Bamboo and Dragon in 180??

[2FAST4U]

I want to set up my 180 as an agressive FO tank. Would I be able to keep a Bamboo shark and a Dragon moray in the same tank. What other fish could exist with either of these?

[tendar]

A 180 is not big enough for either of these fish let alone both of them.
You may want to do a search on bamboos here and you will find a lot of info on them.

[Pete]

A 180 is more than enough for a Dragon moray. Dragons don't grow larger than 3 feet in the wild, I've had 2 in the past that were kept separately in 90 gallon tanks. Mine did fine with a large maroon clown as its tankmate. the eel was small and introduced last. Never had a problem. Normally they eat most fish they can get a hold of. Do a search for Dragon Morays, there are a few members on this board that keep them along with triggers, lions, and small groupers. I would get rid of the shark though. Morays need much rockwork as they are somewhat secretive during the day, sharks on the other hand need plenty of open swimming space. Even the smaller species. You would probably want to go custom for a shark, longer and wider as well a high. Unless you have the space I wouldn't consider a shark. 4-500 gallons minimum.

[gibbus]

A 180 gallon is fine for some species of sharks. If you are serious about gettign a shark i would try to find the book called aquarium sharks and rays by Scott Michael, it is a good book. I have the book.

[tendar]

My Bad
I was thing Stingray not Moray

[Ovrclckd]

Also, a 180 is big enough for a bamboo shark... although mine are kept in a 480 gallon, my C. griseum (Grey Bamboo) has topped out at about 28", and I wouldn't feel guilty about keeping him in a 180. Other sharks are also quite suited to a tank that size... the Marbled and Coral catsharks are both tropical species, and both attain a maximum size of 24"... they fit a 180 gallon well too.

[Pete]

I still have to disagree, the term "fit" should never be used when it comes to sizing aquaria for a particular fish. 28" is too big for a 180 gal. It cant even turn around properly. Would you feel o.k. living out the rest of you're life in a closet because you "fit" there.

[Ovrclckd]

*Sigh*... this is why I shouldn't even attempt to talk about sharks here or on any other shark messageboards.... people who know absolutely jack-all about sharks seem to think they know enough to reply with in informative answer.

28" is too big for a 180 gal. It cant even turn around properly.

What are you? Stupid? It sounds like you have never even *seen* a shark in captivity. You obviously don't know anything about them, either. A full grown bamboo shark can turn around in a footwide tank WITH EASE. Elasmobranches don't have a bone in their body, and are extremely flexible. The smaller benthic species (IE the bamboo) can turn around "properly" in very small tanks. Its like having a 25 ft. long reticulated python. Does a python need 26 ft. to turn around? No, it doesn't. It only needs a comparatively small percent of its body length to do so. While the smaller benthic sharks aren't similar in construction to a snake, and aren't as flexible, the idea is still similar. The rule (as created by experts) is that a width of 0.75 times the sharks full adult length should be provided. What is 75% of 28"? Huh? Yeah, thats right, 21", a 24" tank provides ample room for a 28" shark to turn around.

I suggest you don't give ANYONE any more information about sharks, simply because you know NOTHING about them.

[gregt]

Ovrclckd,

Comparing a fish to a snake doesn't make me all that comfortable with your input to this thread. Yes, the fish can turn around in the tank, but that is certainly does not equate to proper husbandry. The point being made is valid that the tank is not even long enough for the fish to orient itself depth-wise in the tank. Snakes are designed to live coiled, sharks were not.

And before you comment, yes I do work with sharks, and I wouldn't put one of these in a square tank of any size. They tend to bang themselves up on square cornered tanks.

Please stick to comments on husbandry and try to avoid the personal attacks, as they are not welcome here.

[Ovrclckd]

Gregt,

Are you saying that a 180 gallon is too small for any bamboo shark? For, C. Griseum, being among the smallest commonly encountered in the hobby, a 180 is adequate, and I will stand by that. The shark *can* properly orient itself on the width of the tank, with ease. Having worked with sharks, you should know that the last 4-6" (basically past the rear dorsal) or so of a bamboo shark is extremely thin and flexible tail, and doesn't make any difference in reality. For an analogy (which I seem to love), its like bony fish measurement. The measurement from snout to caudal peduncle is what really counts, the TL isn't as important.

