Ethics in fishkeeping

[Pyramid_Party]

The way I see it when it comes to properly stocking tanks, there are 2 kinds of people. There are people who actually love animals and care about their welfare and are responsible enough to provide the care they need. Then there are the selfish and stubborn people who want something and will not listen to others. Then they dump their animals after they get bored or the animal is too much responsibility for them. Of course there is a small group of people who are ignorant and don't know better, BUT, once they do learn they can make the choice of doing the right thing or being a jerk.

 

[aldiaz33]

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...

I'm with you...that's the crux of the debate- what is reasonable? You are right, there is no hard coded rule as to what size each fish will need. People form their own ideas of what is ok and what is wrong. I think that's what the thread is all about...sharing idea on what you believe to be ethical husbandry practices.

If I had to come up with a rule of thumb (which I don't like doing, because there are exceptions to every rule), I would say that tank width should be at least 2 times the length of the fish....Gasp!...I know, crazy idea, huh? Everyone with arowanas, bass, big cats wouldn't be able to keep their gigantic fish.

Feel free to flame, I think fish that grow to be several feet long should be able to swim at least few feet without bumping into a wall.

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.

It's not a conspiracy. It's pretty basic. Big fish require big tanks.

I addressed the, "you are being selfish too" counter-argument in the post that you quoted.

I would disagree that fish kept in large aquariums are not going to grow as large as those in the wild. Some of JohnPTCs bass are bigger than any of the amazonian fishing expedition trip photos I have seen. Those things are monsters.

 

[Pyramid_Party]

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.

I agree with you as a whole keeping fish/animals is a selfish act. But now there are industries out there for it and you can;t do nothing about it. The way I see it if you can't have a large tank do not get large species of fish. This is called responsibility. There are many fish out there I would like to keep, but I do not keep them because I don't have the tank size for them. But like I said in my last post some people are too selfish and stubborn to be responsible. If they wanna keep an RTC or Aro in a 55 gallon they are gonna keep an RTC or Aro in a 55 gallon. There is WAY too many people on this site like this.

 

[jcardona1]

The way I see it if you can't have a large tank do not get large species of fish. This is called responsibility.

That's all there really is to it. Getting people to understand that, well therein lies your problem.

 

[djlamonica]

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?496783-My-Nice-Predator-Comm-Tank

This is a prime example of what is wrong, I know my response wasn't the nicest but it was literally the third thread in a row, the first being a TSN with many room mates in a 72 including a gar, and a 30 with 4 frontosa, 1 FH, and a gar.

I don't claim to be an expert far from it, I'm a newbie but common sense should be used instead crazy things like keeping 3 arows, 8 bass, 2 plecos and 4 tigers in a 4x2.5 tank is praised , I could not believe the responses I was getting. (again I wasn't being super nice but it all just seemed ludicrous to me) Not to mention the plan to release into the wild when the fish got to big oh my....

Anyways I'm not all about under or overstocking I like to stick to what the exp. people say is best and works, and you need to do plently of research before anything goes into a tank.

 

[hulk181]

I agree with you as a whole keeping fish/animals is a selfish act. But now there are industries out there for it and you can;t do nothing about it. The way I see it if you can't have a large tank do not get large species of fish. This is called responsibility. There are many fish out there I would like to keep, but I do not keep them because I don't have the tank size for them. But like I said in my last post some people are too selfish and stubborn to be responsible. If they wanna keep an RTC or Aro in a 55 gallon they are gonna keep an RTC or Aro in a 55 gallon. There is WAY too many people on this site like this.

Yeah, but nobody is saying that keeping an RTC in a 55g is reasonable. People here are debating whether keeping a peacock bass or an aro in a 300 G is reasonable and I say yes. Everytime there's a thread about overstocking, the ones who like to understock come up with these extreme "silver aro in a 30g tank" examples and I don't like that. That's not even close to being the same thing.

 

[ecoli73]

Yeah, but nobody is saying that keeping an RTC in a 55g is reasonable. People here are debating whether keeping a peacock bass or an aro in a 300 G is reasonable and I say yes. Everytime there's a thread about overstocking, the ones who like to understock come up with these extreme "silver aro in a 30g tank" examples and I don't like that. That's not even close to being the same thing.

Indeed...it is like debating about merits of hunting deer and someone start ranting about ethics of using ivory and rhino horns.

 

[hulk181]

If I had to come up with a rule of thumb (which I don't like doing, because there are exceptions to every rule), I would say that tank width should be at least 2 times the length of the fish....Gasp!...I know, crazy idea, huh? Everyone with arowanas, bass, big cats wouldn't be able to keep their gigantic fish.

Feel free to flame, I think fish that grow to be several feet long should be able to swim at least few feet without bumping into a wall.

Whoa... so you think an aro needs at least an 8 ft. WIDE tank. What do you think are the minimum dimensions of an aro tank then? I'm guessing 10 ft long x 8 ft wide x 4 ft high? Only Bill Gates is going to have a tank like that.

It's not a conspiracy. It's pretty basic. Big fish require big tanks.

I addressed the, "you are being selfish too" counter-argument in the post that you quoted.
.

Not really. You're just implying that guys with bigger fish tanks are somehow more responsible and less selfish than everyone else. That's kind of elitist thinking. You're not doing anything different than anyone else because you're taking a fish out of its habitat just like we are. And think about it like this: if people like me with the less than 500 gallon tanks didn't buy pbass, most of those pbass would be eaten by the locals. Isn't that a much worse fate than being in a 240g?

 

[aldiaz33]

Whoa... so you think an aro needs at least an 8 ft. WIDE tank. What do you think are the minimum dimensions of an aro tank then? I'm guessing 10 ft long x 8 ft wide x 4 ft high? Only Bill Gates is going to have a tank like that.


Not really. You're just implying that guys with bigger fish tanks are somehow more responsible and less selfish than everyone else. That's kind of elitist thinking. You're not doing anything different than anyone else because you're taking a fish out of its habitat just like we are. And think about it like this: if people like me with the less than 500 gallon tanks didn't buy pbass, most of those pbass would be eaten by the locals. Isn't that a much worse fate than being in a 240g?

I wrote there are exceptions to every rule precisely for fish like Aros and Eel-like species. Man, I'm two steps ahead of you in every thing you are calling me out on. Read what I posted. A few posts back I mentioned 4' as being the minimum for a fully grown aro and I would stick by that figure for a Silver.

What I am saying is that big fish require big tanks....that's all. Take from that what you will.

 

[djlamonica]

I wrote there are exceptions to every rule precisely for fish like Aros and Eel-like species. Man, I'm two steps ahead of you in every thing you are calling me out on. Read what I posted. A few posts back I mentioned 4' as being the minimum for a fully grown aro and I would stick by that figure for a Silver.

What I am saying is that big fish require big tanks....that's all. Take from that what you will.

+1 big fish need big tanks, the more fish you want to keep the bigger tank you need. Common sense goes a long way. Trying to put exact amounts on tank sizes s never gonna work, just use some common sense and do some research before you fill your tanks.

And if you think your a super duper expert and have figured it all out and want to jam your 4 ft tank full of fish that reach 4 ft long then go for it because there is nothing any of us can do about it. in fact on this site you'll get praised by a lot of people, there is no fish police, unfortunately.