Ethics in fishkeeping

[jcardona1]

I'm glad there are others on this site that share my view on fishkeeping. I also find it disturbing. This site is dedicated to "Monsterfishkeeping", yet I only know of a handful of people with monster (1,000G+) fish tanks. Of the US MFK members, I am only aware of two people with tanks big enough to keep Arapaimas (JohnPTC and ArapaimaG), yet there are many threads with people showing off their newly acquired 6" baby Pimas. I see nothing wrong with buying a fish that grows huge, as long as you have a huge tank. The people buying these fish are in denial.

I questioned someone in regards to their future plans for a fish that grows to be 4'+that they were keeping in a little 75 gallon tank and this was their response:

"why wast my time going back and forth with you. You worry too much about other peoples monster instead of actually purchasing one for yourself and enjoying it. You live life scared, you think and plan life too far down the road. Why wast your time trying to cut me down I think you would have a better time asking sea world why do they keep shamu in a small aquarium."

The ignorance of some people is mind-blowing. He actually thought that saying that I "think and plan" was an insult!

The irresponsible and unethical MFKers really give the site a bad wrap. I know there is a group of members on this site that thinks asking about tank size is taboo. It's the equivalent of "snitching." I will continue to question those who buy these fish knowing full well they cannot care for them. I think the more people speak up about appropriate husbandry, the better off our hobby will be.

Fiat Lux.

Well said. I know a few fish people that look down on this site and its members because of 'our' fishkeeping practices. But people here don't get it. And never will.

 

[Shenanigans]

I thought the topic was fishkeeping ethics, not just monster fishkeeping ethics. I never said my aro was large. The point is the tank must be proportional. So yes a baby can be kept in a 55, a juvie in 200 and an adult in the hundreds etc. When it comes to having Monster fish and needing monster sized tanks that cannont readily or cheaply be acquired, you should already have it lined up since things do come up in life.

 

[stopani88]

The argument isn't a matter of should we or even could we. The argument over keeping large fish could also be made for keeping ANY animal. If a dog has a little dog house it can barely fit in is this a bad situation for the dog? Is it ok to keep a Grizzly in its "New Grizzly Experience"(or whatever the zoo calls it to justify building a new cage)? Shamu was mentioned, but what about Dolphins? These are smart sea creatures. Don't you think they know they are caged?
The real issue isn't one of large fish. Its one of skill level. Newbie fish keepers shouldn't keep Aropaima, RTC, Peacock Bass etc. But one could argue for that matter. An "experienced aquarist may not be able to keep a goldfish alive either, if all they have done is tropical fish. There are exceptions to every rule.

this is how i see things as well..

 

[Rome]

There are also plenty of people on this site that raise their rtc/pacu to eat, how about that for ethics.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[Jojocircus]

The pacu thing has crossed my mind but not till my greenhouse is done with a 4000g pool in the middle as a fert/heat source...

Sent from my SGH-T499 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[Shenanigans]

There are also plenty of people on this site that raise their rtc/pacu to eat, how about that for ethics.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

thats a whole different issue. Aquaculture is a large part of the world economy. its no different than people having a vegetable garden instead of buying veggies from a supermarket. the ONLY difference in this case is some people keep them as pets instead of there sole purpose being for food. Some people in the US have chickens as pets, others raise their own poultry for supper...

 

[hulk181]

If the goal of keeping a fish is to keep them alive and grow them to their full potential, a 4' wide tank is the bare minimum for a Silver Aro. A lot of people see the little guys in the stores and don't realize just how large they will grow if properly cared for. Check out some public aquaria to see just how large these awesome fish can grow when properly cared for. I think you will realize that a 2' wide tank is no where need wide enough.

I think saying you need a 4 ft. wide tank for an aro is going too far. I'd say only 1% of people on MFK have 4 ft wide tanks that would be the bare minimum for you. And people with that wide of a tank don't even want to keep silver aros because they're too common. So no one should keep silver aros then according to that reasoning (except for the people with 5,000 square foot homes and 1,000 gallon fish tanks).

