Are there any more pelagic sharks in public aquariums?

[HomerSimpson101]

Monterey Bay Aquarium used to have a blue shark, oceanic white tip shark, and even a great white shark in their open sea exhibit, but no more currently.

Are there any more pelagic sharks in public aquariums worldwide, or have aquariums stopped displaying pelagic sharks all together?

 

[CarnotaurusSastrei]

Here are some examples of sharks currently on exhibit in aquariums that are considered oceanic or semipelagic sharks by the IUCN (at least, according to "The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays" from 2009). Of these, I imagine that the sharks in the Oceanic category would probably be more in-line with what you might be expecting when it comes to pelagic sharks.

Semipelagic

• Blacktip Shark
• Bull Shark
• Copper Shark
• Dusky Shark
• Galapagos Shark
• Great Hammerhead
• Sandbar Shark
• Scalloped Hammerhead
• Silvertip Shark
• Smooth Hammerhead
• Spinner Shark
• Tiger Shark
• Tope Shark

Oceanic

• Silky Shark
• Whale Shark

 

[Local_Shark]

Monterey Bay Aquarium used to have a blue shark, oceanic white tip shark, and even a great white shark in their open sea exhibit, but no more currently.

I'd say Carnotaurus is right - if you view "pelagic" sharks in terms of these species (the first two especially), very few aquaria exhibit their like any longer. Silky and whale sharks are definitely the most common true pelagic migratory species, as there are somewhere between 8 and 10 facilities exhibiting whale sharks worldwide and 5 to 6 exhibiting silkies.

The main point of experimentation in this part of the field, as it were, is definitely Japan and neighboring nations. Tokyo Sea Life Park in Japan exhibited blue sharks as recently as 2020, and the Sendai Umino-Mori Aquarium holds the world record for captive longevity of the species at 873 days. That facility is a major center of research into blue sharks as well, and the record-holding shark featured the same average growth rate as wild specimens. I tend to think that other Japanese facilities would be the most likely to see any true pelagic sharks any longer. I've heard reports of a handful of shortfin mako sharks coming into captive hands in Japan in the last 5 years, a rarity that hasn't been attempted in the US since the early aughts - but I've been able to find no data as to how long the animals survived in captivity. As for oceanic whitetips, I've not really heard a thing since Monterey's specimen passed on in 2004, but it's possible someone's tried it. Great whites are always massive news whenever they make it into captivity in any form, and the last one I know of was the ten-foot subadult at Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium in 2016 (passed away after 3 days).

I myself find the recent dearth of some semi-pelagic species in my local American aquaria to be the most intriguing, and in some ways sad, aspect of this topic. Atlantic blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) were once almost common here, but now have completely disappeared from all our facilities with the death of the last resident at ABQ BioPark Aquarium. Scalloped and great hammerheads, bulls, silvertips, tigers, and the lone Galapagos shark at Shark Reef Aquarium are all you'll find here in the States, alongside the silky and whale sharks at Georgia Aquarium (and the single silky remaining at Adventure Aquarium). Funnily enough, Georgia holds the only US tigers and silvertips as well, and most of the great hammerheads. I notice tope sharks made it on that list, there are still a handful of those left at Oregon Coast and Aquarium of the Bay. There may still be just one spinner shark left at SeaWorld Orlando, but I am not sure if it still is present.

 

[Great Argus]

"Pelagic" isn't exactly the best definer, in my opinion - Great Whites for example are outright common just offshore during parts of the year in Southern California. They stick in as close as just beyond the surf line. Given they prefer feeding on pinnipeds they often gather not far offshore of breeding colonies. They do trek across open ocean on the regular, but they aren't exactly tied to it. Even the Whale Shark frequents inshore waters in some areas.
Generally the Lamniformes (mackerel sharks) is a bit more accurate, as with the exception of the three sand tigers success has been poor to temporary with any attempted species. It's not all encompassing (Oceanic Whitetip comes to mind), but it's a bit more accurate.

A good number of the stated "semi-pelagics" are often seen in very shallow water. Indeed in the case of the Bull Shark, sometimes many miles up rivers.

 

[Local_Shark]

"Pelagic" isn't exactly the best definer, in my opinion - Great Whites for example are outright common just offshore during parts of the year in Southern California. They stick in as close as just beyond the surf line. Given they prefer feeding on pinnipeds they often gather not far offshore of breeding colonies. They do trek across open ocean on the regular, but they aren't exactly tied to it. Even the Whale Shark frequents inshore waters in some areas.
Generally the Lamniformes (mackerel sharks) is a bit more accurate, as with the exception of the three sand tigers success has been poor to temporary with any attempted species. It's not all encompassing (Oceanic Whitetip comes to mind), but it's a bit more accurate.

