now im wondering. REAl tank size to house oscar for life?

[Retuks]

Ive seen people post on here saying a 55g or even a 75g is big enough to house an oscar for life.

but i went to my grandpas care home and they used to have a single oscar in a bare-bottom 100 gallon tank and it was gone so i asked them what happened to the oscar? they said it outgrew the tank and they had to give it away.

so wtf?? im really confused now. people on mfk said they could fit a 75g for life perfectly...

 

[all_or_nothin]

a 75 is really good. a 55 is only a foot wide and oscars can get at least 16" so..... idk but they might of just not wanted it or somethin

 

[Retuks]

oh, so i shouldn't worry then? thats odd though cause standard 125g tanks are a foot wide also, just long. so in this case a 75g is better than 125 for extra width?

 

[N.C.]

i had an oscar in a 55gal for 3 years it was fine for him. he was healthy active fish, sure the bigger the better but a 55 is ok.........................this is my 300th post

 

[TwistedPenguin]

Everyone always argues about this. No way would I put an Oscar in a 55 g for life. A tank as wide as the fish is long? That's just wrong IMO. That's like putting a 6" fish in a 6" wide tank. Why's it uncool to do that yet people claim a 12" wide tank is 'good enough' for a 12" Oscar? I'd feel bad keeping him for life in a 75 g also. (My own personal minimum is a 125 g with Silver Dollars or a couple catfish). If Oscars are cared for properly they live 10-12 years and easily get 15"-16" by the end of those years.
(Retuks, a standard 125 g is 6' long and 18" wide).

 

[Toby_H]

so wtf?? im really confused now. people on mfk said they could fit a 75g for life perfectly...

Tank size is subjective... Different people will have different opinions...

You also have to consider tank maintenance. If no one was willing to do the necessary work then the tank could seem "too small".

Then you have to consider dishonesty. They may have simply felt it wasn't worth the effort to have the tank but did not want to give this reasoning to clients or clients families. Therefore they gave an answer that made them sound as if the decision was humanitarian.

oh, so i shouldn't worry then? thats odd though cause standard 125g tanks are a foot wide also, just long. so in this case a 75g is better than 125 for extra width?

A Standard 125 gal is 72" (6') x 18" (1.5') @ 21" (1.75') tall... same as a 75 gal but 50% longer... A 6' x 1' tank would have to be almost 3' tall to be a 125 gal...

oscars can get at least 16"

Be forreal man... On very rare occasions an Oscar can get "up to" 16"... but don't mislead people by saying "at least"... That's just a lie...

i had an oscar in a 55gal for 3 years it was fine for him. he was healthy active fish, sure the bigger the better but a 55 is ok.........................this is my 300th post

Congratts on your 300th post...

What happened to your Oscar? Oscars should live over 10 years and you only had yours for 3. So it's hard to say that the 55 gal didn't have any long term impacts such as a shortened life span, as it wasn't given the chance to live it's full life span in the tank (I'm assuming you gave it away or otherwise rehomed it).

I'm not saying that a 55 gal is an unacceptible home for an Oscar, I'm simply pointing out that this example gives no credit to either side of the story.


In conclusion... Acceptible tank size is a subjective decision each of us must make. Hear the opinions of others and factor in the points they have to draw your own conclusion. While listening to opinions please think logically about them to see how much credit each should hold...

The most amusing one I ever hear... "A 12" fish can't turn around in a 55 gal"... FYI people... fish bend...

I agree completely with the conclusion that a 55 gal is not an acceptible sized tank for a 12" fish, but it is based on much more realistic facts than the above misinformation...

 

[Retuks]

Everyone always argues about this. No way would I put an Oscar in a 55 g for life. A tank as wide as the fish is long? That's just wrong IMO. That's like putting a 6" fish in a 6" wide tank. Why's it uncool to do that yet people claim a 12" wide tank is 'good enough' for a 12" Oscar? I'd feel bad keeping him for life in a 75 g also. (My own personal minimum is a 125 g with Silver Dollars or a couple catfish). If Oscars are cared for properly they live 10-12 years and easily get 15"-16" by the end of those years.
(Retuks, a standard 125 g is 6' long and 18" wide).

oh, lol i guess just by eyeballing it im in error XD. my bad. why would you feel bad with 75g for life? would you think a 90 is good? i only have 1 oscar, hes like my dog and i wanna stick it with him until his intended end. its also a tiger oscar and i noticed they grow smaller than reds.

 

[Retuks]

i had an oscar in a 55gal for 3 years it was fine for him. he was healthy active fish, sure the bigger the better but a 55 is ok.........................this is my 300th post

lol i didn't even notice my 300th post. i was about to say "im almost there too" LOL

 

[justonemoretank]

I'm not completely sure, but I believe a 90 has the same footprint as a 75, only taller. I might be wrong on that. Believe me, I have a 110 -- basically a 75, but taller, and it really sucks. Lots of volume, no square footage. I'm going to move my goldfish to it -- that's about all I'd keep in it.

 

[Retuks]

well a better question then would be, what common dimensions are suitable for one tiger oscar for life? and name the gallon.

but about those tall built tanks, you could just fill them half way and use the extra room as clearance for jumpers or eels who wanna escape all the time. i think thats a wonderful way to utilize an otherwise useless dimension.