I think you're confusing maximum size with average size. Some silver aros can reach 4 ft long in the wild and some members here have got them up to 3 ft, but that does not mean that every aro is going to reach that size even with good conditions. I've seen lots of people keep aros in 240 and 300 g tanks and their fish have been alive and healthy for 10+ years.

aldiaz, I saw your thread about your 770 G tank. You stocked it with mostly small schooling fish right? I would rather have big fish. I think some people take understocking to the extreme and then try to flame guys with moderately overstocked tanks or "only" 240g tanks for fish like aros. At some point, you're so understocked that it becomes less of an enjoyable tank than a slightly overstocked one. You can have big fish in a less than ideal sized tank as long as you have enough bio, water conditions are good and room is adequate. Somebody else compared it to living in mansions and I think that applies here. Fish don't need mansion sized tanks to be happy and healthy.

 

[jcardona1]

I think you're confusing maximum size with average size. Some silver aros can reach 4 ft long in the wild and some members here have got them up to 3 ft, but that does not mean that every aro is going to reach that size even with good conditions.

Every wonder why that is? The old saying that we dismiss as myth certainly has some truth to it...'fish only grow to the size of their tank'. Don't believe me? Peacock bass are a perfect example. Look at the sizes of the bass being kept by 99% of the people on this forum in 200-400g tanks. They're runts compared to what you see in the wild. "But that's in the wild, not in captivity". Bullcrap. Look at the size of the bass in JohnPTC's 10,000g tank. They're freaking monsters. Fish DO grow to the size of their environment.

You don't see aros reach 4ft in captivity because we can't/don't give them the environment to reach their full potential. A 240g is hardly adequate.

 

[aldiaz33]

I think saying you need a 4 ft. wide tank for an aro is going too far. I'd say only 1% of people on MFK have 4 ft wide tanks that would be the bare minimum for you. And people with that wide of a tank don't even want to keep silver aros because they're too common. So no one should keep silver aros then according to that reasoning (except for the people with 1000 gallon fish tanks).

I think you're confusing maximum size with average size. Some silver aros can reach 4 ft long in the wild and some members here have got them up to 3 ft, but that does not mean that every aro is going to reach that size even with good conditions. I've seen lots of people keep aros in 240 and 300 g tanks and their fish have been alive and healthy for 10+ years.

aldiaz, I saw your thread about your 770 G tank. You stocked it with mostly small schooling fish right? I would rather have big fish. I think some people take understocking to the extreme and then try to flame guys with moderately overstocked tanks or "only" 240g tanks for fish like aros. At some point, you're so understocked that it becomes less of an enjoyable tank than a slightly overstocked one. You can have big fish in a less than ideal sized tank as long as you have enough bio, water conditions are good and room is adequate. Somebody else compared it to living in mansions and I think that applies here. Fish don't need mansion sized tanks to be happy and healthy.

I appreciate your response, which was very articulate. Hopefully we can keep the dialogue civil...I like to hear other people's thoughts, even when they are not aligned with mine.

I understand there are many people who would like to keep these large growing monsters...they are awesome creatures, but just because you want something doesn't mean you should have it. It's a very selfish argument...actually, it's not even an argument, it's basically an admission of being self-centered and of having an unwarranted sense of entitlement. I know the counter-argument to this is that I am also selfish because I keep fish in an acrylic box. Then it becomes an issue of relative selfishness. I would rather be on the side of the spectrum that provides more room, as opposed the the minimum possible space required for a fish to make a U turn in the tank.

I think we should ask ourselves why a fish that grows to X size in the wild is not growing to X size in our aquariums. In my opinion, that's a clear indication that we are not providing an adequate environment for the fish to thrive. I hear people say all the time that certain species will not achieve their full size in an aquarium...why is that the case? The fish we keep have every benefit in regards to plenty of food, freedom from predation etc...so why would keeping one in an aquarium result in it being stunted?

If, as you say only 1% of people on this site have 4' wide tanks, then perhaps only 1% of us should be keeping large fish.

I know this is a controversial notion, but people who do not have big tanks should not keep large fish.

Edit: I just saw JCardona1's response and I fully agree with his point.

 

[CanadianKeeper]

fish keeping is like reptiles... I have a burmese python.... Some say he needs a 10x10 ft enclosure... LOL mine is 6x3 and he barly uses half of it.... He is curled up in the corner happy allday...

same with fish just have to know what the animal needs to thrive... There is never an exact dimension you need to keep a fish thriving.

Also alot of thies people have diffrent views of "monsters" may not just be size but aditude... I bet ALOT of people on here dont even have 180s but have a nice school of piranhas in a 125... Most normal people call those fish monsters..