I believe a fish 12 inches and over with a tank large enough to hold them would be considered ]V[ONSTER..The old double nickel 55 i have is just not Monsterous to me. My 8 to 10 inch JD and GT hammered the sides all day, there just not wide enough for larger fish. I love the pictures and DIY here, but i went to Aquarium Central to fit my tank needs. My tank is the size of the filters here. My aquarium is small but soon growing and i know right where to go when i get there !!
What constitutes a monster tank IYO?
- Thread starter Scorponok
- Start date
like groovitudedude said about joining another site. Here I am a very small fish in a very big pond. I joined 2 other sites for my livebearers and am a big fish in a very small pond. I don't think most fish keepers know this stuff exists.
Monster doesnt really include the size of the tank, more or less its inhabintants. If I had a 500G with cardinals, it aint a monster. If I had a 500G with no fish smaller then 2 feet, its a completely different story.
I guess what you have defines what you think is a monster. I have a 50 breeder, and AFAIC that's a pretty middle of the road aquarium, but a lot of people might think it's on the large side. I also have a 200gal, and I would call it big, but not a MONSTER. I'd say 300 is really big, 500+ is a monster.
Monster tank is what you make it. My 125 was huge till i went 270. After looking at my 270 for some months I wished I went bigger. Now I am planning on moving in the next 2 years and doing a 5K and keeping a 750 growout.
STONEDFISH;1487615; said:
Agreed. Tanks are mobile. Monster is based on what you keep. If you keep livebearers, a 55 is huge. My 135, however is far to small for ME, because I enjoy the "monster" fish. Hopefully I can heal that wound within the next few months
