RE: Don't Buy Oscar Fish - 6 Reasons Why

[Ogertron3000]

You lot can be so dramatic. All this crap about emotions and pitch forks.
The topic was all about the care of oscars basically. Tank size was brought up in the original post. Yet we're not allowed to have a view on it?
However you lot are allowed to defend it and say "it was just a mistake the op made. keeping a 14 inch Oscar in a 55,hes learnt from it everything is cool".
What, for 15 bloody years. That's not quick learning your defending, that's a long miserable existence for an oscar.

This bull crap about joining peta makes me laugh too. I'm no tree hugging save the whale hippy. I just dont like to give or hear of advise that leads to 15 years of claustrophobic living conditions for large intelligent animals.
It's the people that do, that will attract the attention of these animal rights groups and bring them down on our hobby.
I'm no peta member or wish to be but I do believe in meeting the fish I keep half way.
Sorry if that's too pitch forky or emotional for some of you.

Unfortunately I think the PETA predictions you are making may come true. We have had lots of serious vegan protests here lately, very organised and attention grabbing. All their literature and videos show some pretty horrific mistreatment of animals in abbatoirs. If (and its a big if) aquariums become targets it will be videos of giant fish in small tanks with HITH they will be showing. Funnily enough that even though you and J jaws7777 seem to argue a lot these days , both of your tanks are examples of how it should be done. But I guarantee the emotional, pitchfork wielding elitists won't be showing pictures either of your tanks on their pamphlets!

 

[skjl47]

say "it was just a mistake the op made. keeping a 14 inch Oscar in a 55,hes learnt from it everything is cool".

Hello; I for one and if memory serves several others made the point that an Oscar in a 55 for years was not good. The no big need for pitchforks aspect of the OP's story was he at first owned up to that being a mistake which is in the past and now knows better. I and many others have made mistakes in the past because we did not know about or understand. Not much point in pitchforks for things in the past.

The OP did screw up when he went on with a defense for keeping a big fish in a too small tank. I and some others called that out right away also. I guess the point I am making is mistakes in the past are just that, in the past and can not be changed. Best I can recall the OP no longer is keeping an Oscar in a 55 gallon so is not currently making that mistake. The pitchfork and condemnation stuff may best serve against those keeping an Oscar in a 55 currently. If the OP has an Oscar in a 55 today I will throw pitchforks as well.

 

[jaws7777]

You lot can be so dramatic. All this crap about emotions and pitch forks.
The topic was all about the care of oscars basically. Tank size was brought up in the original post. Yet we're not allowed to have a view on it?
However you lot are allowed to defend it and say "it was just a mistake the op made. keeping a 14 inch Oscar in a 55,hes learnt from it everything is cool".
What, for 15 bloody years. That's not quick learning your defending, that's a long miserable existence for an oscar.

This bull crap about joining peta makes me laugh too. I'm no tree hugging save the whale hippy. I just dont like to give or hear of advise that leads to 15 years of claustrophobic living conditions for large intelligent animals.
It's the people that do, that will attract the attention of these animal rights groups and bring them down on our hobby.
I'm no peta member or wish to be but I do believe in meeting the fish I keep half way.
Sorry if that's too pitch forky or emotional for some of you.

So i guess you react with the same amount of passion when you hear or see someone keeping their aro in a 300 gal ? If so then i will gladly apologize.

Before anyone twists my words im not judging any aro keepers. Just an example.

Your the same guy that wants to ban large fish because they are treated soo poorly but scoff at the idea of how oscars are treated... i think your defense was the vast majority of people can take care if them.

I asked about your fish because the fact is you dont know how happy they are when your done playing martha stewart in your tanks... you do the best you can.

At the end of the day the guy admitted it wasnt ideal.

 

[RD.]

For number 5, no, you don't need a huge tank. A 55 will work, but a 90 would be perfect for an oscar, no problem. You don't need a huge tank like he was saying

I've seen it work before and it will work in most cases unless you have a very large oscar. I've seen them upwards of 18 inches, but I had one in a 55 and he hit 14 inches and was fine, it wasn't ideal, but it still did work. That's why I said a 55 gallon will work, but a 90 would be perfect. A lot of sources say 55 is minimum, though I would say 75
https://www.firsttankguide.net/oscar.php
https://www.fishkeepingworld.com/oscar-fish/
https://www.wikihow.com/Care-for-an-Oscar
http://www.fishxperts.com/oscar-fish-care/
https://theaquarium.club/oscar-fish/

Its not an idiotic comment, plenty of people have kept oscars in a 55, it can work, though i wouldnt recommend it. You want it to be ideal, go make a river in your back yard. Again, smallest id go for an oscar is a 90, all depends on size, is the fullu grown oscar 10 inches or 16? Ive sren both of them. Rachel oleary has an oscar in a 75, are you going to hate on her?

