Ethics in fishkeeping
- Thread starter pepe
- Start date
- Status
A tank has to be as wide as the length of the fish and bigger is better. That's my outlook on it, but there's always exceptions...Especially for huge fish.
Sent from my Desire HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Sent from my Desire HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Lol you are telling me I can't put a single Oscar in a standard 125? Good grief
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Uhh... that's what you think, homie. I think my stuff has been a lot more well thought out and explained than yours. Your replies basically come down to "only a few guys in the hobby can have tanks big enough for aros and pbass" and "us 700 G + tank guys are more responsible than the rest of you."
Yeah it's been a fun debate.
I knew posting a "general rule of thumb" was going to bring out the peanut gallery.
You can do as you like. I've seen 16" Oscars. I personally think an 18" wide tank would be too narrow for it. Picture a 16" fish in a 18" wide tank...it has 1" of space in front and 1" behind it. I don't think that's enough. But that's just my opinion. You don't need to start giving your fish room to swim just because I think it's a good idea. Keep stuntin'.
This is exactly my point and what the OP made reference to in his initial post. There seem to be a lot more people buying Pimas, RTCs, Bass and Aros than people who have big tanks. The math doesn't work.
I agree, this has been an interesting thread.
Yes, even my 300 is not good enough for one Oscar. Right. I raised quite a few oscars in my 100, and none were stunted.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
The responses here have been getting a bit off track. This is about the ethics of fish keeping, not of fishing or that of predation in nature. A fish in nature has to live its life naturally including predators, parasites, and other normal dangers. If you want to try and justify cramping a big fish in a small tank because its not going to die by being eaten then you are in denial. Basically how I look at it is to make sure you research what the fish would normally use in nature for a territory. And try to replicate that as close as possible, keep it as simple as that. I don't really think common aquarists should be able to get their hands on pbass, stingrays, rtc, arowanas , and all those other monsters. It causes problems for other aquarists who want to enjoy the hobby responsibly. There are some people on this site that are able to care for them, but the vast majority of those fish are going to tanks that are too small. Yes it is possible to have clean water in an overstocked tank, but what is the point if you don't get to see their natural behavior. Whats the point of buying a beautiful fish if all you are going to see it do is pace back and forth in its "minimum" sized tank. I have been told I under stock constantly, well I have experienced the problems of overstocking and it isn't worth it to me. If you want to look at your wall and see a huge amazingly rare fish...buy a painting or shell out the cash for the care it really needs. I would love to have some fish even something as "small" as a Blackbelt cichlid, but probably never will because I don't have a proper tank for it. There are exceptions to the rules involving the length of the fish compared to the tank and etc. If you look at the individual species, like discus or bichirs for example they don't need a huge foot print. They are fairly inactive species they will move around but not like a fast moving schooling fish like maybe piranha. Like it has been said before you need a degree of common sense to figure it out, there isn't an equation. And there is a overwhelming lack of common sense in this day and age.
I don't think it's off track at all. He's saying it's unethical and irresponsible for a guy to buy a peacock bass and put him in a 300 g tank. I'm saying that if I didn't buy him, people in Brazil would catch him and eat him. I think that peacock bass would rather live in a 300 g than be eaten. There's nothing selfish or wrong about that. Fishkeeping has saved many popular food source fish like peacock bass from being over-fished and has kept their populations high.
It should be that easy. The biggest tank I have is a 150g and my largest fish will be 10" full grown.
I think it is cruel that people keep large fish in small tanks. Most of those fish don't live long enough to get to adulthood or the owners have to give up the fish. What's the point of that? I'd rather have a fish grow to its full potential.
Another thing that bugs me is people who buy grow out tanks before even having a large tank. Keeping large fish takes planning. It's one thing to grow out fish so they don't become food for your current stock, but if you can't afford or have the space then don't buy a large fish.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
- Status
