What size tank do you think qualifies as a Monster?
- Thread starter Deepsouth
- Start date
i think some of your are misunderstanding the thread. He's asking what tank size is considered to be a MONSTER tank, strictly based off dimensions alone. unless im wrong, i dont think it has anything to do with the name of the site, attitudes, why were here, etc etc.
The title of the thread says it all really
The title of the thread says it all really
That's what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting anything one way or the other about anyone's attitude or quality of their tank, fish, etc. We started this talking about volume only. I have a tabby cat with the attitude of a lion. A real lion even with a crappy attitude would still eat him for a snack.jcardona1;2229049; said:
That's it. This thread has gone on long enough. So I'm taking it upon myself
to formally declare for all of MonsterFishKeepers.com to come that 1000gal is the bare minimum to be considered a "Monster tank". [/thread]
Ok well to expand.. And for what the adjective Monster means to me. I don't consider any tank Monster by size alone..
eh, it's not worth the arguing. I was making a light hearted comment to maybe shed light from a different angle.
The snide, superior, unreasoning voice wins. I'm out of this thread.
The snide, superior, unreasoning voice wins. I'm out of this thread.
I don't like my options... IMO a 125 gal is a nice big tank, but by no means a monster... a 180 is like a baby monster, but a monster tank none the less... 8' tanks are monsters...
I didn't vote since none of the options really matched my opinion...
I didn't vote since none of the options really matched my opinion...
Well, the results of my poll in the other thread clearly indicate that of what people here actually own there is a nice bell curve centered around 200gal stretching up to 600gal. Then there's a gap and a very few people go for around the 1k mark. I expected to see this which is why I drew the line where I did.
But I guess it depends on who you want to be talking about. If you want to be talking about the average population then sure, we can say 150 is the limit. That will include about 50% of the MFK.com community. In my not so humble opinion though, we still need a separate classification for those tanks 1k and above because they're so obviously in a different order of magnitude.
Based on my poll, I'd be willing to compromise & drop the monster limit to 600gal. This can also include all water in system circulation but not actually in the tank at a 75% discounted rate. So if you have a 200gal sump that counts as 50gal of tank volume. This classification should be good for everything up to 2k gal. AFter that we need something like a "professional" or "semi-pro" level.
But I guess it depends on who you want to be talking about. If you want to be talking about the average population then sure, we can say 150 is the limit. That will include about 50% of the MFK.com community. In my not so humble opinion though, we still need a separate classification for those tanks 1k and above because they're so obviously in a different order of magnitude.
Based on my poll, I'd be willing to compromise & drop the monster limit to 600gal. This can also include all water in system circulation but not actually in the tank at a 75% discounted rate. So if you have a 200gal sump that counts as 50gal of tank volume. This classification should be good for everything up to 2k gal. AFter that we need something like a "professional" or "semi-pro" level.
greengiant;2225099; said:
agreed, it's all relative.
also- i consider "monster" tanks, on how they are matiened, setup and upkept. not on size or species of fish kept in them. A ture monster tank is a tank with a monster hobbyists who is pationate to what he is doing.
i think a gorgeuosly kept 55 gal planted with rams is more monster, than a crapped out 250 with a RTC and black pacu's (species being to big for the tank), with dirty water and ugly tankscaping. "Ugly" is relative aswell, but for the most part i think people here know what i'm saying.
