Lets talk about a hot topic "Appropriate tank size for ____"

[wild bill]

We always bring up the fish feeling like their tank is to small. This may be true with a WC fish but how does an aquarium bred fish even know what wild spaces are. Lets stop giving our fish human emotions for awhile and be realistic. Yes fish do get hungry feel a need to propgate and feel pain. But I don't think our fish love us ,know that the tank they were raied in is to small or many of the other feelings we believe they have. Another exreme I have read a few times is that a tank is to big for fry to find food. Think where fish live in the wild our tanks are no where near those sizes and the fry find food and grow. Their biggest issue there is not getting eaten themselves and if they are eaten the rest of the fry don't mourn their passing. Why can we not just enjoy our hobby do the best we can for our fish and tell the bunny huggers to take a hike. What they are pushing is merely their personal opinion not words we have to live by.

 

[Stanzzzz7]

The idea of a captive bred fish being content in a tank that's too small is a strange one.
Yes they may not have seen the Amazon, but do you really think you can wipe out thousands of years of instinct over a few generations of captive breeding?
Their needs for space, stimulation and exercise won't be any different.

The hobby is a cruel one regardless of tank size.
All of us are keeping fish in a glass container. I am fully aware of that.I keep fish because I want fish.We are all trapping animals,when arguably they would be better off in the river or lake.

There are no rules to tank size and the debate is futile. I have come to the conclusion that it's just to much of a matter of personal conjecture.
I have been quite vocal on stocking and tank size in the past,but as I write this I'm thinking what's to point.
When I see an Oscar in a 90 gallon,I see a trapped, pathetic existence devoid of stimulation and insufficient room to exercise and grow.
Other people look and see a happy pet.

There are also many hobbyists that have got to have that so called badass fish,the most big and aggressive cichlid they can find,regardless of only owning a 125 that they believe to be a large tank.
These people have to have the Dovii or the jag or the umbee regardless of their tanks size.
These are the people that take the selfish side of the hobby to another level.
People that feel it's OK to put a Pangasius catfish in a 4 foot tank will continue to do so regardless of stocking threads like these.

Where I become most vocal on this subject is if a newbie posts the question,"Good fish for a 90 gallon tank".
These type of posts are common and so are the replies, jag,midevil,Trimac etc etc.Are these really the best candidates to be advising for tanks that size?
There are so many choices to fit every scale of tank yet people only recommend the 12 inch plus fish.
This is the mind set I most disagree with as personally I would not feel comfortable keeping a fish that reaches 12 inches in any thing less than a 220.
I am aware that this is my view and people will disagree and say it's too extreme. It is also their right to do so if they wish.
If a newbie takes in board my view and opts for a smaller species,then I would be pleased with the choice.

This ridiculous view, that by my standards we should not keep fish in tanks at all is strange.
Like I have said before,it's the people keeping species in bare minimum footprint tanks that will provide the ammunition needed for animal rights groups to come down on our hobby.

 

[dan518]

Once the basics are met, the tank is big enough for the fish to move and turn, the tank holds enough water to keep the quality at a acceptable level the rest comes down to personal opinion of the keeper, there are many factors that could be taken into account , trying to have one hard and fast rule for 28000 species of fish just isn't going to work.

 

[dan518]

Which is better keeping an oscar in a 75 gal in your front room with lots of stimulation out side the tank or keeping a oscar in a 180 gal with other aggressive fish where it has to fight for survival on a daily basis. If someone has a fish in what I would consider a slightly to smaller tank but otherwise takes good care of them I would encourage them to keep the fish, often selling large fish is a death sentence. If there on about stocking a tank from scratch I will advise/give my opinion to them not to get into the situation in the first place,

 

[Hendre]

If my fish have space to really move around and explore I'm happy. I won't keep a very active fish in a small tank and won't keep a shy fish without shelter.

I personally don't have an attachment to the massive predatory fish, I find the behaviour of fish in a well decorated tank is much more interesting and I'm going from BB to naturalistic tanks. I just think it's nicer for everything in the tank

 

[philipraposo1982]

I tried doing a quick Google search of fry survival rates of wild freshwater fish. I couldn't find nothing to build an example from but I was going to touch on a point.

In the hobby we often breed and raise fry with very good success rates. How do you think this compares to their wild counterparts?

Is it cruel to have a fish in a container if it means clean water, stimulation, exersice, no risk of being eaten, constant food supply, etc..

So a 12" fish in a 220g would be acceptable. Let's look at this in more detail. 72" length, this is 6x the length of said fish. Let's assume nothing crazy active. In terms of space for exploration and exercise is this really any different than let's say a 48" length tank? Assume width and height are the same as the 220g. What does the additional 24 inches really provide that the other tank cannot? We have to agree that by no means is either tank suitable for top speed swimming or aggressive darting. The fish could smash into the walls of either tank.
So if we remove high speed stuff out of the equation then again what's the advantage? Don't forget I am not talking about anything else right now other than exercise and general movement. In both tanks the fish will do laps and in both cases can do this without any issues.

Think about walking around in a small room. If a avg men's step distance approximately 3' and you have a room with a length of 18' vs 12' other than walking around the perimeter quicker there really isn't a difference. Obviously a human would go stir crazy with time in this small room but fish don't seem to mind. Or do they?

Thoughts?

 

[Stanzzzz7]

A 220 is 7 feet

 

[philipraposo1982]

Doesn't change anything in my post at all. Even at 8' the second fish gets no additional benefit to its physical healthy. At least not one that I can see. The same physical activity that fish does in the 8' tank can be done in the 4' tank all the same.

I find it odd that you choose to correct me on the dimension but offer nothing in terms of feedback or thought.

 

[Stanzzzz7]

An 8 foot from a 4 foot changes quite a lot I think.
A fish may be able to reach full speed in an 8 and may not in a 4,
It has twice the length to swim in.I know which I would choose if I were a fish.

I have said all I feel is worth saying.I have my views, others have theirs.
Nothing will change,we just go round in circles.

 

[dan518]

Could a human get the same amount of exercise in a 6ft by 10 ft as he could in a 18 by 12, yes, would they feel more comfortable in the larger room, yes.