It's true, generalizing things down to ocean ecosystems is fairly hard with sharks as many species tend to appear in multiple environments. Going by order, family or genus is a little easier to quantify, and you're definitely correct that the Lamniformes as a body are the least common in captivity of all shark orders. If one really wanted to quantify things by some sort of behavioral or ecological niche, I'd say the best way to refer to sharks that are the least successful in captivity would be "migratory" species - blues, makos, oceanic whitetips, great whites, and the like all have very long migratory patterns and have been known to travel hundreds of thousands of miles across their lifetimes. Most marine scientists I've spoken to theorize that this is why they're so difficult to exhibit.

Notably, only the true sand tiger (Carcharias taurus) is truly successful in captivity, as smalltooth sand tigers (Odontaspis ferox) are one of the great rarities that are only occasionally present in Japan, and bigeye sand tigers (O. noronhai) are completely absent.

 

[HomerSimpson101]

Why haven't other public aquariums in the world used the same technique that the Monterey Bay Aquarium did by catching baby great whites and holding them first in a 5 million gallon pen in the ocean to see if it could eat and survive in captivity before placing them in the main tank?

 

[DavidBrown]

Why haven't other public aquariums in the world used the same technique that the Monterey Bay Aquarium did by catching baby great whites and holding them first in a 5 million gallon pen in the ocean to see if it could eat and survive in captivity before placing them in the main tank?

Monterey ultimately decided that keeping great whites was not working well for the species and stopped doing it. That is probably why nobody else is doing it

 

[Local_Shark]

Why haven't other public aquariums in the world used the same technique that the Monterey Bay Aquarium did by catching baby great whites and holding them first in a 5 million gallon pen in the ocean to see if it could eat and survive in captivity before placing them in the main tank?

That procedure was extremely expensive, and even with the massive amounts of revenue generated from the sharks' presence, I'd have to do a deeper dive into their financials to see if they actually broke even on it. The vast majority of aquaria almost certainly don't have the resources to even begin such a program, unless they have a massive endowment like Monterey does through Hewlett-Packard. That's not even considering the fact that not every aquarium in the world has access to large stretches of ocean or can subsequently gain the permits to utilize them, or the necessary exhibit space for the shark to even be a consideration. Monterey went through an extremely extensive (and probably, also financially costly) permitting round to gain permission from state and local governments for the entirety of the project.

Great whites are a unique case in that they are both extremely difficult to maintain and extremely sought after to view, which allows aquaria to potentially generate enough revenue to cover the cost of presenting them. But given that one of the most financially stable institutions ceased their exhibition for both the sharks' sake and, I'm told by some folks with knowledge of the situation, the cost, I don't think any other facility has the capabilities.

 

[Great Argus]

That procedure was extremely expensive, and even with the massive amounts of revenue generated from the sharks' presence, I'd have to do a deeper dive into their financials to see if they actually broke even on it.

That's not even considering the fact that not every aquarium in the world has access to large stretches of ocean or can subsequently gain the permits to utilize them

Monterey went through an extremely extensive (and probably, also financially costly) permitting round to gain permission from state and local governments for the entirety of the project.

I don't see how it would be any more expensive than any other of their larger sharks such as the hammerheads and sixgills. My understanding is the ocean pens were pre-existing for exactly that sort of purpose, to make sure large animals were eating and healthy before being transferred to the aquarium, in addition to research opportunities. MBA has standing collection permits being both a public aquarium and a research facility, and given that the Great White is not regulated at the federal or state level ESA's I don't see that many hoops. Probably some permit through NOAA to retain a Great White, but I expect that wasn't too difficult for them. They would need CITES approval (nothing new to them since all larger sharks are listed) and so really not that different from bringing in any other large shark, aside from the obvious husbandry increase.

 

[Local_Shark]

I don't see how it would be any more expensive than any other of their larger sharks such as the hammerheads and sixgills. My understanding is the ocean pens were pre-existing for exactly that sort of purpose, to make sure large animals were eating and healthy before being transferred to the aquarium, in addition to research opportunities. MBA has standing collection permits being both a public aquarium and a research facility, and given that the Great White is not regulated at the federal or state level ESA's I don't see that many hoops. Probably some permit through NOAA to retain a Great White, but I expect that wasn't too difficult for them. They would need CITES approval (nothing new to them since all larger sharks are listed) and so really not that different from bringing in any other large shark, aside from the obvious husbandry increase.

There is a specialized state permit involved, I have that on good authority from a MBA husbandry and collections manager who was intimately involved with the project. Great white capture is regulated in California, with a $10,000 fine or one year prison sentence for capturing one and not immediately releasing it. Monterey was given a special exemption to handle, transport, and hold them. White Shark Information.

I do believe there was also some form of NOAA permitting as well as CITES. Additionally, the pen itself wasn’t constructed until the white shark project began, that I also have on good authority, as well as it being mentioned in some public sources from the Aquarium. I don’t know the exact amount of money that went in, but my source said that it was extremely cost prohibitive to maintain the sharks’ husbandry as well, as you mentioned.

 

[flatstingray]

I highly recommend to check out this scientific article detailing the population of sharks in European institutions in 2015. To any elasmobranch lover, it gives of toooons of info regarding chondrichthyans species in captivity in Europe, and what it takes to think forward regarding its challenges and population management. A key aspect is to ensure the future population with captive breeding.

