Have shark collections and exhibits hit their limit?

I was doing some reading on the history of various shark species in captivity. There has been a sad history of failed attempts to keep the large predatory sharks in captivity with multiple deaths of species like great white, blue, greater hammerhead, bull, and mako sharks.

The Monterey Aquarium kept several young great whites for short periods of time, but has discontinued the practice.

Are any aquariums in the world currently trying to keep any of the largest predator shark species alive or designing exhibits to try to do this?

Are the shark species that we see in most aquariums now (e.g., black-tipped reef sharks and sandtiger sharks) likely to be the only large shark species in captivity for the foreseeable future? The Georgia Aquarium's whale sharks seem to be the extreme exception to keeping large sharks whose husbandry is not already firmly established.

Is the Atlantis resort still keeping greater hammerheads?

 

Predator Lagoon | Atlantis Resort & Casino | Nassau, Bahamas

Their site says they have great hammerheads.

I haven't heard of any new attempts to keep large, predatory sharks in captivity. A lot of new aquariums have been opening in various parts of Asia and Russia and other parts of the world, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the bigger/wealthier/nicer ones eventually made some attempts at this. But no news on that for now.

 

Did they ever announce why? Not that I can't imagine a number of reasons, just out of curiosity if it was a surprise when they stopped.

 

Maybe due to monetary reasons (time-limited research project?)?

Tiger sharks have been (and still are) kept in several aquaria:

Tiger Sharks in Captivity
Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium also keeps and breeds bull sharks- a species known to be responsible for (fatal) attacks on humans, but only randomly kept at a few institutions, which somehow surprises me, given its tolerance of different habitats.

Larger sharks in general are very expensive and rather delicate creatures, often brought in from the wild. Therefore, most public aquaria are content with exhibiting species such as the Blacktip reef shark, the Sand tiger shark or the Grey reef shark that seem to do better in captivity than other, more easily stressed sharks.
Maybe TMO is right and aquaria in countries where animal right activists are less interested in the individual wellbeing of captive sharks can "try out" other large shark species. In Western countries, visitors appear to be content with the mentioned species.

 

The is quite a few species of small, flat sharks (wobbegongs, zebra, port jackson, etc.) around, the same with Nurse Sharks.

I also believe a few aquariums are trying to keep Whale Sharks (Japan and Georgia Aquarium, possibly others). 10 Largest Aquariums in the World

 

SeaWorld on Australia's Gold Coast had Bull and Dusky Whalers, and Tiger Sharks when I was there five years ago.

Sydney Aquarium and Oceanworld have had Grey Nurse Sharks too - again, haven't been to either for a few years, but I'm sure they probably still have them.



Hix

 

This is an interesting thread. Many large American aquariums have Sand Tiger Sharks, Sandbar Sharks, Nurse Sharks and Blacktip Reef Sharks but it is extraordinary to have any other large species in captivity. There are approximately 125 public aquariums in the United States, and around 70 of them are brand-new since 1990, and yet the number of large predatory shark species is very minor.

Adventure Aquarium, in New Jersey, is famous for its shark collection of around 70 sharks of 16 species. However, the usual trio of Sandbar, Sand Tiger and Nurse are the largest three in the big main tank. Green Sawfish, also known as Carpenter Sharks, are found there and rather spectacular but not truly a shark species. Some U.S. aquariums, like Aquarium of the Bay in San Francisco, have Sevengill Sharks and that species gets to be a fair size.

 

There are major differences in the difficulties of keeping those species. Great white can be done but it is evidently very hard and there are few places with large enough exhibits of the right temperature, i.e. subtropical to warm temperate. Additionally, based on the attempts by Monterey, they start to exhibit predatory aggressive behavior towards reasonably sized animals quite early, so you could end up with a huge exhibit with only a single inhabitant. Sure other larger sharks kept in captivity do on occasion eat a co-inhabitant, but it can typically be managed with regular feeding. Interestingly, the whitetip reef shark, a shark that only reaches a moderate size and generally isn't considered all that aggressive, is sometimes quite unmanageable in captivity, basically having a go at anything during their nightly prowls: Small fish, medium fish, other sharks. Sourcing a great white would also be extremely hard (and arguably questionable considering their status).

