Ryan M. Kempster, 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

Ryan M. Kempster, 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.&#xA0;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.&#xA0;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.&#xA0;For detailed information on this peer reviewed research, the research paper can be downloaded from PLOS ONE&#xA0;<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0157717" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">here</a>.&#xA0;Key points:<ol><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Shark Shield effectively deterred sharks from interacting with the bait&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Shark Shield does not attract sharks</li></ol>

How Close is too Close? The Effect of a Non-Lethal Electric Shark Deterrent on White Shark Behaviour.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY � 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

&#xA0; &#xA0; &#xA0; &#xA0; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY&#xA0;<ul><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">&#xA0;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.&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">&#xA0;We 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.&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">&#xA0;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.&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">&#xA0;The effectiveness of the deterrents was variable, with the Freedom+ Surf affecting shark behaviour the most (increased number of reactions) and reducing the percentage of bait taken from 96% (relative to the control board) to 40%. This led to an increase in the number of passes because exposed sharks continued to attempt taking the bait. Shark&apos;s mean distance to the board increased from 1.6<span id="isPasted" style="color: rgb(24, 50, 71); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; float: none; display: inline !important;">&#xA0;&#xB1; 0.1 m (control board) to 2.6 <span id="isPasted" style="color: rgb(24, 50, 71); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; float: none; display: inline !important;">&#xB1; 0.1 m when the Freedom Surf+ was active, but the time it took to interact with the bait remained indistinguishable. The other deterrents had limited or no measureable effect on white sharks.&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">&#xA0;Based on our power analyses, the smallest effect size that could be reliably detected was ~ 15%. Although we did not find evidence that the magnet band and leash, Chillax Wax, and Rpela affected White sharks during the trials, it is possible that these deterrents have small effects that could not be detected by the 50 trials per deterrent we imposed. This does not infer that additional trials would have necessarily resulted in our models detecting an effects from these deterrents; rather it means that more than 50 trials would be required to detect changes of a magnitude &lt; 15% greater than we observed if there were any effects.&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">&#xA0;Manufacturers should consider these findings to assess the suitability of their product and gauge whether changes are required to ensure that their product performs as intended. Our results will allow private and government agencies to make informed decisions about the use of these devices for occupational activities and enable the public to make appropriate decisions about the use and suitability of these five products.&#xA0;</li></ul><a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0052/3862/0195/files/Huveneers_et_al_2018_-_Shark_deterrents_effectiveness.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Download the research paper here.</a>

Response of white sharks exposed to newly developed personal shark deterrents

Charlie Huveneers1,2*, Paul J. Rogers1, Jayson M. Semmens3, Crystal Beckmann2, Alison A. Kock4,5,�Brad Page1, Simon D. Goldsworthy1 Abstract : Elasmobranchs can detect minute electromagnetic fields, ,1 nVcm�1, using their ampullae of Lorenzini

Charlie Huveneers1,2*, Paul J. Rogers1, Jayson M. Semmens3, Crystal Beckmann2, Alison A. Kock4,5, Brad Page1, Simon D. Goldsworthy1&#xA0;Abstract :&#xA0;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 Freedom7TM electric deterrent on (1) the behaviour of 18 white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) near a static bait, and (2) the rates of attacks on a towed seal decoy.&#xA0;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. 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.&#xA0;<a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0052/3862/0195/files/Effects_of_an_Electric_Field_on_White_Sharks.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Download the research paper here.</a>

Effects of an Electric Field on White Sharks: In Situ Testing of an Electric Deterrent

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. Summary:� In two series of tests of a new electric shark

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.&#xA0;Summary: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 which no successful attacks were recognized in 24 ten-minute active periods).In general,&#xA0;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.<a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0052/3862/0195/files/C_F_Smit___Peddemors_-Electric_Repellent.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Download the research paper here.</a>

Estimating the Probability of a Shark Attack when using an Electric Repellent

Summary:� 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

Summary: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.&#xA0;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.&#xA0;No method of mitigating the risk of an unprovoked shark bite is 100% successful in all circumstances, and this is the case for methods of risks to human safety in all contexts, whether it be seatbelts and airbags in cars, or the emergency brace position on planes. The traditional method of reducing the risk of unprovoked shark bite has been through culling, using shark nets and/or drumlines. These practices are unlikely to remain to be acceptable due to their environmental impacts on species of conservation interest. There are alternatives which reduce the risk of unprovoked shark bite for bathers which include enclosure nets and shark spotter programs, but such approaches are impractical for surfers, divers, spearfishers, snorkelers, and kite surfers. The most environmentally friendly, non-lethal method for preventing unprovoked shark bite on any water user, that leaves other marine life unaffected, is low power, electronic shark deterrents. This method utilizes the shark&apos;s highly sensitive electroreception organs, by creating pulses of low-power electrical current, which are extremely uncomfortable for approaching sharks, without affecting humans wearing such devices, or any other marine animals.&#xA0;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 2m 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.&#xA0;<a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0052/3862/0195/files/2015_SharkShield_White-Paper_compressed.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Download the white paper here.</a>