The no big need for pitchforks aspect of the OP's story was he at first owned up to that being a mistake which is in the past and now knows better. I and many others have made mistakes in the past because we did not know about or understand. Not much point in pitchforks for things in the past.

Where exactly did the OP own up to his keeping an Oscar in a 55, as being a mistake, and that now he knows better? I must have missed that part. Not only did he not state that it was a mistake, he referenced several "care sheets" cough-cough, the first one on his list containing the following: Your Oscar aquarium should provide at least 30 gallons of space (about 114 liters) per Oscar, plus any space needed for any other fish. A minimum fish tank size of 40 gallons (about 152 liters) is recommended if you are keeping an Oscar.

At the end of the day the guy admitted it wasnt ideal.

While out of the other side of his mouth he seemed quite supportive of the fact that it could be done, and he knows, because he did it. In his initial comment he stated: A 55 will work. Which was followed by: I've seen it work before and it will work in most cases.

None of that is in the past, nor is that the OP admitting that he was wrong, or owning up to a mistake. My guess is that the majority here that are crying foul, and using the dramatic "pitch forks & stoning" critique never even glanced at the care sheets that the OP posted here, if not to support his comment, then for what purpose?
Even Frank, Mr. I Hate Care Sheets So Much I Recently Started A Thread on the Subject, apparently missed all of that. They were posted to support his initial comment, that being - A 55 will work.

There's those reading comprehension skills at work again .....

 

[jaws7777]

Where exactly did the OP own up to his keeping an Oscar in a 55, as being a mistake, and that now he knows better? I must have missed that part. Not only did he not state that it was a mistake, he referenced several "care sheets" cough-cough, the first one on his list containing the following: Your Oscar aquarium should provide at least 30 gallons of space (about 114 liters) per Oscar, plus any space needed for any other fish. A minimum fish tank size of 40 gallons (about 152 liters) is recommended if you are keeping an Oscar.




While out of the other side of his mouth he seemed quite supportive of the fact that it could be done, and he knows, because he did it. In his initial comment he stated: A 55 will work. Which was followed by: I've seen it work before and it will work in most cases.

None of that is in the past, nor is that the OP admitting that he was wrong, or owning up to a mistake. My guess is that the majority here that are crying foul, and using the dramatic "pitch forks & stoning" critique never even glanced at the care sheets that the OP posted here, if not to support his comment, then for what purpose?
Even Frank, Mr. I Hate Care Sheets So Much I Recently Started A Thread on the Subject, apparently missed all of that. They were posted to support his initial comment, that being - A 55 will work.

There's those reading comprehension skills at work again .....

Oh get off it already with the constant passive aggressive insults, go back and read my comment mr reading skills. I said i didnt watch the video. If care sheets were posted i definitely didnt read them.

Go change your NLS under wear they're probably all stinky being that you havent left your computer waiting for me to reply.

 

[RD.]

Oh get off it already with the constant passive aggressive insults, go back and read my comment mr reading skills. I said i didnt watch the video. If care sheets were posted i definitely didnt read them.

Go change your NLS under wear they're probably all stinky being that you havent left your computer waiting for me to reply.

Good come back, very mature, and right on point of this discussion. You didn't watch, or read anything, you saw my user ID and jumped in with both feet. Look at you Frank, when presented with actual facts, of what was actually posted, and said, you have nothing more than grade school insults.

 

[RD.]

You do allot of talking on here how come we never get to see any pics of your fish ?

Cmon post some pics of those beautiful nls fed fish.

Not a concern im interested in seeing your tanks. Some newer stuff buddy.

I was ignoring this for the most part, because I honestly don't care what you think, or what kind of RD fantasy's spin around in your head. Clearly it was just you attempting to somehow fish shame me. lol My first fish (and mistake) was made back in the late 60's/early 1970's, long before you were born. A gold fish in a bowl, that my dad purchased. No one had any idea on how to properly keep a fish, and because of that it didn't live long. I have spent a lifetime attempting to improve on that mistake.

A few weeks ago I posted a pic on MFK of another "gold" fish of mine, one that I have had for approx 7 years.

My Midas

Not quite in the same league as some of Buddy's brutes, but I've had a few people ask me lately for a pic so I thought this might be easiest. I just relocated this male back into the 125 where he started out close to 7 yrs ago. Still deciding on what or if substrate is going in. I may just let...

www.monsterfishkeepers.com

That cichlid is 13-14" TL, and thick. He's in a 6ft 125 gallon tank, that is 18" wide. I have also owned a 55 gallon in the past, so I am well aware of the difference in footprint, between one and the other. In my 55 gallon I bred L. caeruleus, that ranged in adult size from 2 1/2 - 3 1/2". The largest fish I kept in a 55 was maybe 6".

