Prevent Whale Shark Being In Captivity!

[saltynay]

The difference is that Guppies & Angels are bred by private in captivity, the sharks are not,
the sharks are endangered , whereas guppies and angels aren't

How do you believe that started? Their are lots of animals in aquaria which are near extinct in the wild. I believe ultimately a properly run sea life exhibit is an excellent thing as it promotes education and I genuinely believe that the marine biologist and zoo keepers look after the animals to the best of their ability so that they can learn not just to make profits.

 

[fish are friends....]

Thanks to everybody who has signed, and I see people have very different views and reasons for them. However I think its very important. The sea is always going to be the best place for them and we can learn from them, by tracking for example. We don't have to risk them dying in captivity.

 

[Curiosity101]

I personally think if they could provide an exhibit suitable enough for them then I'd have nothing against having whale sharks in captivity. The death rates speak for itself though, we don't know enough about them to justify having them in captivity.
Maybe in the future after more research has been conducted on them in the wild so we can accurately replicate everything (excluding sheer volume of the sea of course). Then and only then, would I say yep that's fine.
It'd be hypocritical of me to say 'I disagree with having whale sharks in captivity because it's un-natural', I keep fish, I've been to zoos and I've been to aquariums. But I do completely disagree with putting anything into captivity if you can't offer it a life which allows it to live as long and as healthy a life as it would have in the wild.

Just my two-penneth.

 

[Darkstar]

whats the differance from having a wild fish(guppies or angels etc) and having a shark on display???
its the same thing right, the only diffarence i can see would be size

size is easy to deal with, just build a bigger tank.....however the main difference between keeping a guppy and a whale shark would be the migration aspect. Whale sharks naturally migrate thousands of miles between their feeding and spawning grounds, which is something pretty difficult to achieve in any sized tank.

Why dya think the sea is so salty

Due to the water flowing from the rivers into the seas/oceans on its way it picks up salts which dissolve. Once the water reaches the ocean evaporation occurs which further increase the concentration of salt in the sea water as the water leaves and goes back inland to rejuvenate the rivers and continue the flow + 4.5 billion years and you have salty sea's . As my last name is salt I have quite a good joke about it for when I meet people but its PG so not suitable for public.

I think you'll find Saltnay that the comment was meant as a joke, and a not very suitable one for a family forum (perhaps like yours)....although I thought it was quite amusing.

But I do completely disagree with putting anything into captivity if you can't offer it a life which allows it to live as long and as healthy a life as it would have in the wild.

So you'll be handing your fish back then I take it? cos no matter how hard you try you're very unlikely to have your fish survive in your tank as long as they would do in the wild(minus the predation factor of course)

 

[Curiosity101]

But I do completely disagree with putting anything into captivity if you can't offer it a life which allows it to live as long and as healthy a life as it would have in the wild.

So you'll be handing your fish back then I take it? cos no matter how hard you try you're very unlikely to have your fish survive in your tank as long as they would do in the wild(minus the predation factor of course)

You can't exclude predation factor though can you... so long as the fish remain healthy then their life span is likely to be significantly longer than in the wild.

 

[Darkstar]

You can't exclude predation factor though can you... so long as the fish remain healthy then their life span is likely to be significantly longer than in the wild.

not at all....99.999% of fish (a stat I'd be willing to bet my last dollar on) kept in tanks do not live anywhere near their potential lifespan and unfortunately you cannot argue that it isn't ok for me to minus the predation factor when you apply your own factor of 'if the fish remain healthy'....using your argument means ALL factors must be valid, unless you're stating that it's ok for you to bend the rules to suit your argument but not for anyone else.

 

[raptorrex]

whats the differance from having a wild fish(guppies or angels etc) and having a shark on display???
its the same thing right, the only diffarence i can see would be size

Personally i totally agree here. many fish are now safer in tanks, than in the sea. I'm not yet, really, sure how i feel about that. but there is no escaping the fact.

whats the differance from having a wild fish(guppies or angels etc) and having a shark on display???
its the same thing right, the only diffarence i can see would be size

The difference is that Guppies & Angels are bred by private in captivity, the sharks are not,
the sharks are endangered , whereas guppies and angels aren't

many fish kept by us, Freshwater keepers, are on the RED list (endangered or extinct in the wild. RTBS and Bala shark, come to mind right off). and not as many as you, may, think are captive bred. so its a mute point to argue!

 

[Curiosity101]

not at all....99.999% of fish (a stat I'd be willing to bet my last dollar on) kept in tanks do not live anywhere near their potential lifespan and unfortunately you cannot argue that it isn't ok for me to minus the predation factor when you apply your own factor of 'if the fish remain healthy'....using your argument means ALL factors must be valid, unless you're stating that it's ok for you to bend the rules to suit your argument but not for anyone else.

By 'Remaining healthy', what I'm referring is to giving them all the conditions they need to stay healthy. My point being that if I give them a clean, stress free environment where they have plenty of options to replicate natural behaviour. Then coupled with the fact they are in a closed environment I 100% believe that they will live longer than they would 'on average' in the wild. I tried to find some statistics but didn't have much luck, feel free to back-up your statements with facts if you can find any. While ever they are being kept in a suitable and clean environment where on average their lifespan is longer than it would be in the wild, then I agree with animals being kept in captivity.

