Any iridescent shark experts?

[aldiaz33]

If i remember correctly that tank was very tall, and wich is wouldnt be nessecery, but yeh still huge.
Without knowing much about these i'd say (They should be very active, so maybe more) 4 times the length and 2 times the width of the fish, would be a minimum for this fish.
I'm no expert on this, so its probaly wrong. Maybe Thebiggerthebetter can estimate a better minimum size for them. I dont know about the hight of a tank, or pond for these guys

Jack's tank is 12’6” x 12’8” x 7’ Tall with a large shelf in the back that looks to be about 3.5' tall and a foot or two deep.

Agreed that 7' depth isn't required for keeping them; I wasn't referencing the article to show the ideal setup for the fish, but rather the cost associated with running a tank of similar gallons. I believe JohnPTC has said that his 10,000G tank cost him $2,000/month to run (I think he's low-balling that figure so that his wife doesn't flip out...I think it costs him more than that).

The minimum dimensions required for any species is subjective (I like to provide more than most), but I would say that a 12'x18' footprint with 4' height would be sufficient. They are a river fish that do swim, unlike some catfish that will just chill on the bottom.

I personally think 2 times for width and 4 times for length is a bit cramped, especially for an active swimmer.

 

[Karl K]

Jack's tank is 12’6” x 12’8” x 7’ Tall with a large shelf in the back that looks to be about 3.5' tall and a foot or two deep.

Agreed that 7' depth isn't required for keeping them; I wasn't referencing the article to show the ideal setup for the fish, but rather the cost associated with running a tank of similar gallons. I believe JohnPTC has said that his 10,000G tank cost him $2,000/month to run (I think he's low-balling that figure so that his wife doesn't flip out...I think it costs him more than that).

The minimum dimensions required for any species is subjective (I like to provide more than most), but I would say that a 12'x18' footprint with 4' height would be sufficient. They are a river fish that do swim, unlike some catfish that will just chill on the bottom.

I personally think 2 times for width and 4 times for length is a bit cramped, especially for an active swimmer.

I get your point, and i agree
I said 4 times the length and twice the width as abselute minimum. If a person can do 3 times the width, and 6 times the length it would be great, or even 5 times the length.

 

[Karl K]

I get your point, and i agree
I said 4 times the length and twice the width as abselute minimum. If a person can do 3 times the width, and 6 times the length it would be great, or even 5 times the length.

And im not in a position to state a minimum tanksize, i have never kept id sharks, and let know much about them.

Sent from my ST15i using Tapatalk App

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

The plan is to upgrade again to the 300. Hoping to find one used. I know they are $1600 at my LFS for just the tank. It's all about little steps as their needed. You wouldn't put a newborn in a queen size bed just the same as monster fish not needing a super monster tank right away. When they need it they will get it.

While this is the way 99.99% of keepers go (out of convenience and as a compromise) and it is logical, this comparison cannot be used here, IMHO.

The ideal set-up for a baby fish is as large and natural body of water as possible, so that it mimics their natural home better. There are people that follow this school of thought and place 2" fishes in 300+ gal tanks that will be their home for life. E.g., Fat Homer.

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

Good and agreeable info, Alex. Thanks.

I can only state my opinion: an IDS needs at a minimum 6xL by 3xL footprint, so for a 2.5' IDS that is 15' x 7.5'. Bare minimum. Very far from "excellent care".

 

[Karl K]

Good and agreeable info, Alex. Thanks.

I can only state my opinion: an IDS needs at a minimum 6xL by 3xL footprint, so for a 2.5' IDS that is 15' x 7.5'. Bare minimum. Very far from "excellent care".

I said i'm not in a position to state a minimum tank size, because i dont know much about these fish, and have no personal expirience with them
How big do ID Sharks normaly get? I remember on guy on the forum having one at about 3,5 foot

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

I think b/c they are not kept right, mostly 2'-2.5'. They should indeed reach 3'-3.5'. Wild records are 4'+.

 

[Karl K]

I think b/c they are not kept right, mostly 2'-2.5'. They should indeed reach 3'-3.5'. Wild records are 4'+.

Yeh, your right. But i would definetly still plan for 3 - 3,5 feed fish.

 

[Karl K]

I think b/c they are not kept right, mostly 2'-2.5'. They should indeed reach 3'-3.5'. Wild records are 4'+.

Yeh, your right. But i would definetly still plan for 3 - 3,5 feet fish.

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

I said i'm not in a position to state a minimum tank size...

Understood No need to repeat but, indeed, I've made a mistake by stepping on your foot (and many feet of others) before . Just trying to be more cautious now. So I said "my opinion".