Yes, snakes are meant to live coiled, and sharks obviously aren't, but that wasn't my point. My analogy was just meant to help people understand that the animals are extremely flexible. In fact, if you have observed them (in a large enough tank with enough rockwork to provide multiple places for them to hide or in the wild), you may have seen them in the rockwork. They spend a lot of their time in strange contorted positions. They really don't seem to mind.

Now my problem is with people who don't have experience in the captive care of sharks saying that they can't be kept under conditions in which the can thrive. It's a common attitude, and its usually based on misinformation, and misconceived notions about shark requirements. Many people in the hobby say that all sharks should be kept in the ocean. If you have worked with sharks, you should know that some species are ideal for captive life, and hardier and better suited than many (nay, most) bony fish brought into the hobby.

No, their natural habitat cannot be recreated in captivity. Few people have oceanariums. But has any fishes natural habitat been created in captivity? Not at a level that approaches nature. But that doesn't mean that no aquatic life should be kept. Many species needs can be met. Sure, that doesn't approach what the ocean has to offer them, but that is the trade off we make. Many sharks are well suited for captive life, and many aquarists have been quite successful with their captive care.

Bamboo's are probably the easiest (about tied with my other two suggestions), and among the smallest sharks available. The smaller bamboos are well suited to 180 gallon tanks. I've kept and raised a bunch. Bamboos will even breed in 180 gallon tanks. That is apparently the ultimate sign of appropriate care in fish keeping, and bamboos exhibit it. How many other marine fish do you know of that will breed and be successful in producing offspring in a 180 gallon tank? Very few indeed...

Can you see why I am frustrated? I've kept everything from the smallest baby bamboos to a nurse in captivity, in appropriate tanks. I have been very successful, and others can too. How would you feel if people told you that reefkeeping was immoral, that corals can't be kept happily in captivity, and all of them should be left in the ocean? You know that isn't true, as you've been successful in their captive care. You'd probably be as frustrated as I am, and you'd probably want to change things. I know attacking someone isn't a good way of getting them to see my point of view, but its hard for me to deal with my frustration over this subject, especially because sharkkeepers like myself aren't exactly common on this or any other board.

[gregt]

Now my problem is with people who don't have experience in the captive care of sharks saying that they can't be kept under conditions in which the can thrive. It's a common attitude, and its usually based on misinformation, and misconceived notions about shark requirements. Many people in the hobby say that all sharks should be kept in the ocean.

I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your point. Just because someone does research and determines that they cannot provide proper habitat for a shark and therefore never keep one, does not make them unable to speak on the subject of proper habitat. If they were providing information on feeding / etc, I'd agree with you 100%.

If you have worked with sharks, you should know that some species are ideal for captive life, and hardier and better suited than many (nay, most) bony fish brought into the hobby.

I don't agree. As I already said, they should be left in the ocean unless you can provide them with a species tank with rounded corners, or of sufficient size to not need rounded corners (let's say roughly 10k gallons).

Yes, snakes are meant to live coiled, and sharks obviously aren't, but that wasn't my point. My analogy was just meant to help people understand that the animals are extremely flexible. In fact, if you have observed them (in a large enough tank with enough rockwork to provide multiple places for them to hide or in the wild), you may have seen them in the rockwork. They spend a lot of their time in strange contorted positions. They really don't seem to mind.

You raise good points here. However, I still feel that if we are to provide a reasonably proper habitat, they should be able to cruise easily, which means tank dimensions that at least accomodate the length of the fish.

