The product still appreciates a 100% safety record...through a few well publicized legal challenges in the southern hemisphere.   Not bad for 12,000 units sold.  How many people have been killed or maimed for every 12,000 of those 3 wheel RV trikes sold?  Enough to fund personal injury legal firms advertising on TV nationwide I think.

That said, A unit failed during trials ("R&D").  That happens in product development and results in a better product.  I don't know too many companies who invite the press to product trials and that wasn't the case here. The info came out in an inquiry where a guy left hisShield on the boat and was eaten by a shark.  At work I think.  Is it possible that bigger liability issues were at play? The article factually supports the device even if the title doesn't. 

And then...The model that came under question in SA is the SURF model.  The device I am selling here is not the surf model.  The diver in South Australia never had one on.

To address your concerns about repelling fish they are long prooven to be baseless.  Add concerns about the device attracting sharks to that list.

Without reference to you Spot, there will always be people who discount the idea, product and technology based on their personal opinion. That goes with the territory.
I only have 2 units left at $500.  I have a few more that will sell for $599.  They will be availbale very soon in shops for $670. 

To address your concerns about repelling fish they are long prooven to be baseless.  Add concerns about the device attracting sharks to that list.

Spike, do you have a reference for the the concerns about repelling fish being baseless?  Just trying to educate myself here ...

Not sure if you've encountered the phenomenon in your fisheries, but up here in the NW, there is an issue with electrical fields and downrigger cables repelling/attracting salmon, which may be where some of these concerns are coming up.  You can buy a "black box" to adjust the potential of your downrigger cables and many many people swear by them.  We are sensitized to the ability of electric fields being good/bad. 

-Allen

Without reference to you Spot, there will always be people who discount the idea, product and technology based on their personal opinion. That goes with the territory.

Spike, I'm glad you took my questions in the vain that they were offered.  I've got nothing but respect for you!

I've seen these devices hashed over many times on the different surfing forums and unfortunately the side of the manufacturer/distributor was never represented.  I look forward to seeing more objective data on this product.

-Mark-

Thanks you guys.  It means a lot to me to be able to discuss this productively.  I don't doubt this will grow into an accepted piece of gear in the sharkiest areas (for many kayak fishermen and other SW recreationists) in time. 


Shark Shield already replied to my inquiry about this:
"This story is a rerun and as discussed previously, it is completely not
true and totally erroneous.    This so called incident happened years
ago and the unit was not attacked.   This was part of a component
testing in Sth Africa where an antenna was secured to a floating pipe on
the surface in choppy water so that the two electrodes were constantly
above the water so that the protective field could not be constantly
manufactured....
Unfortunately the press in their normal style grabbed this and then
other media picked it up.  The postings are untrue in their context but
we will get over it.  The SF Chronicle article was a result of them
making good an erroneous posting previously based on the above.
Sometimes Dennis it is difficult when this happens but we will overcome
this." 
 
Back to fishing, I've had good luck landing a variety of coastal species since I put the Shield on my boat and I've made all the baitfishes within the field.  I've fished deep and shallow on the coast and chased a few skates or rays off the bottom running shallow.  I noticed dogfish sharks weren't bothered much by the current.  With a later, larger leopard shark, I had to turn the Shield off to get the shark in.

As far as salmon and the electric current, we target fish well beyond the small field the Shark Shield generates around us and I can't fathom it would be a factor with any fish specie. Reading about the technology and it's effect on sharks may provide a better understanding.  Of course, I will pose your question to them directly and let you know.