If I Ever Get To That Point? After Kids Are Grown And Gone?

[kj23502]

How many minimum gallons would be required to house a bamboo shark or two? It'd be neat to turn one of the rooms in the basement into a shark room and cover half to 3/4 of the room w/a tank and massive filtration system.

So what's your opinions??

Thanks

 

[kj23502]

The conscientious marine aquarist by robert fenner suggest that an 8 foot 240 gallon system is a good size for the smallest species. I would disagree with this and definitlely think bigger is better.

 

[dilbert]

And by the way you'll have a nice and stylish swimming pool, too.

 

[kj23502]

And by the way you'll have a nice and stylish swimming pool, too.

lol yea...if I can just manage to swim and stand in it w/out stepping on the shark and getting bit

 

[Musho3210]

it'll make for a nice youtube video.

I would skip the idea of keeping one in a tank and just keep them in a small pond (indoors of course).

It would have to be shallow, so it would take up a lot of room. You can make mini ponds that connect to the main one for filtration. Think mickey mouse, the "ears" can be where the filters and everything are, and the "head" can be where the shark is, you can use eggcrate or something to keep the shark out of the filtration zone, and somehow find a way to get water into the filtration zones at a consitant rate. A closed loop system would probably be good for it, with one big external pump.

 

[tangokitty]

Maybe you could do a Indoor Swimming Pool and have them live in that?

 

[andywg]

Is everyone thinking of different sharks to the ones I am? Some of the suggsetions above seem more related to nurse or leopard sharks than bamboo.

A tank that is 6x3 in footprint should be big enough for the common smallest shark species for life (such as the bamboo, epaulette or coral catsharks). These fish only get to around 24" or so long, are not ram-ventilated (so don't need to swim all the time) and tend to live in and around rockwork so don't need large open expanses. When selecting a tank think like people do with FW stingrays: front to back needs to be bigger than most standard aquaria. Anything longer than a 6x2x2 (such as an 8x2x2) does not afford any greater room and a 6x3 will give more turning room. I would certainly agree with Bob Fenner that an 8x2x2 should have enough area to keep the smallest species (some of which don't reach 20").

For 3 sharks I would say something in the 8x3 to 8x4 foot print rang should do well. I would also strongly suggest the largest skimmer you can get, a titanium grounding probe and a wet/dry trickle tower.

If you seriously want to consider getting SW sharks, get Scott Michael's bible on the matter: Aquarium Sharks and Rays. The book covers sharks from those in the hobbiest's reach right up to some which are really public aquaria only, and then tells you how to keep them with some advice and tips straight from public aquaria. The minimum tank sizes are a little small, but the advice is top notch, including how to make your own gruel to force feed a baby Elasmobranch which is reluctant to feed.

 

[kj23502]

Wow...thanks for the replies and the book suggestion andywg. It will be awhile, but something thats in the back of my mind
I was thinking along the lines of the bamboo shark and would definitely be prepared to give it the best setup possible (besides on the scale of public aquaria as I can't have something that big in my house) and wouldn't have one until I could do so.

I haven't read anything on this idea yet, but will in the future...sw stingrays. A local biologist in the local reef club says no home aquarium is big enough to keep sw stingrays in his opinion....but in the coming years I may start cracking open books and reading about them just to explore the idea.

I can't explain it, I'm fascinated by ALL creatures big and small...even the prehistoric megalodon (which for those of you who don't know was a giant shark big enough to swallow a few blue WHALES whole) to the tiniest of creatures like copeopods. And including the land animals too! I love them all. I'm drawn to them like a magnet's drawn to it's polar opposite. Am I weird or what? I think I need to change my profession.

---edit
btw, my fav. shark is a Mako...but I'm not even going to attempt to keep one of that magnitude..

 

[andywg]

I haven't read anything on this idea yet, but will in the future...sw stingrays. A local biologist in the local reef club says no home aquarium is big enough to keep sw stingrays in his opinion....but in the coming years I may start cracking open books and reading about them just to explore the idea.

Then, to be honest, he is either not aware of many of the smaller rays, or is just someone who doesn't feel they should be kept in captivity at all. Many SW rays stay smaller than FW ones. Sadly one of the most common SW rays (the ribbon tailed blue spotted ray) has a very poor survival rate, but many others do very well in the aquarium. It's all just about knowing what to buy.

I can't explain it, I'm fascinated by ALL creatures big and small...even the prehistoric megalodon (which for those of you who don't know was a giant shark big enough to swallow a few blue WHALES whole)

A quick correction here:

The Megalodon (usually Carcharodon megalodon) is generally believed to be a larger prehistoric relative of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Megalodon is mostly known from fossilised teeth as well as some vertebrae. By extrapolating a skeleton from this size the current estimates are a creature that would grow up to 17 metres depending on whose research you read (giving a body weight of around 45,000 kg).

The Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) has been recorded at lengths of up to 33 metres (though scientists have only measured up to 29.9m) and weights of at least 177,000kg, so around twice as long and four times as heavy as the Megalodon.

Blue Whales are believed to be the largest creature to ever have lived, so it is unlikely anything can swallow a few of them whole, unless one is discussing newborn calves.

 

[kj23502]

I can't explain it, I'm fascinated by ALL creatures big and small...even the prehistoric megalodon (which for those of you who don't know was a giant shark big enough to swallow a few blue WHALES whole)

A quick correction here:

The Megalodon (usually Carcharodon megalodon) is generally believed to be a larger prehistoric relative of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Megalodon is mostly known from fossilised teeth as well as some vertebrae. By extrapolating a skeleton from this size the current estimates are a creature that would grow up to 17 metres depending on whose research you read (giving a body weight of around 45,000 kg).

The Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) has been recorded at lengths of up to 33 metres (though scientists have only measured up to 29.9m) and weights of at least 177,000kg, so around twice as long and four times as heavy as the Megalodon.

Blue Whales are believed to be the largest creature to ever have lived, so it is unlikely anything can swallow a few of them whole, unless one is discussing newborn calves.

ok...my bad. Maybe it was a different whale in the TV documentary that I watched....unless they were talking about it eating small juvie whales??? Thanks for setting me straight I'm pretty sure it was a show on Discovery channel that I watched a long while ago and I remember the image of the giant shark coming through the water and bearing down on a pod of whales....how dramatic

 

[Zawiha]

Blue Whales are believed to be the largest creature to ever have lived.

actually the largest creature to have ever lived is believe to a giant fungi in america (the honey mushroom in oregan). Thousands upon thousands of mushroom heds joined as one being. originally believed to be loads of different organisms appeared to be one about 2,200 acres joined under the earth and about 2,400 years old

^^

 

[andywg]

Blue Whales are believed to be the largest creature to ever have lived.

actually the largest creature to have ever lived is believe to a giant fungi in america (the honey mushroom in oregan). Thousands upon thousands of mushroom heds joined as one being. originally believed to be loads of different organisms appeared to be one about 2,200 acres joined under the earth and about 2,400 years old

^^

That's stretching the term "creature" somewhat, don't you think? Creature will usually refer to an animal. To include anything from any kingdom in creature would be somewhat bizarre. Would anyone call an oak tree a creature?

 

[Zawiha]

aye because the term creature refers to a living organism doesnt it?
So in some sense a oak tree is a creature,even if in a stretched term

 

[@ombomb]

creature = animal

 

[kj23502]

creature = animal

That's what I was thinking