## 4 Discussion
Previous studies have also indicated a tendency for females to favor inshorse habitats, with an inclination among immature male White Sharks towards large-scale migrations [37; 38; 71]. There were also significant positive relationships between time after release and the likelihood of White Sharks being found further from the coast. The size (total length) of the shark affected distance to the coast at 10 days post-release, implying that larger sharks were continuing long-shore movements in deeper water. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [44] hypothesize that juvenile White Sharks utilize a 'depth corridor' (between 60 and 120 m isobaths) when traveling along the coast, which supports the hypothesis that larger sharks may stay further offshore and continue with long-shore movements for longer than the smaller sharks that seek out nearshore habitat sooner. [PERSON] et al. [46] confirm an apparent preference for offshore habitats by large (340 to 380 cm TL) White Sharks off eastern Australia. Similarly, the inshore bias towards female White Sharks reported by [PERSON] et al. [37] and [PERSON] et al. [50], plus those individuals observed in more historical shark control programs along eastern Australia [72; 73; 74] and more recently in the monthly NSW SMART drumline catch reports (1.53 females: 1 male) ([[https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-research/smart-drumlines/](https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-research/smart-drumlines/)]([https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-research/smart-drumlines/](https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-research/smart-drumlines/)) accessed on 1 June 2023) suggests that female White Sharks are more likely to be found within nearshore waters off the east Australian coast. Subsequently, they are more likely to move back inshorc into their apparent preferred habitat. Previous research has shown that White Sharks undergo regular long-distance movements [56; 74; 75; 76; 77]. Further, individuals exhibit site fidelity at various stages of their travels, particularly juvenile sharks, which regularly visit important nearshore areas. Along the eastern coast of Australia, at least two nursery areas have been recognized [37; 38; 43; 73]. This site fidelity will inevitably lead to juvenile and sub-adult sharks returning to the original site of capture; however, our results suggest that an immediate post-release return to beaches where human-wildlife conflict is being mitigated is unlikely. The results therefore support the use of capture and offshore release of live sharks as a low-impact shark bite mitigation measure, i.e., that SMART drumlines meet the dual objectives of increasing protection for beachgoers from sharks while simultaneously minimizing harm to sharks (and other marine life). The rapid response coupled with careful and timely handling of White Sharks caught on SMART drumlines has led to their successful release, with sharks showing little physiological response to the capture experience [52; 53; 54] and all sharks subsequently being detected via telemetry. Although one shark never reported via its satellite tag and another three SLRT tags stopped emitting within a month, the 8% failure rate of these tags is well within the failure range reported previously [37]. Complementary tagging of these satellite-tracked sharks using acoustic tags confirmed that none succumbed to capture stress, as sharks carrying satellite tags that appeared to fail were all acoustically detected a minimum of 74 days post-release. The observed survival of all sharks supports their resilience to the catch, tag, and release process under the response times and handling procedures reported here. These results provide comprehensive information on the long-term fate of White Sharks, illustrating the utility of using SMART drumlines as a batter protection tool with little or no impact on its primary target species.