FishProfiles.com Message Forums

My lfs sells port jacksons (I think thats what they were called ), is it 'bad' to keep them in captivity?

"That's because the shark in the picture is only a foot or two long. Once it's full grown, it will be as long as the tank! "

To add onto dj's point, that tank is ALREADY too small for the shark---think of how it would fill out if it were to house a full grown black tip.

Great example robby, that Blacktip reef shark can get up to 6ft in length

What are you talking about rob? It seems like enough space to me

That's because the shark in the picture is only a foot or two long. Once it's full grown, it will be as long as the tank!

What are you talking about rob? It seems like enough space to me

If you first of all going to have a shark,then atleast get a big tank so that the shark can swim around and not like the picture on this link..]:|..http://www.medaquatic.com/
go to the aquarium portofolio...there is a pic of a shark.

Last edited by robby1619 at 04-Aug-2005 01:14

---

I know human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully.

Every single fish any of us keep, at some point in its lineage, had wild relatives. Every single one of those fish had a role to play in their eco system.


If a person can provide an excellent environment for the fish, I think they should be able to keep it. At least if the fish has sufficient, stable population.

And just remember, a large percent of juvenile fish do not make adulthood in the wild(big fish eats the little fish).

A juvenile in an APROPRIATE aquarium, would probably have a bigger chance at seeing adulthood than a wild shark.

That said, I believe that the percent of aquarium sharks housed well would be a small percent.

Please don't think that this is in any way having a go at anyone, and I believe everyone has a right to be heard. I just felt the real need to just add what my thoughts and feelings are on this subject are so I apologise now to anyone I may offend...

I LOVE sharks and I'm in awe of them but the last thing I would want to do is to rip them from the wild where they have a job to do, they are a very big part of the ocean's very fine balance of life so to be part of destroying that balance seems very wrong to me and to be put into someone's home aquaria just for the "thrill" of owning a shark is not quite right either.

Most of us fish keepers try to imitate the native habitat of the fish we keep as best we can, there's no way we can do that with most sharks so why are they any different?

"What if you fell in??"
You'd swim out. Few sharks are considered "man-eaters" and a nurse shark is not one of them. The is always a change a nurse shark will bite you, but i'm sure it wouldn't strike as soon as you went into the tank. What you are doing is falling victem to a common myth.

And cup hit my point on the head. I feel it is no worse to keep a coral catshark than it is to keep a black arowana. Both come from stable, populations in the wild. And both can grow to modest sizes. This is my stance on the topic of pet sharks.


Last edited by djtj at 01-Aug-2005 21:49

"But for the most part they aren't, so I think that is still an ok example. "

True, more or less; stingrays are surprisingly prolific in the home aquaria.

IDM, I think dj was trying to say that (I agree) if stingrays and arrowana can thrive in the home aquaria, then there is nothing wrong with keeping sharks, so long as they are housed in ample homes.


Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 05-Aug-2005 07:50

"if i had a SW pond large enough, i would get some. nurse sharks for less than 400, not bad. the lfs by me sells for 1000."

What if you fell in??

And stingrays and arowannas can thrive in home aquaria..

Your supposed to be on my side
But for the most part they aren't, so I think that is still an ok example.

Not if you have a sufficient tank.

"I mean, who's to say any of us are right keeping pet arowanas and stingrays. These kind of fish are not bread in captivity and have to be wild caught too."

TECHnically, both (at least representitives of both) are bred in captivity.

Just thought I woulds show you all what you can buy online.

[link=http://www.vividaquariums.com/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=01-3510]http://www.vividaquariums.com/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=01-3510" style="COLOR: #0000FF[/link]


[link=http://www.vividaquariums.com/10Browse.asp?Category=Fish%3ASharks]http://www.vividaquariums.com/10Browse.asp?Category=Fish%3ASharks" style="COLOR: #0000FF[/link]

Good point, I was trying to add something, but I guess I didn't know my material as well as I should have.

And interesting that your fish are wild-caught. Are to against the keeping of sharks? I have no problem with catsharks and the like. I feel it doesn't make sense to be against them and then keep other exotics like arowanas and stingrays.

Last edited by djtj at 31-Jul-2005 20:54

you know though, rather than listing gallon sizes, a more appropriate method would be to go on dimensions of a tank.


Last edited by dallas at 30-Jul-2005 13:27

(atleast aquarium fish are domesticated and bred in captivity)

None of my current aquarium fish are bred in captivity.

the typical cat or bamboo shark (3-4ft.)
220 gallons or more

horned sharks (3.5-4 ft)
250 gallons or more

bonetteheads
1000 gallons or more

leopard sharks
1000 gallons or more

woebegons
5000 gallons or more

nurse sharks
5000 gallons or more

black tip sharks
6000 gallons or more

hammer heads
8000 gallons or more

I don't really like some of those numbers... They still seem too small to me, especially for the fish on the larger end of the scale. Leopard Sharks get 6' long and require a much larger tank than a Bonnethead, but here they're listed to have the same size? Black Tips and Hammerheads are crazy to even consider.

Also, let us not forget that the pelagic species of sharks (bonnethead, blacktip, etc.) require ram breathing to survive and are not adapted to even trying to move backwards. Since you don't want these fish getting stuck in corners, they are much better kept in round aquariums; most people don't own round-shaped aquaria, which presents a larger problem for some of those species.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

1000gal is around 8x8x2 the fish gets 8ft itself

---

''All the clown fish and yellow tangs in the world cant save you now!''

Yea, they've been selling eggs for these guys for ages now... doesn't make it right.

Very well said Tim.

This would make a good poll. I personally have no problem with someone keeping a shark, as long as it has a stable wild population and the owner takes care of it. I mean, who's to say any of us are right keeping pet arowanas and stingrays. These kind of fish are not bread in captivity and have to be wild caught too. It is just that sharks are a bit more exotic.

Species like catsharks, bamboos, port jacksons, and horn sharks are all moderately small (well, 3 - 5 feet). They are no bigger than a full grown silver arowana. I don't see a problem keeping them.

But 1000 gs is way too small for a blacktip (although surface area is what really counts). Just in case someone here is thinking about sharks, I'll put up some good min. tank sizes.

the typical cat or bamboo shark (3-4ft.)
220 gallons or more

horned sharks (3.5-4 ft)
250 gallons or more

bonetteheads
1000 gallons or more

leopard sharks
1000 gallons or more

woebegons
5000 gallons or more

nurse sharks
5000 gallons or more

black tip sharks
6000 gallons or more

hammer heads
8000 gallons or more

I've also heard or people attempting to keep bull sharks. Concedering that they're pretty hardy (they can even go into fresh water) I wonder how that worked out.

Last edited by djtj at 25-Jul-2005 21:36