White Paper - Shark Shield

Summary:� 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

Summary: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.&#xA0;We tested five personal shark deterrents developed for surfers (Shark Shield Pty Ltd [Ocean Guardian] Freedom+ Surf, Rpela, SharkBanz bracelet, SharkBanz surf leash, and Chillax Wax) 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 (Carcharodon carcharias) 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% (relative to the control board) to 40%. The mean distance of sharks to the board increased from 1.6 - 0.1m (control board) to 2.6 - 0.1m when the Freedom Surf+ was active. The other deterrents had limited or no measurable effect on white shark behaviour.&#xA0;Based on our power analyses, the smallest effect size that could be reliably detected was &gt;15%, which for the first time provides information about the effect size that a deterrent study like ours can reliably detect. Our study shows that deterrents based on similar principles overwhelming a shark&apos;s electroreceptors (the ampullae of Lorenzini) with electrical pulses differ in their efficacy, reinforcing the need to test each product independently. Our results will allow private and government agencies and the public to make informed decisions about the use and suitability of these five products.&#xA0;<a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0052/3862/0195/files/Huveneers_et_al_2018_-_Shark_deterrents_effectiveness.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Download the research paper here.</a>

Effectiveness of five personal shark-bite deterrents for surfers

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

Ocean Guardian&apos;s Shark Shield Technology proven again as the world&apos;s most effective shark deterrent by French Government Research.&#xA0;Following the success of the West Australian Government&apos;s Shark Deterrent Rebate program and several independent studies proving the effectiveness of Ocean Guardian&apos;s Shark Shield Technology to deter sharks, 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.&#xA0;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 &quot;shark deterrents&quot; may not actually work and will not protect humans from shark bites as effectively as Shark Shield Technology.&#xA0;The French Government tested and researched a range of products, including ESharkForce, No Shark, RPELA and Ocean Guardian&apos;s FREEDOM7, FREEDOM+ Surf and SCUBA7.&#xA0;Key findings from the latest research conducted by the French Government:&#xA0;<ul><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ocean Guardian&apos;s Shark Shield Technology demonstrates efficacy on the white shark*.&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No safety product can be effective at 100% (seat belts, airbags, life jackets) however, Ocean Guardian&apos;s FREEDOM+ Surf devices clearly produce the strongest electrical field. At 1m from the centre of the electrodes, the electrical field of the other devices reach only 36% (RPela) and 18% (NoShark) of the electrical field intensity of Shark Shield Technology*.&#xA0;</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Other devices (excluding Ocean Guardian) all have more or less long &quot;dead times&quot; during which there is no electric field in the water between the pulses*.</li><li style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This research indicates that the presence of an activated RPELA-v1 has no significant effect on the number of bait interactions and bites compared to a non-existent RPELA-v1*.</li></ul><a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0052/3862/0195/files/Reunion-Island-French-Personal-Protection-Shark-Deterrent-Research-2019_EN.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Download the paper here.</a>*Research results of experimental tests on personal protective devices with electric shark deterrents by the French Government.

World's most effective shark deterrent proven by French Government Research

Can't find what you are looking for, our team is just one email away :)

Back to USA & Int Store 

Back to Australian Store

Ocean Guardian

Research Papers

How does the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) effectively deter sharks?

Do Ocean Guardian Devices (Shark Shield) attract sharks?

What sized board can I fit the FREEDOM+ Surf to, will it fit my longboard or SUP?

Can I use the FREEDOM+ Surf on a performance surf board?

If I am wearing an Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield), but my buddy/mate is not, is he/she more prone to attack?

What types of sharks does the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) deter?

Can we guarantee the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) turns sharks away?

Does Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) interfere with a dive computers, fish finders, cameras or GPS?

What is the depth rating of the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield)?

Can I use the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) in estuarine environments?

What is the warranty period for the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) unit?

How can I test that the unit is working properly?

How should I store my unit considering the lithium battery?

Can I "top up" the battery when it still has some charge left in it, or does it need to be fully drained?

How do I know when the battery is getting low?

How long does the unit's battery last?

Will I get an electric shock?

Does the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) repel any other creatures?

Do the electrodes need to be immersed in the water for a protective field to be created?

On which part of the body is the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) worn?

Can the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) be used by children?

Who can use Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) products ?

Do I have to leave the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) switched on all the time?

When should I turn on the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield)?

Does Shark Shield Technology harm sharks?

Have Ocean Guardian products been tested as safe for humans?

What sort of testing has been done on the Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) units?

What information do I need to ship Lithium batteries used in Ocean Guardian Products?

What happened to the 'fin system'?

Does the FREEDOM+ Surf antenna stick to the board or does it need other screws etc?

How do I move the FREEDOM+ Surf between boards, what if I have multiple surfboards?

How do you tell if the battery is on and actually working, for instance, after several months of use how will I tell if is still working and that I don't need to replace it?

Does the FREEDOM+ Surf require maintenance?

How do you know that the new FREEDOM+ Surf is as effective as the existing proven Ocean Guardian products?

Can I move my antenna to another board?

What happens if I damage my decal antenna?

If the battery only lasts for 4-5 hours, how would you know when it's turned on and when it runs out of battery?

Which product is best for kayaking?

Does the carbon fiber in my surfboard effect the FREEDOM+ Surf?

Can I install a FREEDOM+ Surf on a board with channels?

What is the physical size / dimension of the FREEDOM+ Surf tail pad antenna's?

What is the output voltage / current / frequency of the electrical field of the Shark Shield?

Does Ocean Guardian effect carbon fibre diving fins?

Does Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) offer sponsorship or testing assistance?

How does Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) compare to magnet shark repellents?

Can I replace the battery or repair in my Ocean Guardian device?

Can I use the new FREEDOM+ Surf on a soft board?

My FREEDOM+ does not appear to charge when placed on the charging dock?

Do I have to install the tail pad with my decal antenna?

Can I use an Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) for water skiing or wake boarding?

What is the best solution for a kite boarding or kite surfing?

Can I use an Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) on a body board or boogie board?

My FREEDOM+ Surf electrodes have brown stains on them?

Which Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield) should I use for fishing?

What is the difference between the FREEDOM7 and SCUBA7?

Why can't I use the FREEDOM+ Surf on a soft board?

The braid on my FREEDOM7 is damaged, what can I do?

How can I prevent getting a shock when I duck dive during spearfishing?

How do I clean the power module pins and connector after water exposure?

FREEDOM7 "C" Version

Epoxy Surfboards Decal Antenna

Can I Travel on an Airplane with my Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield)?

FREEDOM7 or SCUBA7 won't charge, what charger version do I need?

What is the difference between the FREEDOM+ Surf, FREEDOM+ Surf - SHORTBOARD, Tail Pad / Antenna and Tail Pad / Antenna - SHORTBOARD?

What is an eSPEAR?

What is the safest way to open my eSPEAR to charge?

What can I do when I feel the electrical field on my hand when holding the eSPEAR?

How do I turn off my eSPEAR, why is there no on/off switch?

How do I remove the sticker antenna from my surfboard?

Can an Ocean Guardian device cause electrolysis on my vessel?

How do I keep two BOAT01 or BOAT02 buoys apart drifting off the stern?

Can I re-glue down the female connector on the tail pad antenna?

Reunion Island Customers

My eSPEAR electrodes have brown stains on them

What is the difference between the FREEDOM+ Surf with the diamond antennas and the newer version with oblong shaped antennas?

Which device can I use with a hooka or airline for diving?

Using the FREEDOM+ Surf on a Surf Ski and Ocean Ski

BOAT01, BOAT02 & FISH01 and FISH02 Charging Cable and AC / DC Converter

BOAT01 & FISH01 Antenna Versions

Who should use the Ocean Guardian FISH01 / FISH02?

How does the FISH01 / FISH02 work?

What is the range of the FISH01 / FISH02?

Will the FISH01 scare away the fish I'm trying to catch?

Does Shark Shield Technology attract sharks?

Does the FISH01 and FISH02 require batteries or charging?

Will the FISH01 & FISH02 deter all shark species?

Has the FISH01 (FISH02) been tested?

Is the FISH01 / FISH02 guaranteed to work?

Can I use the FISH01 / FISH02 for spearfishing?

Can I use the FISH01 / FISH02 to deter other marine life such as seals or large groupers?

Will the FISH01 or FISH02 interfere with my boat equipment or other electronic gear?