Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Killing them if they come within 10 - 15 miles does mean killing every last one. They cross oceans but are basically coastal nomadic. That's where the humpbacks migrate, that's where the seals hangout. Humpbacks might be bouncing back but the Blue whales haven't. Whales in general are still way down. GWS, given that they are assessed as vulnerable, are still way down on pre- whaling numbers.
Read up on it all.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpback_whale
scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=whale+populations+pre+whaling&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji2quq4dTTAhWGrJQKHSPWB7UQgQMIHzAA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale
No it doesn't mean killing every last one if they come within 10 - 15 miles, don't be so sensationalist. For a start you couldn't possibly cover every patch of that kind of area. Even when they were being attracted to land and ship-based whaling stations they didn't manage to kill every last one. How do I know this? Because we still have them, is why. They survived the most pressure that has ever and will ever be put on them.
Whale numbers are increasing every year. Come over here to Dunsborough if you want to see a blue, from late Nov is best. Humpbacks in various parts of WA from June to Dec. You'll find southern rights rolling around in the shallows in Augusta in winter.
Your link estimates there are 10,000 - 25,000 blue whales. How is that vulnerable? How many "vulnerable" great whites would be ok before you could relax about the world caving in?
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Where did I say that? I wouldn't want them culling sharks for an unemployed windsurfer on the east coast either.Bara said..Yeah nice one Ian - South west surfers are less valuable human beings than you? What a toss.
Classic online forum misinterpretation Bara. I'll pay that Ian. Nice one.
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..They will never be a threatened species. Even with the unrestrained pressure put on them in early days they survived. Fishing management (in WA at least) has come a long way since then. Ian K said..Bara said...They are a threatened species, that won't help. For a handful of semi-employed 7 day a week surfers down south. Come on!!
Yeah nice one Ian - South west surfers are less valuable human beings than you? What a toss.
Where did I say that? I wouldn't want them culling sharks for an unemployed windsurfer on the east coast either.
Just like when wolves in Yellowstone National park were culled to extinction eh. "Never threatened?"
When they were reintroduced, the whole food chain and environment flourished because order was restored to the ecology of the region.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Not sure i get your point..Don't like the risk, stay out of the water.Bara said..jbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Just to be clear, its not my opinion that culling doesn't work. Its all the marine scientists. The brains trust that look into these things, the countries who have tried culling sharks for better protection that are all saying it doesn't work. Theres your first problem, if you don't want to take professional advice on the matter, nothing i share could be of interest.
I personally support making ourselves safer in that wild environment. SO many different options like
Eco nets Safe swimming enclosures
Electronic devices, like Rpela or shark shield,
Maybe more research into strips and colours, (but i won't hold my breath on that one)
Better beach warnings and spotters. Even helicopters to have better more clear directions available. Like Red light get the f--k out.
I think tagging has its place, but more transparency needs to be the general public.
Beach first aid kits and first aid training for surfers.
Even simple issues like beach locations and maybe the chopper could carry blood supply.
If those issues above had been implicated then
Doreen would have been wearing a shark shield and science says she would have had a 90% chance of deterring the attack.
Ben, if the ambulance hadn't got lost, or the helicopter had blood or even if the beach had warning signs up saying sharks had been sighted earlier, then things would be different.
If the young girl in Esperance had of had a Rpela fitted to her board, well, or even if beach signs had been erected stating sharks had been sighted for two days before hand. Maybe a different result.
Things can change, water safety can be improved, will we make it 100% safe to surf, no, i doubt that will ever happen, but if we want to just concentrate on vengeance and not science, then i would not expect too much to change.
Anyway I'm of for a surf, id avoid the water anyone who thinks sharks need culling..Its clearly just not safe..
Also in the cheap seats where you are surfing JB.
Not sure i get your point..Don't like the risk, stay out of the water.
Exactly. Surfing is not compulsory.
Killing protected species just to make recreation in a habitat not even remotely human is selfish.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..jbshack said..Not sure i get your point..Don't like the risk, stay out of the water.Bara said..jbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Just to be clear, its not my opinion that culling doesn't work. Its all the marine scientists. The brains trust that look into these things, the countries who have tried culling sharks for better protection that are all saying it doesn't work. Theres your first problem, if you don't want to take professional advice on the matter, nothing i share could be of interest.
I personally support making ourselves safer in that wild environment. SO many different options like
Eco nets Safe swimming enclosures
Electronic devices, like Rpela or shark shield,
Maybe more research into strips and colours, (but i won't hold my breath on that one)
Better beach warnings and spotters. Even helicopters to have better more clear directions available. Like Red light get the f--k out.
I think tagging has its place, but more transparency needs to be the general public.
Beach first aid kits and first aid training for surfers.
Even simple issues like beach locations and maybe the chopper could carry blood supply.
If those issues above had been implicated then
Doreen would have been wearing a shark shield and science says she would have had a 90% chance of deterring the attack.
Ben, if the ambulance hadn't got lost, or the helicopter had blood or even if the beach had warning signs up saying sharks had been sighted earlier, then things would be different.
If the young girl in Esperance had of had a Rpela fitted to her board, well, or even if beach signs had been erected stating sharks had been sighted for two days before hand. Maybe a different result.
Things can change, water safety can be improved, will we make it 100% safe to surf, no, i doubt that will ever happen, but if we want to just concentrate on vengeance and not science, then i would not expect too much to change.
Anyway I'm of for a surf, id avoid the water anyone who thinks sharks need culling..Its clearly just not safe..
Also in the cheap seats where you are surfing JB.
Not sure i get your point..Don't like the risk, stay out of the water.
Exactly. Surfing is not compulsory.
Killing protected species just to make recreation in a habitat not even remotely human is selfish.
Ahh the troll is back doing his thing. Sad existence you have there
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Killing other animals purely to protect habit is an animal instinct.
Moreover, the ocean is not our habitat. We use it for recreation, transport and food.
We know the risks when we enter the water.
We must act like sentient beings instead of animals.
Humans are better than this.
no im not.
I bet all you pro cullers still haven't been proactive and had a shark shield/surf safe installed.
Take some responsibility and initiate and use proven technology.
The days of cave man solutions are numbered. Times are changing and you're being left behind.
What proven tests have been done? Fish baits, fake seals, surfboards and tests on wobbegongs are all irrelevant when your product claims to stop a hungry 4m white shark attacking a real life human being.
I'm assuming the actual trials (open ocean, spearfishing etc, different days, times, locations repeated 50-100 times etc) to prove the product is effective is yet to be done? Any hold ups or they just cant find people willing to get eaten huh 
Select to expand quoteMDSXR6T said..
Have there been any proven results of this great new technology?
Fish baits, fake seals, surfboards and tests on wobbegongs are all irrelevant when your product claims to stop a hungry 4m white shark attacking a real life human being.
I'm assuming this has not been repeatedly tested in various locations over the world given the likely outcome?
Does it make any difference that they had been scientifically tested
Some people still argue the world is flat
The Rpela for your interest though has been tested in Australia, New Zealand, Reunion and South Africa. I may have missed a few.
Of for another surf, I think it best though, people who don't accept the risk, stay home..
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
The Rpela for your interest though has been tested in Australia, New Zealand, Reunion and South Africa. I may have missed a few.
How many tests did they do and under what conditions? How many dozen GWS encounters? Did anyone get attacked or killed? How many great whites were stopped from attacking a free diver, surfer, scuba diver etc? Where are these published results? Where are the go pro videos?
When you buy a boat to sell do you just rely on science telling you its seaworthy??
You guys who are pro gadgets, why you don't volunteer yourself to help these companies making them?
Your support to their cause would become substantially more robust with video footage and independent witnessing and auditing of yourself jumping into the ocean wearing the electronics (no cage) with wild GW's around swimming around.
Do it in the SW, Reunion, Hawaii, South Africa etc.
Some cool Travel included too! Maybe even chicks involved as you will be very famous.
Just think about it, you will be one with your name in history proving the gadget really works, would change our cavemen heads and save the fish! win win win
You grandkids will watch a Discovery Channel program entirely about your story in the future!
You might win a Nobel prize, a knighthood from the Queen or invited to present the next Oscar's.
Please, do it for the sharks and for all of us! For the future of plant Earth!
Select to expand quoteBara said..Adriano said..jbshack said..Not sure i get your point..Don't like the risk, stay out of the water.Bara said..jbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Just to be clear, its not my opinion that culling doesn't work. Its all the marine scientists. The brains trust that look into these things, the countries who have tried culling sharks for better protection that are all saying it doesn't work. Theres your first problem, if you don't want to take professional advice on the matter, nothing i share could be of interest.
I personally support making ourselves safer in that wild environment. SO many different options like
Eco nets Safe swimming enclosures
Electronic devices, like Rpela or shark shield,
Maybe more research into strips and colours, (but i won't hold my breath on that one)
Better beach warnings and spotters. Even helicopters to have better more clear directions available. Like Red light get the f--k out.
I think tagging has its place, but more transparency needs to be the general public.
Beach first aid kits and first aid training for surfers.
Even simple issues like beach locations and maybe the chopper could carry blood supply.
If those issues above had been implicated then
Doreen would have been wearing a shark shield and science says she would have had a 90% chance of deterring the attack.
Ben, if the ambulance hadn't got lost, or the helicopter had blood or even if the beach had warning signs up saying sharks had been sighted earlier, then things would be different.
If the young girl in Esperance had of had a Rpela fitted to her board, well, or even if beach signs had been erected stating sharks had been sighted for two days before hand. Maybe a different result.
Things can change, water safety can be improved, will we make it 100% safe to surf, no, i doubt that will ever happen, but if we want to just concentrate on vengeance and not science, then i would not expect too much to change.
Anyway I'm of for a surf, id avoid the water anyone who thinks sharks need culling..Its clearly just not safe..
Also in the cheap seats where you are surfing JB.
Not sure i get your point..Don't like the risk, stay out of the water.
Exactly. Surfing is not compulsory.
Killing protected species just to make recreation in a habitat not even remotely human is selfish.
Ahh the troll is back doing his thing. Sad existence you have there
Since when is expressing an opinion trolling?
Stop acting like you have the moral authority. You have no right.
The only thing going on is you don't like my opinion.
Try and deal with it please.
I meet a guy a few months ago contracted by the oil miners/greenies..etc to count blue whales in the southern ocean by aircraft. They flew daily from Portland to Ceduna and counted I recall around 700 blue whales. Problem is you can't do that with GWS and the only real counts come from the shark cage diving industry and the odd full on marine biologist funded through governent that would properly be cheaper to sit in the office and suggest a few numbers.
Well said, I can think of one perfect candidate to do some shark cage diving without the cage
Select to expand quoteMDSXR6T said..jbshack said..
The Rpela for your interest though has been tested in Australia, New Zealand, Reunion and South Africa. I may have missed a few.
How many tests did they do and under what conditions? How many dozen GWS encounters? Did anyone get attacked or killed? How many great whites were stopped from attacking a free diver, surfer, scuba diver etc? Where are these published results? Where are the go pro videos?
When you buy a boat to sell do you just rely on science telling you its seaworthy??
Go do some research, don't just ask on Social media.
Tonight i had a guy come and ask me what the green lights in my board were? i explained briefly and then his mate piped up categorical exclaiming those units don't work. When i questioned him, he had never even heard of the brand or system..
When i buy boats, i do my research, as i did when i started to use Rpela units over three years ago. Personally i couldn't care less if you use them or not. For the same reason if you don't want to wear your seatbelt thats also not my problem.
Select to expand quotenovetti said..
You guys who are pro gadgets, why you don't volunteer yourself to help these companies making them?
Your support to their cause would become substantially more robust with video footage and independent witnessing and auditing of yourself jumping into the ocean wearing the electronics (no cage) with wild GW's around swimming around.
Do it in the SW, Reunion, Hawaii, South Africa etc.
Some cool Travel included too! Maybe even chicks involved as you will be very famous.
Just think about it, you will be one with your name in history proving the gadget really works, would change our cavemen heads and save the fish! win win win
You grandkids will watch a Discovery Channel program entirely about your story in the future!
You might win a Nobel prize, a knighthood from the Queen or invited to present the next Oscar's.
Please, do it for the sharks and for all of us! For the future of plant Earth!
Just to show how little some of you have researched these types of products.
A lot of what you asked for above has been done By Dave and a fair amount of it is also on video, oh and one line.
But if you want to pay toward my travel, ill happily go back to Hawaii and surf with mine again. I would really love to go Surf Reunion as the crowds are obviously low
Should i start a go fund me page or will you do it..
Select to expand quotejbshack said..MDSXR6T said..jbshack said..
The Rpela for your interest though has been tested in Australia, New Zealand, Reunion and South Africa. I may have missed a few.
How many tests did they do and under what conditions? How many dozen GWS encounters? Did anyone get attacked or killed? How many great whites were stopped from attacking a free diver, surfer, scuba diver etc? Where are these published results? Where are the go pro videos?
When you buy a boat to sell do you just rely on science telling you its seaworthy??
Go do some research, don't just ask on Social media.
Tonight i had a guy come and ask me what the green lights in my board were? i explained briefly and then his mate piped up categorical exclaiming those units don't work. When i questioned him, he had never even heard of the brand or system..
When i buy boats, i do my research, as i did when i started to use Rpela units over three years ago. Personally i couldn't care less if you use them or not. For the same reason if you don't want to wear your seatbelt thats also not my problem.
Not being smart but all of these products make the same fluffy claims, have a few testimonials and some token GWS footage. No video testing of a regular, live human actually testing them when it counts.
If these products are so fantastic wheres the harm with jumping out of the cage with 2 or 3 wound up whites nearby?? No need to waste time and money on scientific testing or bothering with small sharks as you've gone straight to the top.
I fail to see your logic. Because they have been shown to work in not all cases you refuse to use them. Then you the argue for a cull, but not one that would take out all sharks. Well that won't work in all situations either. By nature it's difficult to accurately assess these but from what I've read I'd guess they are at least the equivalent of a pretty brutal cull.
The only way to get enough data to thoroughly evaluate them would be to legislate that all ocean users swimming out side the flags must use an approved deterrent. 10 years of data Australia wide might be statistically significant. Have to ask a statistician.
(I suppose even I'd get one then)
I read this paragraph below knowing how overly-cautious scientists are in making statements. If they say "most of they time" they mean it!
www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/diet-and-fitness/surfing-and-snowboarding/articles/shark-repellents-review
"
While Shark Shield can deter a shark from attacking, it won't do so every time. The most recent study of the device by scientists at the University of Western Australia (UWA) found it prevented great whites and tiger sharks from attacking most of the time, but it wasn't always effective. An earlier study by the South Australian Research and Development Institute also found the device was effective in deterring great whites, but noted it didn't "deter or repel this species in all situations, nor did it repel all individuals". "
So how can you compare the gadgets to seatbelts or air bags? This is a very poor comparison.
If the only thing scientists and manufacturers can provide is some loose words like you said ''but noted it didn't "deter or repel this species in all situations, nor did it repel all individuals".
Technology in life saving devices naturally takes a lot of time to mature (10 to 15 yrs +), and you guys here defending this like a cult however not volunteering to swim with the big fish wearing the gadget is just a big contradiction.
Takes some BALLS to go in a dive with wild GW's without a cage and wearing a seal disguise, I understand...
Obviously if you have a GW coming off from dinner a few minutes ago with 3 fresh seals in their stomach they will probably ignore you and the gadget when their short videos were done, no independent auditing and testing with skewed boundary parameters.
Guess what I drive a lot (50%) of my road time without a seatbelt and I still here.
I just don't drive like an idiot and keep my distance.
The odds from me dying doing this comparing to go surfing in Shark infested waters of SW WA are substantially less.
Select to expand quoteMDSXR6T said..jbshack said..MDSXR6T said..jbshack said..
The Rpela for your interest though has been tested in Australia, New Zealand, Reunion and South Africa. I may have missed a few.
How many tests did they do and under what conditions? How many dozen GWS encounters? Did anyone get attacked or killed? How many great whites were stopped from attacking a free diver, surfer, scuba diver etc? Where are these published results? Where are the go pro videos?
When you buy a boat to sell do you just rely on science telling you its seaworthy??
Go do some research, don't just ask on Social media.
Tonight i had a guy come and ask me what the green lights in my board were? i explained briefly and then his mate piped up categorical exclaiming those units don't work. When i questioned him, he had never even heard of the brand or system..
When i buy boats, i do my research, as i did when i started to use Rpela units over three years ago. Personally i couldn't care less if you use them or not. For the same reason if you don't want to wear your seatbelt thats also not my problem.
Not being smart but all of these products make the same fluffy claims, have a few testimonials and some token GWS footage. No video testing of a regular, live human actually testing them when it counts.
If these products are so fantastic wheres the harm with jumping out of the cage with 2 or 3 wound up whites nearby?? No need to waste time and money on scientific testing or bothering with small sharks as you've gone straight to the top.
Not being rude, but cant be bothered arguing these issues, surf don't surf, i don't care..
Select to expand quotenovetti said..
Guess what I drive a lot (50%) of my road time without a seatbelt and I still here.
I just don't drive like an idiot and keep my distance.
The odds from me dying doing this comparing to go surfing in Shark infested waters of SW WA are substantially less.
So you chose to avoid using safety products that could save your life across the board, good for you, there in lies the type of people out their, thanks for the explanation 
No one can argue with your kind of logic..
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
I fail to see your logic. Because they have been shown to work in not all cases you refuse to use them. Then you the argue for a cull, but not one that would take out all sharks. Well that won't work in all situations either. By nature it's difficult to accurately assess these but from what I've read I'd guess they are at least the equivalent of a pretty brutal cull.
The only way to get enough data to thoroughly evaluate them would be to legislate that all ocean users swimming out side the flags must use an approved deterrent. 10 years of data Australia wide might be statistically significant. Have to ask a statistician.
(I suppose even I'd get one then)
I read this paragraph below knowing how overly-cautious scientists are in making statements. If they say "most of they time" they mean it!
www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/diet-and-fitness/surfing-and-snowboarding/articles/shark-repellents-review
"
While Shark Shield can deter a shark from attacking, it won't do so every time. The most recent study of the device by scientists at the University of Western Australia (UWA) found it prevented great whites and tiger sharks from attacking most of the time, but it wasn't always effective. An earlier study by the South Australian Research and Development Institute also found the device was effective in deterring great whites, but noted it didn't "deter or repel this species in all situations, nor did it repel all individuals". "
The point that people argue is they don't give 100% guarantee, they use that to defend their position. However I'm yet to find a safety product that guarantees 100% protection.
Their is one though, its called abstinence, for those wanting a 100% guarantee i do have one, stay out of the water and your guaranteed of avoiding a shark bite
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Ian K said..
I fail to see your logic. Because they have been shown to work in not all cases you refuse to use them. Then you the argue for a cull, but not one that would take out all sharks. Well that won't work in all situations either. By nature it's difficult to accurately assess these but from what I've read I'd guess they are at least the equivalent of a pretty brutal cull.
The only way to get enough data to thoroughly evaluate them would be to legislate that all ocean users swimming out side the flags must use an approved deterrent. 10 years of data Australia wide might be statistically significant. Have to ask a statistician.
(I suppose even I'd get one then)
I read this paragraph below knowing how overly-cautious scientists are in making statements. If they say "most of they time" they mean it!
www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/diet-and-fitness/surfing-and-snowboarding/articles/shark-repellents-review
"
While Shark Shield can deter a shark from attacking, it won't do so every time. The most recent study of the device by scientists at the University of Western Australia (UWA) found it prevented great whites and tiger sharks from attacking most of the time, but it wasn't always effective. An earlier study by the South Australian Research and Development Institute also found the device was effective in deterring great whites, but noted it didn't "deter or repel this species in all situations, nor did it repel all individuals". "
The point that people argue is they don't give 100% guarantee, they use that to defend their position. However I'm yet to find a safety product that guarantees 100% protection.
Their is one though, its called abstinence, for those wanting a 100% guarantee i do have one, stay out of the water and your guaranteed of avoiding a shark bite
You wouldn't be safe from a Sharknado!!
Select to expand quotejbshack said..novetti said..
Guess what I drive a lot (50%) of my road time without a seatbelt and I still here.
I just don't drive like an idiot and keep my distance.
The odds from me dying doing this comparing to go surfing in Shark infested waters of SW WA are substantially less.
So you chose to avoid using safety products that could save your life across the board, good for you, there in lies the type of people out their, thanks for the explanation
No one can argue with your kind of logic..
Ding Ding Ding ! You just took my bait re seatbelts...like the sharks.
What happens if one of my vehicles is pre 69' and doesn't have seatbelt OEM fitted?
Shall I go to hell or something? My choice isn't it?
Select to expand quotenovetti said..jbshack said..novetti said..
Guess what I drive a lot (50%) of my road time without a seatbelt and I still here.
I just don't drive like an idiot and keep my distance.
The odds from me dying doing this comparing to go surfing in Shark infested waters of SW WA are substantially less.
So you chose to avoid using safety products that could save your life across the board, good for you, there in lies the type of people out their, thanks for the explanation
No one can argue with your kind of logic..
Ding Ding Ding ! You just took my bait re seatbelts...like the sharks.
What happens if one of my vehicles is pre 69' and doesn't have seatbelt OEM fitted?
Shall I go to hell or something? My choice isn't it?
Yes it's your choice to get thrown out of car during an accident
Let's say I set 10 shark hooks with bait on them but only catch one shark.
it could be said that in 9/10 cases this far a baited shark hook is proven to be effective in repelling sharks. It has been tried across 10 instances with only one chance of shark attack therefore the stats would be....
