Ethics in fishkeeping

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I buy a 6" silver aro and put in my 300(given that it is setup to house an aro), I do believe its chances of survival to adulthood just increased dramatically than had it had to fight it out in nature.

People has this view that out in the wild is a cake walk and fish prefer the wild where in reality, chances of survival are rather slim and most silvers don't make it to the 4 foot monster stage before becoming a part of food chain.
 
I've been a member since 2006, why look down on the site for what other people do, I don't get it. I've always liked this site because it always showed me the error of my ways, but also the answers to them. I've tried to keep a jardini in a 55gal, but learned from this site that it's not practical for the health of that type of fish. I miss that fish, but I was not prepared to care for it so I found someone who could. I now have a juvenile silver aro and 2 Achara cats waiting to move into my new aquarium. It's 96"x36"x36", will be done by the end of this month. Another week for everything else to cure, 1 month to cycle the water. I'm not an advanced Aquarius, but if I was, I wouldn't need this site to begin with. I appreciate the good and the bad. Everyone needs to start somewhere. Just my 2 cents. Aloha!

Sent from my LG-P509 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
aldiaz33 said:
The standard versions of a 180, 240 and 300 all have 2' width. Not much difference in regards to the foorprint of the tanks you mentioned.

You are used to seeing stunted Silvers if you think an adult Silver Aro can live in a 2' wide tank.

Is it anymore ethical if you change it from an inflatable pool to an inground pool?
Click to expand...

Hyperbole makes discussions dull. You are comparing an aro to a dolphin.

24 inch wide tank is the smallest I would go and in my original message, if you actually read it, I said 300 wide(30") is better. Not all silvers who don't reach 4 feet mark are stunted and unhealthy.
 
ecoli73 said:
Hyperbole makes discussions dull. You are comparing an aro to a dolphin.

24 inch wide tank is the smallest I would go and in my original message, if you actually read it, I said 300 wide(30") is better. Not all silvers who don't reach 4 feet mark are stunted and unhealthy.
Click to expand...

All About Fish in Concord, CA had a huge aro in a 300G wide for a few years. It was a sad sight to see. I know the guy who donated the fish to the shop...from what I understand he donated it when it was around 2' and it grew to what appeared to be about 40" and THICK. It was about 5 years old when it died. It basically had to bend in half to change direction in the tank. Is that ethical? Not in my opinion.
 
aldiaz33 said:
Really? Try keeping an Arapaima in a 55G for life and let me know how that works out for it? QUOTE]

lol ok so please then name the EXACT amount of water an Arapaima needs... You being silly with the arapaima in a 55 gallon... Im saying just keep it reasonable....

Pbass in a 300 sure why not a pbass in that or even three in that I would say is fine... An Arapaima in a 300 gallon, wont work out after a while. I Said there is no exact amount for what every fish needs just what is comfortable. If you want to take things very litterally then again sir I would like you to make a chart for every fish down to the teaspone of the amount of water they need...
Click to expand...
 
aldiaz33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think what's going on is a kind of snobbery from people with the huge 500G + tanks against everyone else. We can keep the same large species of fish but since I only have a 240, I'm being "selfish" and "self-centered" and the guy with the 1000G tank is not, even though I might actually be taking better care of that fish.

If we used your reasoning, then small fish being taken out of rivers and put in aquaria is a selfish act too. Nothing can even come close to being like the conditions in the natural environment. But since a fishkeeper might have a huge mega tank, he feels like he is doing less wrong than someone with a smaller tank. That's not being less selfish; that's just being more self-righteous.

So fishing would be the ultimate selfish act then because you're killing the fish right? This selfish and "your 300G tank is not enough" argument can go on forever. I think people should be more reasonable about things though. Anytime you take a fish out of the wild, it's probably not going to reach the max size it would've gotten to in the wild. But no way does that mean someone who doesn't have a 10,000 G tank like johnptc can't take good care of monster fish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom