OMG!!! The length is 4 feet and width is 18 inches that is just fine.+1 a fish capable of 16 inches has no place in a four foot tank.
I would suggest a 6x2x2 as the absolute minimum, bigger would be better.
In my opinion it's you that doesn't get it.Like do you some of you go by different mathematics or something?
16 inches compared to 48 inches? I don't get it, then again someone here posted that an Oscar needed a 240 gallon tank LOL!
Judging by your standards why even keep fish, LOL! I don't get it, okay. Aren't you the guy who said a 125 was to small for a Buttifkefori, LOL?In my opinion it's you that doesn't get it.
We all have different views on what constitutes as a fair size home for fish of a certain size. You have your standards and I have mine.
Certainly was.Judging by your standards why even keep fish, LOL! I don't get it, okay. Aren't you the guy who said a 125 was to small for a Buttifkefori, LOL?
What does it being 1990 have to do with anything? 48X18 is not cramped. A 180 for an Oscar WTH!!!!!!! They usually peak at 14 inches a 125 heck even a 75 gallon is just fine.£130 is cheap, where in the UK are you, I'm way down in Kent!-)
I think he said a 180g for an Oscar and I agree that that's a suitable size, for it to comfortable with a few tank mates.
If you want to cram 16" heavy tall bodied fish into 4' tanks then you need to expect to get flamed on here, we arnt in the 1990's anymore, things have moved on and 180g are cheap.