90% of baited shark hooks repel shark attack...
these stats are pretty realistic if you are a shark fisherman or have been..
this doesn't make me tie a baited hook to my leg and paddle out however is the same argument that a little magnet wrist band or a Zappa does the same thing...
let me put it like this 100% of people with a letterbox for a hat have had success in not being attacked by a shark across all tests.
this is proven and scientific and has facts but no one in their right mind would swim around u caged between 5 hungry great whites with a letterbox strapped to their head even though there is science and a 100% success rate this far....
This is the same and I repeat the same science and "facts" that show shark shields "work"
and bs again with the same response no one- I repeat no one as yet or in the near future is game enough to swim around off Neptune island outside the cage with a shark shield as there only defence with 4-5 great whites agitated and hungry..
why hey not because they may as well have a letterbox strapped on their head with a baited shark hook tied to their leg....
both will incur the same result they will either get ripped to shreds or they won't.. The only difference being is that a letterbox doesn't send an electrical impulse so the Sharks can identify you and home in quicker.......
science works both ways
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
Let's say I set 10 shark hooks with bait on them but only catch one shark.
it could be said that in 9/10 cases this far a baited shark hook is proven to be effective in repelling sharks. It has been tried across 10 instances with only one chance of shark attack therefore the stats would be....
90% of baited shark hooks repel shark attack...
these stats are pretty realistic if you are a shark fisherman or have been..
this doesn't make me tie a baited hook to my leg and paddle out however is the same argument that a little magnet wrist band or a Zappa does the same thing...
let me put it like this 100% of people with a letterbox for a hat have had success in not being attacked by a shark across all tests.
this is proven and scientific and has facts but no one in their right mind would swim around u caged between 5 hungry great whites with a letterbox strapped to their head even though there is science and a 100% success rate this far....
This is the same and I repeat the same science and "facts" that show shark shields "work"
and bs again with the same response no one- I repeat no one as yet or in the near future is game enough to swim around off Neptune island outside the cage with a shark shield as there only defence with 4-5 great whites agitated and hungry..
why hey not because they may as well have a letterbox strapped on their head with a baited shark hook tied to their leg....
both will incur the same result they will either get ripped to shreds or they won't.. The only difference being is that a letterbox doesn't send an electrical impulse so the Sharks can identify you and home in quicker.......
science works both ways
You are wrong, but that's ok
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
Let's say I set 10 shark hooks with bait on them but only catch one shark.
it could be said that in 9/10 cases this far a baited shark hook is proven to be effective in repelling sharks. It has been tried across 10 instances with only one chance of shark attack therefore the stats would be....
90% of baited shark hooks repel shark attack...
these stats are pretty realistic if you are a shark fisherman or have been..
this doesn't make me tie a baited hook to my leg and paddle out however is the same argument that a little magnet wrist band or a Zappa does the same thing...
let me put it like this 100% of people with a letterbox for a hat have had success in not being attacked by a shark across all tests.
this is proven and scientific and has facts but no one in their right mind would swim around u caged between 5 hungry great whites with a letterbox strapped to their head even though there is science and a 100% success rate this far....
This is the same and I repeat the same science and "facts" that show shark shields "work"
and bs again with the same response no one- I repeat no one as yet or in the near future is game enough to swim around off Neptune island outside the cage with a shark shield as there only defence with 4-5 great whites agitated and hungry..
why hey not because they may as well have a letterbox strapped on their head with a baited shark hook tied to their leg....
both will incur the same result they will either get ripped to shreds or they won't.. The only difference being is that a letterbox doesn't send an electrical impulse so the Sharks can identify you and home in quicker.......
science works both ways
The point you continue to miss though is this, THEY ARE NOT 100% EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING ATTACKS 100% OF THE TIME..
Firstly the chance of a shark swimming up to a surfer to bit them is slim, it is but lets move on, if a shark swims up to bite you and you have a electronic device fitted or being warn, scientific testing has proven to be effective in stopping that attack 90% of the times..
ONCE AGAIN, no safety device will offer 100% guaranteed safety. If a super model was presented to you with her pants down saying go for it have your way with me, you had a condom but she has Aids, will you ignore using that condom, or will take your chance with the safety product, even if it has the chance to break Or will you lets say, stay on the beach
Once again going to the beach for hopefully some waves this time
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
ONCE AGAIN, no safety device will offer 100% guaranteed safety. If a super model was presented to you with her pants down saying go for it have your way with me, you had a condom but she has Aids, will you ignore using that condom, or will take your chance with the safety product, even if it has the chance to break Or will you lets say, stay on the beach
Once again going to the beach for hopefully some waves this time
....yeah, nah. Let's keep the analogies workable.