While we all have to make our own personal judgement calls when it comes to keeping fish in a glass box, suggesting that a fish such as the male midas shown above "would work", in a 55 gallon tank, is wrong on every level of this hobby.

That is the point that the moral majority here were attempting to make. I have a very short tolerance for stupidity, and I don't typically suffer fools gladly. This is MFK, not little kiddies fish keeping. Some might not appreciate my direct approach - but the advice given is almost always spot on.

 

[jaws7777]

Good come back, very mature, and right on point of this discussion. You didn't watch, or read anything, you saw my user ID and jumped in with both feet. Look at you Frank, when presented with actual facts, of what was actually posted, and said, you have nothing more than grade school insults.

My initial comment was an attack ? Seriously man lol.

There are no facts the whole thread is opinion based.

This i agree with, i did take part in the insults games. Mine werent veiled and either way there is no excuse, bad on my part.

I was ignoring this for the most part, because I honestly don't care what you think, or what kind of RD fantasy's spin around in your head. Clearly it was just you attempting to somehow fish shame me. lol My first fish (and mistake) was made back in the late 60's/early 1970's, long before you were born. A gold fish in a bowl, that my dad purchased. No one had any idea on how to properly keep a fish, and because of that it didn't live long. I have spent a lifetime attempting to improve on that mistake.

A few weeks ago I posted a pic on MFK of another "gold" fish of mine, one that I have had for approx 7 years.

My Midas

Not quite in the same league as some of Buddy's brutes, but I've had a few people ask me lately for a pic so I thought this might be easiest. I just relocated this male back into the 125 where he started out close to 7 yrs ago. Still deciding on what or if substrate is going in. I may just let...

www.monsterfishkeepers.com

View attachment 1370767


That cichlid is 13-14" TL, and thick. He's in a 6ft 125 gallon tank, that is 18" wide. I have also owned a 55 gallon in the past, so I am well aware of the difference in footprint, between one and the other. In my 55 gallon I bred L. caeruleus, that ranged in adult size from 2 1/2 - 3 1/2". The largest fish I kept in a 55 was maybe 6".

While we all have to make our own personal judgement calls when it comes to keeping fish in a glass box, suggesting that a fish such as the male midas shown above "would work", in a 55 gallon tank, is wrong on every level of this hobby.

That is the point that the moral majority here were attempting to make. I have a very short tolerance for stupidity, and I don't typically suffer fools gladly. This is MFK, not little kiddies fish keeping. Some might not appreciate my direct approach - but the advice given is almost always spot on.

Nice fish, yes a 55 gal is too small for a big cichlid

 

[RD.]

My initial comment was an attack ? Seriously man lol.

Did I just say that?

What I actually said, was;

You didn't watch, or read anything, you saw my user ID and jumped in with both feet.

Your initial comment in this discussion was the following;

Pesonally I wouldn't even know how to describe that, other than Frank being Frank. I didn't find anything funny about what was being discussed, but apparently you did?

There are no facts the whole thread is opinion based.

Of course there are facts, Frank, lots of them, but like usual when they don't place your comments or position in a positive light, you choose to ignore them, or attempt to spin them in your direction, or use grade school insults, such as bizarre references to dirty NLS underwear. WTF? I simply called you out. You think I'm different in "real life", you couldn't be more wrong.

I know that you feel that my challenging certain members reading comprehension skills is an insult, but in reality it's just pointing out the flaw in some of the comments being made in this thread. See post # 203. Those are some of the facts that were presented. Have a good read of the care sheets that the OP provided in his defense, then tell me how wrong myself and others have been, in NOT defending that position.

 

[jaws7777]

Did I just say that?

What I actually said, was;


Your initial comment in this discussion was the following;



Pesonally I wouldn't even know how to describe that, other than Frank being Frank. I didn't find anything funny about what was being discussed, but apparently you did?



Of course there are facts, Frank, lots of them, but like usual when they don't place your comments or position in a positive light, you choose to ignore them, or attempt to spin them in your direction, or use grade school insults, such as bizarre references to dirty NLS underwear. WTF? I simply called you out. You think I'm different in "real life", you couldn't be more wrong.

I know that you feel that my challenging certain members reading comprehension skills is an insult, but in reality it's just pointing out the flaw in some of the comments being made in this thread. See post # 203. Those are some of the facts that were presented. Have a good read of the care sheets that the OP provided in his defense, then tell me how wrong myself and others have been, in NOT defending that position.

So the laughing emoji is what pissed you off ?


I though it was this comment.