And the way that this differs from keeping the whale shark, is that you're doing them no favours by having them in captivity. If you took the average lifespan of a wild animal, and the average life span of one in captivity. I think you'll find there is a dramatic difference. This is why I disagree with keeping them in captivity, you can't work out the conditions you need to keep the shark by watching them in captivity and using trial and error. They need to be properly studied in the wild, and then when we can replicate their natural environment enough to keep them as healthy as they would be in the wild. Then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

There's still the secondary problem that you're taking an endangered species from the wild and so could be hindering the possibility of that animal breeding. If we could also get them breeding in captivity then I would have absolutely nothing against having them in captivity.

Just for the record, I don't think any endangered animals should be taken from the wild unless there is a plan to breed them.

 

[raptorrex]

Just for the record, I don't think any endangered animals should be taken from the wild unless there is a plan to breed them.

Ahh, that's OK then. the Whale shark is not listed as endangered. its currently marked a "vulnerable" VU in the Red book. though it does have some areas of protection, around the world.
Honestly, i agree with your comment. but the chances are you have an endangered/vulnerable fish in your tank. so i fail to see the argument. lol, unless you plan to leave the hobby, its not a viable stance.

 

[Curiosity101]

It's not black and white, whale sharks may only be 'vulnerable' but then how long is there breeding cycle and what is the average number of offspring for each shark... etc etc
If a species of rabbit however became 'vulnerable' once the cause was removed the populations would recover incredibly quickly.
Unless the status 'vulnerable' takes into account the speed of the reproductive cycle?

And I would have nothing against an 'authority' making it automatically punishable by law to remove any endangered fish from the wild destined for the aquarium/pet trade.

 

[raptorrex]

It's not black and white, whale sharks may only be 'vulnerable' but then how long is there breeding cycle and what is the average number of offspring for each shark... etc etc
If a species of rabbit however became 'vulnerable' once the cause was removed the populations would recover incredibly quickly.
Unless the status 'vulnerable' takes into account the speed of the reproductive cycle?

And I would have nothing against an 'authority' making it automatically punishable by law to remove any endangered fish from the wild destined for the aquarium/pet trade.

Oh lord. The RED BOOK takes all aspects of the life of an animal, and makes a listing. its not someone's idea of how well the animal is surviving. but careful research and biological investigation, are behind all its listings. its also considered the top of the food chain when it comes to investigating the state of our wildlife. it might be nice to think the people who wrote it, don't know their beans, especially if its findings do not agree with yours, but that is not the case. so a Whale shark that is "VU" is in just as much danger as the Bala shark, with the same listing, and visa versa, however long thier breeding cycle may take. its simple really.

 

[Curiosity101]

Oh lord. The RED BOOK takes all aspects of the life of an animal, and makes a listing. its not someone's idea of how well the animal is surviving. but careful research and biological investigation, are behind all its listings. its also considered the top of the food chain when it comes to investigating the state of our wildlife. it might be nice to think the people who wrote it, don't know their beans, especially if its findings do not agree with yours, but that is not the case. so a Whale shark that is "VU" is in just as much danger as the Bala shark, with the same listing, and visa versa, however long thier breeding cycle may take. its simple really.

I guess it was quite a silly thought that they might not take everything into account , but you can argue that the bala shark could be bred in captivity relatively easily (in public aquariums), and then released into the wild. I guess it's a grey area as to whether they should be available for the pet trade...

Either way, I would disagree with the the whale shark being in captivity at the moment. I think we need to know alot more about how they actually live and what keeps them healthy before we can justify taking them out of their natural habitat. And even then, any aquarium that has the capability to house one or more, should only be allowed to do so if they can prove the wild population wont suffer dramatically as a result.

 

[raptorrex]

I guess it was quite a silly thought that they might not take everything into account , but you can argue that the bala shark could be bred in captivity relatively easily (in public aquariums), and then released into the wild. I guess it's a grey area as to whether they should be available for the pet trade...

Either way, I would disagree with the the whale shark being in captivity at the moment. I think we need to know alot more about how they actually live and what keeps them healthy before we can justify taking them out of their natural habitat. And even then, any aquarium that has the capability to house one or more, should only be allowed to do so if they can prove the wild population wont suffer dramatically as a result.

as i have said, I agree. thing is you cant make a special case of BIG fish. if the rule applies, it must apply to all.

 

[Ficious]

I wouldnt and will not sign this. My opinion is that learning to keep a whale shark in capitivity is something we will need to learn. This sounds like a tree-hugging, hop on the band wagon, sympathy fueled reason to "save the whales". There are many animals being held in captivity that will never go extinct. I believe that this huge orginaztion that is going to host the whale will do their research. Have you thought about the scientist and enthusiasts that cant wait for these whales to come in. Theyre going to study it thoroughly and know they can keep it and keep it healthy. If the whales die or get sick, theyre going to take a big hit and theyre probably not willing to take that risk.



so go ahead and save the whales

 

[fish are friends....]

their not whales.. they are sharks...
I think its a worthy cause to stop this from happening as no one knows how to keep whale shark, and many have died after just less then 6 months.
I don't know if any heard about Sammy the Whale Shark at the Atlantis Hotel, Dubai. I have seen her and she didn't look happy. She just swam around in circles at the surface of the crowded tank. Thats while I feel its a worthy cause... because I have seen how they react to being in captivity.

I also see that it is a good way to learn about a species, but I think there are other ways of doing this without putting them in danger and a way that they can remain in the wild where they belong and are happy.

Thanks for all the replys so far though everyone, its good to see different peoples views.