Whats your take on this?

I was searching for some shark shield and got to this article. What do you think?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-18/shark-shields-tested-attack/4076368

Best shark shield you can get is stay off the saltwater.

I was always a little suspicious that all of the videos showing how well Shark Shields work were associated with the company in some way. I wanted to see a true independent test regarding its effectiveness. This article isn't exactly conclusive either way but it sure doesn't inspire any confidence.

Ok so, I'm pretty skeptical on these things. However, the linked article specifies they were using tuna baits. In this type of test I'm pretty sure the sharks are in a feeding pattern spurred by the baits and chum to get them to the test site. That right there makes me think, contaminated test sample.

If a shark is all fired up because it just ate 1/2 of a sea lion and a kayaker is right there with a shark shield, it is quite likely that the shark would blow off some minor discomfort from the shield to go and bite the kayak, as it is already in a feeding pattern.

a "snooping shark" to me is a lot different than  a shark that has already consumed a bait or two, knows what it is feeding on, and then ignores an electric zap to the noggin to get more of said known bait.
A shark that is investigating is normally curious yet very wary. Anything that makes the potential target seem less like a normal prey item is a plus in my book.

I shocked myself for the first time last Saturday by forgetting to switch off the unit before pulling up the cable. At least I know my hand-me-down unit still functions electrically. The zap is just enough to wake you up.
I think the idea behind the shield is sound. Do I think it would deter all sharks in any circumstance? No, just like  tazers do not work on all perpetrators. So that's where your buddies and paddle and anything else come into play

for now, I'll keep using it, for any percentage of GWS it will deter.

Ok so, I'm pretty skeptical on these things. However, the linked article specifies they were using tuna baits. In this type of test I'm pretty sure the sharks are in a feeding pattern spurred by the baits and chum to get them to the test site. That right there makes me think, contaminated test sample.

If a shark is all fired up because it just ate 1/2 of a sea lion and a kayaker is right there with a shark shield, it is quite likely that the shark would blow off some minor discomfort from the shield to go and bite the kayak, as it is already in a feeding pattern.

a "snooping shark" to me is a lot different than  a shark that has already consumed a bait or two, knows what it is feeding on, and then ignores an electric zap to the noggin to get more of said known bait.
A shark that is investigating is normally curious yet very wary. Anything that makes the potential target seem less like a normal prey item is a plus in my book.

I shocked myself for the first time last Saturday by forgetting to switch off the unit before pulling up the cable. At least I know my hand-me-down unit still functions electrically. The zap is just enough to wake you up.
I think the idea behind the shield is sound. Do I think it would deter all sharks in any circumstance? No, just like  tazers do not work on all perpetrators. So that's where your buddies and paddle and anything else come into play

for now, I'll keep using it, for any percentage of GWS it will deter.

+1.  Don't kayak with tuna baits tied to your kayak  . 

I don't rely on my Shark Shield prevent an interaction or even physical contact with the yak.  I am however counting on (hoping) the Shark Shield to prevent the full blow Polaris attack, and most importantly, the follow up attack.  The initial strike is always aimed at the kayak, not the occupant.  After the occupant is knocked out of the safety of the yak and into the water, the real danger begins.  If the Shark Shield failed stop an initial attack, but prevented a subsequent attack, Id be more that happy with the results.   

I agree with the skepticism.....I'd like to see an army of seals geared up with shark shields for the next air jaws video shoot.  If none were hit, that would sway my opinion.

I was always a little suspicious that all of the videos showing how well Shark Shields work were associated with the company in some way. I wanted to see a true independent test regarding its effectiveness. This article isn't exactly conclusive either way but it sure doesn't inspire any confidence.

As far as I know, this is the only serious scientific study of the Shark Shield:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062730

Overall, the results are mixed. But for kayakers, the "0" and "2" under the third column in Table 4 are crucial pieces of information. That is, 0 breaches when the SS was on, and only 2 "surface interactions", as compared to 16 and 27, respectively, with the SS off. That's why I use one...

  There has been a lot of shark talk so I'll throw my opinion in.

    Personally, I think about the number of shark incidents per year divided by all the man-yak/hours on the coast. So given a range from say... Monterrey to San Fran and considering how many people are on the water in a given week. I conclude that I'm probably in more danger on the commute there and back then I am from shark attacks. I think I might have seen a shark fin once, but I know that guy who ran me off the road on the way to Stillwater was driving a white F150 with 2 ladders on top and a cup of coffee in his left hand (he didn't spill the coffee, I found out you can do 75 in the median also).