The species in European aquarium chondrichthyans cited as "pelagic" by this article were the following:

• Common name, Scientific name, Number of individuals (Captive breeding Yes/No)

• Blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus, 5 (No)
• Grey reef shark, Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos, 2 (No)
• Bull Shark, Carcharhinus leucas, 0 (No)
• Blacktip reef shark, Carcharhinus melanopterus, 261 (Yes)
• Sandbar shark , Carcharhinus plumbeus, 70 (Yes)
• Sand tiger shark, Carcharias taurus, 36 (No)
• Smalltooth sand tiger, Odontaspis ferox, 4 (No)
• Manta, Mobula mobular, 1 (No)
• Blue shark, Prionace glauca 0 (No)
• Pelagic stingray, Pteroplatytrygon violacea 59 (Yes)

All pelagic species are in the 3.0 -3.5 m and over the 4m size class, being relevant as part of the key points of the article include:

“Size is negatively correlated with successful breeding of elasmobranchs in aquariums. Furthermore, in sharks, there is a strong positive correlation between reproductive mode and lifestyle and body size: the larger the species, the more likely it is to be ram pelagic and to demonstrate placental viviparity (Figure 5A). Ram-pelagic species are more difficult to breed in aquariums.” (Janse et.al, 2017)​

“Benthic species proved to be most abundant species in aquariums. They are typically the smaller species. The reason smaller and oviparous species are more success is many-fold. All oviparous species are dermersal, and most are small (<100 cm) (Musick and Ellis 2005). Smaller species are generally easier to keep in aquariums and are mostly benthic species, so there is a reduced requirement for a large swimming space compared to (semi) pelagic species. Oviparity means these animals do not have long internal gestation periods. During gestation periods, viviparous species are more vulnerable to incidents that could affect survival of the embryo. Annual fecundity of oviparous species is much higher than viviparous species of comparable size (Musick and Ellis 2005). However, in viviparity the maternal contribution during development leads to the production of larger, less vulnerable offspring (Conrath and Musick 2012). Eggs can easily be removed from an exhibit before they hatched, whereas in viviparity there is a risk of predation within an exhibit. Aquarists get a chance to refine methods of egg hatching as they will often get multipleeggs and can practice, whereas the long gestation times between reproductive episodes in viviparous species can make learning a slow process” (Janse et.al, 2017).
​

Sorry for the long texts, but basically reproduction type, lifestyle, size and the technical aspect on how to reproduce them, makes it difficult to ensure more species of pelagic sharks in captivity. Captive breeding is a key factor on their represenatation and population size in European institutions.

Janse, M., Zimmerman, B., Geerlings, L., Brown, C., & Nagelkerke, L. A. (2017). Sustainable species management of the elasmobranch populations within European aquariums: a conservation challenge. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 5(4), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v5i4.313
​

 

[Local_Shark]

@flatstingray That is a genuinely fantastic resource, thank you for the post! I also must say, I would love to know what four (? Is that individuals?) facilities were exhibiting smalltooth sand tigers in 2015. I know one institution in Japan has occasionally gotten them but that’s all I’ve ever heard about.

 

[flatstingray]

@flatstingray That is a genuinely fantastic resource, thank you for the post! I also must say, I would love to know what four (? Is that individuals?) facilities were exhibiting smalltooth sand tigers in 2015. I know one institution in Japan has occasionally gotten them but that’s all I’ve ever heard about.

The article mentions that there was a total population of 4 individual smalltooth sand tigers, being housed at 2 different institutions. Also there is a map attached with dots on the aquariums that participated in the census (Janse et.al, 2017). Now which one housed the smalltooth sand tigers during the census timeframe? That .....I would love to know that too .

Now trying to have a guess and pretty much delving into speculation realm.... I would point out at institutions indicated in the map, but that also have a history of technical know-how, tank size and are located within the smalltooth sand tigers´ natural distribution range (France, Spain, Portugal, Italy... ). La Rochelle?, Oceanário de Lisboa? I dont know,...European zoochatters may know more about it.

 

[Local_Shark]

The article mentions that there was a total population of 4 individual smalltooth sand tigers, being housed at 2 different institutions. Also there is a map attached with dots on the aquariums that participated in the census (Janse et.al, 2017). Now which one housed the smalltooth sand tigers during the census timeframe? That .....I would love to know that too .

Now trying to have a guess and pretty much delving into speculation realm.... I would point out at institutions indicated in the map, but that also have a history of technical know-how, tank size and are located within the smalltooth sand tigers´ natural distribution range (France, Spain, Portugal, Italy... ). La Rochelle?, Oceanário de Lisboa? I dont know,...European zoochatters may know more about it.

Yeah, my first assumption would definitely be Lisbon or possibly L’Oceanogràfic but I can’t be sure, as I’ve never been to Europe sadly! On the bucket list haha. I know for a fact the latter has sand tigers, so perhaps they have or have had both species.