## 1 Introduction  
Globally, shark interactions have increased over the past three decades [1; 2; 3]. These events are, however, still relatively rare, and the risk of serious injury or death is extremely low compared to the risks associated with other beach activities (e.g., drowning [4]). However, when shark bites occur, they elicit public fear and media attention, generating a level of fear that does not necessarily reflect the true risk [5]. Until recently, the increase in shark bites has been attributed to an increasing human population and, thus, greater participation in water-based activities, particularly surfing [1]. Yet, these factors alone cannot account for the rise. [PERSON] et al. [2] identified various environmental factors influencing the risk of shark attacks in Australia, including geographical location, sea surface temperature, rainfall, and distance to river mouths, with complex species-specific relationships. Irrespective of the underlying mechanisms contributing to the rise in shark bites, spatial and temporal clusters of interactions in Australia (e.g., [6]) and elsewhere (e.g., Reunion Island [7]; Brazil [8]) result in concern from the public demanding that government agencies enhance shark mitigation strategies to increase safety and awareness [2]. Traditionally, shark mitigation programs have initiated a response that incorporates catch-and-kill measures against a suite of species thought to be responsible for the majority of shark bites (e.g., target sharks of the Bull Shark _Carcharhinus leucas_, the Tiger Shark _Galeocero cvier_, and the White Shark _Carcharodon carcharias_ in New South Wales, NSW). In some regions, ongoing shark bite mitigation measures have been in place for decades [9; 10]. Traditionally, these programs on the east coast of South Africa and Australia have not released sharks found alive in the fishing gear [11]. The South African program using nets and drumlines initiated a release policy in 1989 [12], followed by the NSW nets and Queensland nets and drumlines programs (2008/09 and 2020, respectively), but no post-release tracking of sharks has been published to determine the survivorship and movements of these sharks. Traditional gear to mitigate shark bites (shark nets and drumlines) incorporates substantial by-catch of marine mammals, reptiles, rays, and non-target sharks [10; 13; 14; 15], many of which are listed globally as Threatened, Endangered or Protected (TEP) species. Concerns associated with the impacts of shark nets and drumlines on marine wildlife have led to the development and trial of non-lethal bather protection strategies, such as aerial surveillance by helicopters and drones [16; 17; 18], testing of personal shark deterrent devices [19; 20; 21; 22; 23], visual detection [7], sonar technology [24], environmentally friendly physical shark barriers [25], chemical repellents [22; 26; 27], physical barriers [28; 29], land-based observers for shark spotting [30], acoustic deterrents [31; 32], and real-time detection of acoustically tagged sharks via in-water receivers [33], that subsequently provide public alerts via social media. Additionally, substantial increases in acoustic tagging of sharks have provided an increased understanding of the ecology of sharks (e.g., Bull Shark [34; 35]; Tiger Shark [36]; White Shark [37; 38]) in order to advise beach authorities and the public of periods and locations of potentially increased risk. However, differences in opinion do exist in the community around the best options available for use as a bather protection tool [39]. In south-eastern Australia, the majority of shark bites occur in nearshore areas, with a seasonal peak between November and April [1]. Most serious bites in this region are attributed to White, Bull, and Tiger Sharks [3; 40], which in NSW are collectively referred to as 'target sharks' as they are the focus of shark mitigation measures. Most of these serious or fatal bites were attributed to juvenile and/or sub-adult White Sharks (Australian Shark Incident Database).