what do you consider a "monster fish"?

C

cjb10876

Jack Dempsey

MFK Member

Sep 26, 2005

5

0

31

49

PA

• Oct 10, 2005

• #1

this is my first time posting, and second time looking around on the forum. looks like you guys are an active bunch of hobbyists. so here is my question: what do you all consider a "monster fish"? is it size? attitude? diet? all of the above? in the past i have had a few larger cichlids (oscar, JD, Green terror) a pacu, a few plecos, etc... though my current fish are hardly monsters. given the space (and more importantly money) i would love to get back to having some "pet" fish again.

chris

 

Q

quix

Candiru

MFK Member

May 20, 2005

205

0

46

Singapore

• Oct 10, 2005

• #2

for me i guess it's both in terms of size and temperament...my 55cm LDA65 panaque is not only biggest in the tank..but also no other fish can mess with it..but it does not attack other fishes unless being disturbed..so is dat a monster?

 

M

magic

Gambusia

MFK Member

Jun 21, 2005

459

0

16

36

East Bay

• Oct 10, 2005

• #3

I would consider any large cichlid and up to be a monster.

 

gomezladdams

Polypterus

MFK Member

Sep 8, 2005

5,771

6

92

gilboa,ny

• Oct 10, 2005

• #4

Any large predatory fish kept in the aquarium qualifies as a monsterfish imho.

 

S

sandtiger

Captain Planet

MFK Member

Feb 14, 2005

3,563

4

0

41

NY

• Oct 10, 2005

• #5

Largeness...IMO. So that means even goldfish are monsters. Of course fish that are small in the wild (bluegill) are monsters in a tank. I also consider it a monster if it is a large species from a family. Like the brochus corydoras. They are small, but monsters when compaired to other corydoras. If it needs at least 55g it is a monster, anything a foot long and over.

 

C

Copeina

Feeder Fish

MFK Member

Sep 8, 2005

140

0

0

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

www.mts.net

• Oct 10, 2005

• #6

sandtiger said:

Largeness...IMO. So that means even goldfish are monsters. Of course fish that are small in the wild (bluegill) are monsters in a tank. I also consider it a monster if it is a large species from a family. Like the brochus corydoras. They are small, but monsters when compaired to other corydoras. If it needs at least 55g it is a monster, anything a foot long and over.

Click to expand...

Interesting comment. A school of brochis would certainly be an impressive sight, and would require some "monster fish keeping" tanks and equipment.

Great comments guys!

Welcome to the forum Chris. Folks here keep everything from 20 gallon to 10000 gallon tanks, so there is something for everyone!

/Kris

 

R

rallysman

Polypterus

MFK Member

Aug 7, 2005

17,543

33

89

44

indiana

• Oct 10, 2005

• #7

magic said:

I would consider any large cichlid and up to be a monster.

Click to expand...

I agree...i would call this guy a monster

 

Miles

Stingray King

MFK Member

Jul 2, 2005

5,547

162

120

Spokane, WA

• Oct 10, 2005

• #8

Anything that grows large is a Monster!

Anything that is a pure predator, should also classify as a Monster!

There are some definate MINI-MONSTERS.. Such as Dwarf Channa, T. Mirius/T. Suvatti Puffers, Dwarf Lionfish and Frogfish!

 

G

guppy

Small Squiggly Thing

Apr 15, 2005

11,595

89

0

confused, lost, and lonely

• Oct 11, 2005

• #9

I think anything over a foot long is a monster, but also bad actors even if small. Phagos, Belanesox, piranha, candiru are also IMO monsters.

 

R

rumblesushi

Feeder Fish

MFK Member

Jul 18, 2005

3,113

4

0

44

ENGLAND

• Oct 11, 2005

• #10

I don't think it's just due to size.

Size plays a huge factor but there are exceptions.

What's more monster, an 8 inch ery ery or a 3 foot carp?

I'll go with the ery ery.

But then of course a 10 foot arapaima or alligator gar is a true monster.