Lets talk about a hot topic "Appropriate tank size for ____"

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
That's just it though. We don't know if the fish can feel that emotion or to what extent. To suggest a 12" fish could reach full speed in a 8' tank maybe correct but it would soon be smashing into something.
I think if a bit of thought is put in you will agree that the same level of activity is reached in either case.

There is things like water volume and how larger equals to a more stable environment. But in my last post I will strictly address exercise and nothing more when talking about two very different tank sizes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Montelboom
I don't believe that is his argument. An active fish that's constantly on the move and speeding around the tank would require a lot more space than a fish that probably only moves around every few hours in search of food. That makes sense as the less active fish most likely won't utilize the same amount of space as the active one. It's not much about trying to force big fish into small tanks, but choosing a tank based both on size and activity levels.

Well, that's what I'm getting from all this after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shamrock
The problem is it has been proven that small tanks are bad for fish as their growth is stunted.

Say you buy a baby fish that should reach 20 inches. You keep him in 55. He only reaches 11 inches...otherwise he looks healthy. Is this acceptable? It shouldn't be.

From my reading and maybe you can correct me if this is wrong, but I believe the size of the tank is not the issues as much as the hormones that build up due to low volume of water. This could be avoided with bigger water changes
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewMomma2
What about territorial fish,ie cichlids.Some of them hold territories as big as tennis courts.
I'm sure they would appreciate the extra few feet.
 
Hello; Me thinks this may be a way some of the political correctness stuff gets started. A point that should be acknowledged is that very few can have tanks anywhere near the same volume as a fish will have in the wild. ( with the possible exception of fish like the killie fish). That we nearly all have tanks that are a fraction of that wild volume.

That said we are essentially discussing tanks that are inadequate compared to the wild. All of us are having fish in tanks that can be argued to be too small by that standard. Are we not discussing what is good enough?

I also contend he "happiness" discussion of our fish clouds the issue. Health is within the bounds.

After a few decades I can recognize an overcrowded tank when I see one, while I may not be able to come up with a description that suits anyone else.
 
I think you only need to watch fish sometimes.
I've seen large fish like an adult male green terror in my 90 gallon. I've also seen the same fish in my 220.
The difference in the fish speaks for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athletic_Amph
I think skjl47 hit the nail on the head. We are all guilty of keeping fish in an unnaturally small environment compared to the wild and god forbid if the do gooders ever tried to get our hobby banned then this single argument would probably be the one they'd push (even though us hobbyists, through our demand for fish, are preventing huge numbers of species becoming extinct in the wild). What i think is important is to acknowledge that our fishes environnents are small and compensate for this by caring for our fish in other ways i.e. ensuring their water is pristeen at all times through regular water changes and feeding a varied diet. A plus side for our fish, though they're blissfully unaware, is that they're likely to live longer in our tanks thanks to no predation issues, regular food, no flash floods or droughts to contend with etc etc. I think on the whole fish kept in an aquarium by a dedicated hobbyist probably have good lives.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com