Lol, don't even get me going on short-bodied fish...
Yes, most look weird to me, few might look good but I would not support deformity of that kind.
General perception of flowerhorns and owners
- Thread starter Ruturaj
- Start date
Yes, most look weird to me, few might look good but I would not support deformity of that kind.
Here's a photo of a tank full of clean, clear water. The equipment that maintains it is on display, like paintings hanging on the walls of a dwelling. No live plants...no substrate...no rockwork...no background...just a lone piece of artificial (!) wood sitting in the middle. The inhabitant: a single flowerhorn, floating in all its unnatural majesty. For a guy who considers aquariums as a window into the natural world and a way to maintain a connection with that world...this is about as far from appealing as it could possibly be.
Minor update. And I would appreciate an ideas.
I moved the heater to the side, added a background, sand, minor adjustment to HOB, cleaned the artificial driftwood.
Water isn't clear yet, since I just added sand.
Looks much better, I' guess it's probably nicer for the fish too.
Have you considered some tough plants like java fern or Anubis? Would look good growing on the wood. I've never kept flowerhorn so not sure if they shred plants or not? Even scattering som pebbles and small rocks around makes things look more natural if that's the look you want,
I don’t have any experience with flowerhorns, however i find quite interesting how we conceptualize other animals, fish included. It also has to do with our constructions about ideas of what is ‘natural’ or pristine. There is an area of study known as anthrozoology or human-animal studies which deals with our relations with other animals. However, human-fish relations are way understudied which i understand as an eloquent example of our anthropcentrism. A great introductory book about this topic is “Some We eat, Some We Hate, and Some We Love: Why is so difficult to think straight about animals”. Harzog, a psychologist, among other things, explores pet owner’s personalities such as cat-people vs dog-people. But again, no such analysis can be found about the personality of fish keepers, let alone flowerhorn keepers. But, it explores the general idea that the pet selection (type of fish included) can relate to personality traits.
It would be interesting to find that analysis as it relates to fish/human interactions, but I don't think most fishkeepers would like it or agree with it.
Fishkeepers that actually believe their betta or oscar "loves" them are, IMHO, delusional; usually, they tend to be citydwellers whose daily existence is so far removed from the natural world that they crave and need some connection to it, and the fish provides that so they get carried away. I love having fish around, the same way I love having live houseplants. If I lose one, I'm sad; the longer I have had it before its death, the greater the sadness. But...they're not "pets". I will shed tears over the death of a Ioved one, be it a person or dog or cat...but a fish? "Dang...that's a shame".
I once read a poster on another forum state that after she began keeping fish, she stopped eating fish. Gee...I hope nobody ever gives her a potted plant; she'd starve to death within a month.
Fishkeepers that actually believe their betta or oscar "loves" them are, IMHO, delusional; usually, they tend to be citydwellers whose daily existence is so far removed from the natural world that they crave and need some connection to it, and the fish provides that so they get carried away. I love having fish around, the same way I love having live houseplants. If I lose one, I'm sad; the longer I have had it before its death, the greater the sadness. But...they're not "pets". I will shed tears over the death of a Ioved one, be it a person or dog or cat...but a fish? "Dang...that's a shame".
I once read a poster on another forum state that after she began keeping fish, she stopped eating fish. Gee...I hope nobody ever gives her a potted plant; she'd starve to death within a month.
Are there screwball pet owners that replace them as 'children?' Sure. Head cases.
But I'll say this: after experiencing so many types of "pets" I find there's a lot more going on than human arrogance will admit. I've had so called pets do amazing stuff that can't be explained away with the pat explanations humans give for convenience. The assumption that we know what intelligence is, etc. Just like with humans, some in a species are smarter/more cognitive than others. There's no 'one size fits all' template.
Not even a dust mote in the universe, just sayin'. And we got it all figured out.
He moves the sand around all the time, I though about plants like bolbitis tied to wood. Planning to get some artifical rocks in near future. It's tough to choose what I want to add, as I don't want to reduce his moving space but would like some decorations as well. I should have got 120 instead of 75.
I enjoy looking at flowerhorns but the KOK has never mattered to me. Personally I feel for how easy they are to obtain the prices are insanely overinflated to the extreme. I feel like a lot of the owners of them dont give the fish enough room and thinking 30-40g for any cichlid that gets to 12" isnt really fair. I think while the hobby has evolved to push for better treatment of most fish, flowerhorns have been left out of this new age awareness when the fish strains theyre bred from aren't.
I sure didn't mean to imply that I think it I have it "all figured out"...but I've just come to terms with the limitations of what I can accept and deal with on a day-to-day basis. I cannot and will not tolerate inhumane treatment of any animal...but can't fathom the idea of talking to plants and playing them music...and have no qualms about hunting or fishing or eating meat or utilizing leather. I am totally astonished by the self-professed animal lovers who will stand by and watch a beloved pet suffer a long, protracted death because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to end it quickly. Animals make up a huge part of my life, and I definitely have seen things that I can't explain, or that suggest there is much more in that non-human cranium than we/I can conveniently explain. But then, there are scientists who glibly explain away phenomena like love or hate or other emotions as simple chemically-induced physiological states. Are they correct? I don't know...I certainly hope they aren't, because I don't think we need to know everything about everything.
Just this dust mote's way of getting through each day...doing what I feel is right 'cause there just isn't time to think through each move...
If the kok is balanced to the 'horn's body it works...but seeing a grapefruit on a five inch fish just looks weird...the poor things can't half see what's in front of them and the thing is always getting banged up, or they have to headstand just to eat.
