Has anybody tried keeping basking sharks in captivity?

[Great Argus]

Whale sharks don’t do stationary target feedings they do moving filter feeds similar to what basking sharks would need:

The suction feeding capability of Whale Sharks allows them far better intake of food than how the same method would work for a Basking though.

Leatherback Sea Turtles are impossible to keep,

There has been quite a bit of success in research facilities by using harnesses attached to an overhead rig; however it doesn't exactly make a great exhibit.

 

[Westcoastperson]

The suction feeding capability of Whale Sharks allows them far better intake of food than how the same method would work for a Basking though.



There has been quite a bit of success in research facilities by using harnesses attached to an overhead rig; however it doesn't exactly make a great exhibit.

True Whale Sharks have much greater jaw and head strength to get the food but Georgia has proved its possible to feed large filter feeders in such a manner.
I can imagine how strange it must be when the sea turtle reaches the end of its slack for the rig and just continues to swim forward to no avail.

 

[Terry Thomas]

There is a spate of basking shark sightings off the California coast: Basking sharks could be making a comeback off Ventura coast

This got me wondering if any aquarium has ever tried to keep the species. In this thread there is some discussion of why basking sharks might not be kept in captivity, but no exploration of whether anybody has ever actually tried: How come?

Does anybody know if anyone has tried to keep captive basking sharks in the history of aquariums?

This is a species that I can see no good reason to be kept in captivity! We do not have to keep every species in the world! There are many that are not too difficult to observe in the wild. Am I alone in thinking this way??

 

[Mickey]

This is a species that I can see no good reason to be kept in captivity! We do not have to keep every species in the world! There are many that are not too difficult to observe in the wild. Am I alone in thinking this way??

Observe? Do the zoo always have animals on display for you to observe?
It's not about observing them it's about protecting them to keep observing them and for people in the future to be able to sight this magnificent animal; they're currently Endangered according to the IUCN list and since it's difficult to keep them in captivity, since no aquarium currently has the resources to care for them - we have to preserve their habitat, so your "no good reason" statement makes very little sense; Addax, Scimitar Horned Oryx, Arabian Oryx were easy to sigth in the past, and now they range from Vulnerable to Extinct in the Wild, if it wasn't for zoos these animals would've been nowhere to be sighted today
TL;DR there is a reason to keep them, we just currently can't

 

[DavidBrown]

This is a species that I can see no good reason to be kept in captivity! We do not have to keep every species in the world! There are many that are not too difficult to observe in the wild. Am I alone in thinking this way??

I was asking if historically there have been attempts made to keep the species (as there have been for many shark species), not suggesting that it should be done. The historical record shows failed attempts to keep many shark species, which suggests ethically that it should not be done.

 

[Westcoastperson]

I’d like to add there isn’t much value for holding basking sharks besides education. Not very many aquariums have pelagic or open ocean areas. Besides a few schooling fishes there aren’t many animals common in the aquaria trade to exhibit with basking sharks. Many aquariums don’t even have the space to exhibit animals like basking sharks, don’t forget most of the aquariums that hold whale sharks were built for that exact purpose.

 

[Pootle]

This is a species that I can see no good reason to be kept in captivity! We do not have to keep every species in the world! There are many that are not too difficult to observe in the wild. Am I alone in thinking this way??

In my book, if they are doing ok in the wild then keep them out of zoos generally. I have nothing against some species being in zoos that are not endangered to gain peoples interest in conservation. For me its about conservation primarily and despite the fact I very much enjoy my animal collection places to visit, preventing extinction comes ahead of seeing anything in captivity for the sake of it or ticking a box as seen.
I am lucky enough to have seen basking sharks in the wild myself, it was from land with binoculars but quite close to land, this was the Isle of Man. Since 2013 numbers arriving here have been lower, no one knows why. There was hypothesis that they may congregate in this area to breed, but there is of course no proof at all of this.

 

[Terry Thomas]

Observe? Do the zoo always have animals on display for you to observe?
It's not about observing them it's about protecting them to keep observing them and for people in the future to be able to sight this magnificent animal; they're currently Endangered according to the IUCN list and since it's difficult to keep them in captivity, since no aquarium currently has the resources to care for them - we have to preserve their habitat, so your "no good reason" statement makes very little sense; Addax, Scimitar Horned Oryx, Arabian Oryx were easy to sigth in the past, and now they range from Vulnerable to Extinct in the Wild, if it wasn't for zoos these animals would've been nowhere to be sighted today
TL;DR there is a reason to keep them, we just currently can't

There are many species that I believe should not be kept in captivity. I do agree that there are a number of species which have been saved from extinction by zoos. All of the species you named are reasonably easy to keep in captivity, but I firmly believe that there are many animals that it is not practical to keep for any reasonable length of time. The majority of species seen in zoos are not really endangered species, and are there to be observed. The protection of habitat is the most important thing that can be done to preserve species. Whales, in their wild state, cover huge distances, seldom stopping, except for brief periods. Does anyone really think that large enough 'tanks' would be constructed to cater for these animals? The whales and dolphins etc., presently on display, are all being kept in, for them, very small enclosures, not because they are in danger of extinction, but mainly for entertainment purposes. Few of the places where these animals are displayed will admit to the real reason for their captivity, and most claim to have a scientific purpose, just like the Japanese people who claim that the killing of whales is only for 'scientific' reasons. As someone who has worked in the field of conservation, I have formed personal views that others may not agree with, and that is as it should be!