    That being said, I blame no man that goes all the way on safety.  I always wear my PFD, seat-belt, charge my radio, check conditions, and look around suspiciously while dangling my feet in the water. 

   

well nothing is full proof and having a SS i think can lower the chances of a prowling shark. it's just an added bonus OTW. With this being said, I still would not take my chances fishing an area that has a lot of shark activities. To all the SS owners have you guys encounter GWS sightings?

... To all the SS owners have you guys encounter GWS sightings?

Ive seen two; both in Capitola, which is kind of ironic since I fish north SC county regularly.  None since using a SS, but I've only had it for a couple months.

well nothing is full proof and having a SS i think can lower the chances of a prowling shark. it's just an added bonus OTW. With this being said, I still would not take my chances fishing an area that has a lot of shark activities. To all the SS owners have you guys encounter GWS sightings?

 I've seen 3 that I know of .
One at a distance (maybe 8-10ft fish) off the SMC, one wayyy up close (14ft fish) at Bean Hollow, and the one off Cap in mid March this year (maybe 10-12ft fish).
These were all prior to having a SS.

Ok so, I'm pretty skeptical on these things. However, the linked article specifies they were using tuna baits. In this type of test I'm pretty sure the sharks are in a feeding pattern spurred by the baits and chum to get them to the test site. That right there makes me think, contaminated test sample.

If a shark is all fired up because it just ate 1/2 of a sea lion and a kayaker is right there with a shark shield, it is quite likely that the shark would blow off some minor discomfort from the shield to go and bite the kayak, as it is already in a feeding pattern.

a "snooping shark" to me is a lot different than  a shark that has already consumed a bait or two, knows what it is feeding on, and then ignores an electric zap to the noggin to get more of said known bait.
A shark that is investigating is normally curious yet very wary. Anything that makes the potential target seem less like a normal prey item is a plus in my book.

I shocked myself for the first time last Saturday by forgetting to switch off the unit before pulling up the cable. At least I know my hand-me-down unit still functions electrically. The zap is just enough to wake you up.
I think the idea behind the shield is sound. Do I think it would deter all sharks in any circumstance? No, just like  tazers do not work on all perpetrators. So that's where your buddies and paddle and anything else come into play

for now, I'll keep using it, for any percentage of GWS it will deter.

+1.  Don't kayak with tuna baits tied to your kayak  . 

I don't rely on my Shark Shield prevent an interaction or even physical contact with the yak.  I am however counting on (hoping) the Shark Shield to prevent the full blow Polaris attack, and most importantly, the follow up attack.  The initial strike is always aimed at the kayak, not the occupant.  After the occupant is knocked out of the safety of the yak and into the water, the real danger begins.  If the Shark Shield failed stop an initial attack, but prevented a subsequent attack, Id be more that happy with the results.

You can doubt the effectiveness of a SS, global warming or vaccinations but that won't change the facts. For what we are doing the SS is highly effective or at  least the most effective deterrent available. From the previously mentioned study

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.

If you look at this information and come away saying you're sceptical as to it's effectiveness wrt what we do then enjoy living on a flat earth.
Seat belts won't save everyone involved car accidents but do you use one? These are life and death encounters so make your decisions using the best science available, not on misinformed scepticism.

Wow someone is a little testy.  When the "best science available " is provided by the company who produces the product, I will be skeptical. If you call that misinformed skepticism then I guess you believe all prescription medications are safe because the pharmaceutical company who made them said they were? Or would you prefer that some independent testing also be done? Don't get me wrong, I think SS is probably effective however, until I see some unbiased testing done by an independent source, I will temper my enthusiasm.  I don't think that is in anyway "misinformed".

I'm going to assume t that the someone who is a little testy is a snarky reference to me. That may have to do with the fact that I'm a GWS shark attack survivor who spent 6 months in hospital and deal with being disabled and in pain for the last 25 years. The study I cited was independent. SS was not developed by a for profit company but a government agency, the Natal Sharks Board.
This is a life and death matter and I don't have the time or patience to beat around the bush. If you Yak Fish the California coast your chances of an encounter are high. The SS is an effective method of lessening your chances of an interaction.

It's SHARKY, not Snarky!

Well put on the seatbelt analogy. I can't understand the picking apart of the SS effectiveness. It seems to be the only option we have to do something to thwart the landlord and having been shocked by your SS, Sharky, I would have to believe in its affect on a creature with electrically bio-sensetive parts all over its face.