Experience with various fish?
- Thread starter eon aquatics
- Start date
mine are
neon tetra
columbian tetra
guppy
buenos aires tetra
silver dollar
serpae tetra
black skirt tetra
neon tetra
columbian tetra
guppy
buenos aires tetra
silver dollar
serpae tetra
black skirt tetra
Fish that I have full confidence in keeping, or everything I’ve kept?
Spotted gar (
Arowana
Guppy
Neon tetra
Marble catfish
Red eared slider
Silver dollars
River crabs (just one)
Crayfish
Arowana
Guppy
Neon tetra
Marble catfish
Red eared slider
Silver dollars
River crabs (just one)
Crayfish
I have experience with at least 20 rainbowfish species
I lost count a some point or better said I never counted. But I think I have kept over 50.
I just don't know if only keeping them for some years is counted as experience.
Not sure exactly what the difference between just having kept and having substantial experience with is, but I can give my own examples.
I've had yoyo loaches and zebra loaches before, but for no more than 3 days. This I would not consider enough to have substantial experience with, especially not compared to my plans to get both in the future and have them for several decades.
I also agree with Milingu in that I don't know if just keeping a fish for some years counts as substantial experience. It could be argued that something closer to the full lifespan of the fish may be a better way to judge.
Example: I've had my clown loaches since 2018, so 4 years at this point. Considering that they can live 20-40 years, though, 4 years is paltry. Which is why I don't know if I have substantial experience with them.
I've had yoyo loaches and zebra loaches before, but for no more than 3 days. This I would not consider enough to have substantial experience with, especially not compared to my plans to get both in the future and have them for several decades.
I also agree with Milingu in that I don't know if just keeping a fish for some years counts as substantial experience. It could be argued that something closer to the full lifespan of the fish may be a better way to judge.
Example: I've had my clown loaches since 2018, so 4 years at this point. Considering that they can live 20-40 years, though, 4 years is paltry. Which is why I don't know if I have substantial experience with them.
We had a similar thread recently, asking how many species we had kept. I was shocked at how high the number was for me, several times larger than expected, and I am sure the same holds true for many keepers who have been at it for a few years or more.
Good question, regarding just how long one must keep a fish in order to be "experienced" with it. Back when I worked part-time at a pet store, I vividly recall a guy, not much more than 24 or 25 years old, who came in literally every week and bought fish...lots of fish, all kinds of fish, fresh and salt, large and small, cheap and expensive, didn't matter. He always bought two of everything, which was sadly funny because it vaguely suggested that breeding was what he had in mind; what a joke! I didn't get to know him...didn't want to know him...but his home must have been the Auschwitz of aquarium fish, based upon how many fish he killed and how quickly he killed them. I and the other staff would argue amongst ourselves over who had to deal with him when he came in. Apparently he only had the one tank...it must have been something to behold...
I think with smaller fish, a year is a reasonable minimum time to be considered a successful keeper. With larger fish, that tend to live longer, perhaps a minimum of three years? This presupposes that the fish are in excellent condition at the end of the time period; an Oscar that is still alive at the end of three years, but is riddled with HITH, proves nothing other than a lack of understanding of proper care; negative experience?
Even breeding is no proof of experience. Buying fish that are mature and in breeding condition, taking them home and waking up to fry or eggs in 3 or 4 days time simply indicates that the keeper knew enough not to screw up the breeding cycle that was already underway.
Good question, regarding just how long one must keep a fish in order to be "experienced" with it. Back when I worked part-time at a pet store, I vividly recall a guy, not much more than 24 or 25 years old, who came in literally every week and bought fish...lots of fish, all kinds of fish, fresh and salt, large and small, cheap and expensive, didn't matter. He always bought two of everything, which was sadly funny because it vaguely suggested that breeding was what he had in mind; what a joke! I didn't get to know him...didn't want to know him...but his home must have been the Auschwitz of aquarium fish, based upon how many fish he killed and how quickly he killed them. I and the other staff would argue amongst ourselves over who had to deal with him when he came in. Apparently he only had the one tank...it must have been something to behold...
I think with smaller fish, a year is a reasonable minimum time to be considered a successful keeper. With larger fish, that tend to live longer, perhaps a minimum of three years? This presupposes that the fish are in excellent condition at the end of the time period; an Oscar that is still alive at the end of three years, but is riddled with HITH, proves nothing other than a lack of understanding of proper care; negative experience?
Even breeding is no proof of experience. Buying fish that are mature and in breeding condition, taking them home and waking up to fry or eggs in 3 or 4 days time simply indicates that the keeper knew enough not to screw up the breeding cycle that was already underway.