Anti-Shark Warfare 129 



Since the time the repellent was developed, the formula has remained 

 the same. Many marine scientists have suspected that the formula could 

 be improved, their suspicions being based on reports of the repellent's 

 dubious effectiveness. For example, the repellent was tried by champion 

 Australian sharker Bob Dyer on packs of sharks in waters bloodied by 

 whales killed by professional whalers. Some of the sharks were repelled; 

 some actually ate the packets of repellent in their frenzy! 



In correspondence with the authors, the British Admiralty reported 

 that repellent tests the British conducted were inconclusive. The British 

 Medical Journal said that the efficacy of repellents "is rather doubtful." 

 The Royal Air Force said that repellents are not in general use for RAF 

 fliers. Tests of repellents at the Point Cloates whaling station in Western 

 Australia "proved ineffective." Ward, Brooke and Company, Ltd., the 

 British chemical firm which manufactures the same repellent under a 

 government formula, wrote: "The common opinion is that whilst it 

 bolsters morale its effectiveness is in some doubt." Stewart Springer of 

 the Shark Research Panel, who worked on the original research that de- 

 veloped the repellent during the war, today doubts whether repellent is 

 even the correct word. "It probably should be called a feeding ijihibitor,'" 

 Springer says. 



In its 1958 diving manual for frogmen and helmet divers, the U.S. 

 Navy warned that "shark repellents are useless" when sharks "are hunt- 

 ing in packs and food or blood is present." 



The British Shallow Water Diving Unit at Nassau tested shark re- 

 pellent under conditions that would be more pertinent to skin-divers. 

 The British reported: "The use by us of shark repellent [copper acetate] 

 did not prove anything. It does not seem reasonable to suppose that a 

 shark in the fury" of an attack would pause or retreat from its headlong 

 rush for food because it did not care for the smell of the repellent. Again, 

 if the repellent were effective it would be only so down tide." 



Dr. Albeit Tester, a University of Hawaii zoologist, summed up the 

 reports on shark repellents by saying: "I do not think at the present 

 time that we have a sure-fire repellent of any kind. There are sharks and 

 sharks. One repellent may work with the Tiger shark, but not with the 

 Gray sharks we have here in Hawaii. Another may work with the Gray 

 and not on the Tiger." 



Concerned about the skepticism that had been developing over shark 

 repellents, in 1958 the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Tulane 

 University, and the Office of Naval Research called a conference on 

 shark repellents. Shark experts from the United States, Australia, Japan, 

 and South Africa attended. The consensus of the conference, as reported 

 by Lester R. Aronson, a specialist in animal behavior and a member of 

 the staff of the American Museum of Natural History, was: "Reports 

 indicate that under certain conditions it [Shark Chaser] may not be effec- 