Blue and mako are true pelagic sharks and the few places that have tried did not result in any successes. So far they belong in the essentially impossible category.

Great hammerhead is comparably to scalloped, i.e. difficult but doable. When reaching a reasonable size, both do have tendencies to snack on rays, which can present a problem. Georgia learned that the hard way (try searching "Death at the Georgia Aquarium" on youtube). Yes, this species is still kept at Atlantis.

Bull shark is comparable to most Carcharhinus that have been tried, i.e. reasonably straight forward. Bull sharks have been maintained in captivity for a very long time (decades in a few cases), including breeding.

The following large, predatory free-swimming sharks of warmer waters all do reasonably well in captivity: Carcharhinus, Negaprion, sand tiger and hammerheads. Of these groups, only the larger hammerheads still haven't been bred in captivity, but in the last few years several aquariums have been set up with the hope of eventual success for scalloped.
Tiger shark is a bit of a hit-and-miss, but based on results at a few aquariums in the last decade it does not belong in the "impossible" category as once believed.

Most botoom-living sharks also do quite well, e.g. wobbegongs, nurse sharks, zebra, whitetip reef, etc. Unless things changes, sawfish are on the way out. There is only a single case of captive breeding, and now where Australia has decided against exporting, there are no places where they can be sourced legally. Australia was the only place where CITES export grants were available because of the reasonably large populations in that country (unlike pretty much everywhere else). The much smaller sawsharks are fairly similar and overall much more common, but don't seem to ever leave for aquariums outside their native ranges.

As mentioned elsewhere, touropia's list is wrong. For a correct and up-to-date list see http://www.zoochat.com/2/giant-fish-tanks-world-400917/

Whale sharks are currently kept at Geogia + aquariums in China and Japan. The elasmollet.org site is still useful for several species, but most entries haven't been updated in several years.

 

I didn't know that, sorry. I just used that website to check I was correct in what I said, so I added it as my source.

 

See last section ("MBA officials have..."): Monterey Bay Aquarium to suspend collection/display of great white sharks

 

Thank you @temp for the interesting replies. I wonder whether the aggressiveness of bull sharks has prevented their further distribution in captivity.

As for sawfish: maybe this evidence might help a little in regard to their reproduction.
Sawfish is first vertebrate known to clone itself in the wild - life - 01 June 2015 - New Scientist

 

That title is misleading as some geckos are known to reproduce this way in the wild. And, I think, some fish.



Hix

 

It has been recorded in several species. Most notably probably in the Komodo Dragons at Chester, and the Green Anacondas at West Midlands have also done it. I don't know of any other cases though (except many species can do it if they want).

 

@Macaw16: read more carefully: plenty of vertebrate species have been observed to be (occasionally) parthogenetic-in captivity, not in the wild. @Hix: Natural parthenogenesis has indeed been observed in Lepidodactylus lugubris.
Natural parthenogenesis in the gekkonid lizard Lepidodactylus lugubris - ResearchGate

Original sawfish paper:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00431-5

 

I believe it has been noted in wild Eunectes murinus before (seen on Nature's Weirdest Events on BBC 2).

 

Could you please provide the supporting scientific paper?

 

Macaw16 has already provided his/her source in the sentence you quoted.

 

I did not see it in a paper, as I said I saw it on a documentary on TV at Christmas, I cannot remember everything that was said, but I do remember them saying Green Anacondas have known to reproduce like that in the wild.

 

Sorry, @CGSwans, but that's not a scientific paper. I've heard so much nonsense uttered even in so-called "serious" documentaries that I'd be very careful to claim that as a serious source.

The only documentated case of Eunectes murinus parthenogenesis I know of is the West Midlands example, and even there the evidence is anectodal.
Female anaconda's West Midlands Safari Park 'virgin birth' - BBC News

 

But Macaw16 said where they saw it. It's not up to them to do your further research for you. If you want the scholarly paper you can find it yourself. Macaw16 has done their part.