[Pete]

Overclckd, seems like you're stupid. You have to resort to name calling. What are you 10 years old. 1. You know nothing about my experience with marine life. 2. Yes, I am familiar with sharks. 3. Don't give me advice about giving advice. 4. Take up boxing to deal with you're anger management issues. You're second post should have been you're first.
I think you misunderstood my point in my second post, I wasn't trying to discredit you're experience with sharks as I'm sure its more than mine. However, other newcomers to this hobby will misinterpret you're post and rush out to buy "any" shark and throw it in whatever tank they have simply because physically it fits. Maybe I should have clarified this to prevent your off the handle remarks.

[gregt]

[flamealert]

Please discontinue the personal attacks immediately!

[2FAST4U]

Seems Like my post kind of stirred people up, The only reason I asked was that accroding to Scott Michael a 180g is fine for a bamboo, he even suggests that you shoul keep 3 in a 180 if you would like them to breed.

[T-T-Trigger]

Posting about sharks always stirs people up! I think everybody has made good points about sharks, of which I know little. But I think it is safe to assume that nobody on this board has the end all, be all knowledge of sharks in captivity.

Same is true with the book writers like Scott Michael's. He also says that 55g is enough for a volitans lion - though just about everybody on this board would agree that is not nearly enough.

Back to sharks, I am pretty sure that quite a few more nurse shark eggs, bamboo sharks, etc... are sold than 500g tanks! Or 180g's for that matter!

The only advice I can feel confident giving here is that if you plan on using the "minimum" tank size for a given species, make certain the tank is designed as naturally and comfortably as possible for that specimen.

hth a little:)

[Arothron]

"A 180 is not big enough for either of these fish let alone both of them. You may want to do a search on bamboos here and you will find a lot of info on them."

You would think that you could get away from this kind of statement in the fish only/aggressive forum. And I would seriously disagree that searching for info on any shark on this site would yield very much helpful or accurate information. You will find statements mostly like the one above. There just isn't a place on the net that I know of to get away from this anti-shark keeping bias, even for small bottom-dwelling carpet sharks.

I totally agree with "ovrclckd" on this, and it seems it is still a crime to stick up for sensible shark keeping, even as defined by experts in the field.

I do not think there will be a mass exodus of people out to the pet stores to buy 180 gallon tanks and a shark, just because informed people on this board tell others that it is an acceptably sized tank for a bamboo. At least they would have a good sized tank to start out with if they did. If all people ever here is that you can't keep a shark, there will be a lot more sharks kept in 29 gals, 55-70 gals than anything, because people just won't know otherwise. As long as it is easy to get sharks, people will buy them and worry about tanks later if at all.

Just some food for thought here, this is a quote out of Scott Michael's book on aquarium sharks and rays.
"The sharks of the family Hemiscylliidae (banded shark) are among those best suited to life in the home aquarium...they come from a special niche not occupied by many other sharks. They spend most of their time in tidepools, in staghorn coral beds, and under table corals. Becuase they are accustomed to living in confined areas, they adapt readily to the limited space available in home aquariums." He goes on to say that juveniles can be kept in small aquariums (as small as 20g long) and that adults should be kept in 170gal or larger.

gregt, I think your statements make it obvious that you ultimately disagree with Scott Michael's statements on suitable tank sizes. And that's all fine and everything, but I'll stand by an expert opinion on the matter. Not many people are going to have 10k gal tanks, so that means back to the 29-70 gal, cause people are still going to buy carpet sharks

[gregt]

Arothron,

gregt, I think your statements make it obvious that you ultimately disagree with Scott Michael's statements on suitable tank sizes.

There are some species that I disagree with Scott Michaels on, but for the most part I think he does a darn good job of providing a baseline for reasonable sizes for healthy fish.

My difference in opinion on this particular subject is mostly whether or not a standard 180 gallon tank is appropriate. I don't think it is. The water volume isn't the problem, it's the layout. Shorten a standard 180, widen it, and round the corners, and I think it would be fine.

As for the attitudes displayed on this thread, I hope you don't consider "What are you? Stupid?" to be a good way to explain your position on shark husbandry. Until that statement there was nothing but the sharing of opinion on the subject. If more people with experience took a less combative attitude, one more like you have, then more information would be exchanged. Thanks for participating.