who agrees?

[koop171]

^^^Agreed^^^

 

[Aquaman]

I think a desciptive word like monster could apply to any fish species that has reached any where near the max recorded size for that species. Or, yes, any fish that is big enough to eat a cat

 

[onlikedonkeykong17]

it takes a bit of both my friend

 

[davo]

Simply.... no.

 

[Bderick67]

Simply.... no.

Exactly^^

Not all fish are equal, few fish are Monster.

 

[CDickes1988]

I think a desciptive word like monster could apply to any fish species that has reached any where near the max recorded size for that species. Or, yes, any fish that is big enough to eat a cat

I would say only a fish that HAS eaten a cat is a monster fish. Having the potential is not enough! My neighbor's dog has the potential to tear my throat out, yet he doesn't... Therefore, he isn't a monster fish... er dog... where was I going with this...

 

[artemis1]

Any fish bigger than a dog is Monster. Chihuahuas do not count as dogs.

 

[seds]

By no means are harlequin rasboras or dwarf pencilfish monsters. I think a fish needs to have an average adult size of larger than 8 inches in order to be a monster. I think most people would say 12 inches but who knows.



But I think all fish should be treated as relatively equal. There is no need to look down on or abuse needlessly a fish that costs little. That just means it is easy to breed so go buy some and try it yourself. There is also no need to think an animal is worthless just because it is small.

However,(in a theoretical situation) if an evil guy threatened to kill either your prized arowana or one of your "prized" rummy nose tetras and you had to chose which he would kill and which one you were to keep, I am sure anybody would save the arowana over a single rummy nose tetra.

What a strange theoretical situation. Is there any number of "prized" rummy nose tetras that one would value higher than an arowana? If you had to chose between an evil guy killing one half of all rummy nose tetras on earth (this would be many million rummy nose tetras) or your dearest beloved 4 year old arowana, what would be chosen...?

 

[Ben268]

By no means are harlequin rasboras or dwarf pencilfish monsters. I think a fish needs to have an average adult size of larger than 8 inches in order to be a monster. I think most people would say 12 inches but who knows.



But I think all fish should be treated as relatively equal. There is no need to look down on or abuse needlessly a fish that costs little. That just means it is easy to breed so go buy some and try it yourself. There is also no need to think an animal is worthless just because it is small.

However,(in a theoretical situation) if an evil guy threatened to kill either your prized arowana or one of your "prized" rummy nose tetras and you had to chose which he would kill and which one you were to keep, I am sure anybody would save the arowana over a single rummy nose tetra.

What a strange theoretical situation. Is there any number of "prized" rummy nose tetras that one would value higher than an arowana? If you had to chose between an evil guy killing one half of all rummy nose tetras on earth (this would be many million rummy nose tetras) or your dearest beloved 4 year old arowana, what would be chosen...?

I'm still kinda dumbfounded as to how that theoretical situation has come about...but i'd guess the harliquins would weigh more (millions eh?) so...they'd be more monster right? I mean, one arowana couldn't take on many millions of harliquin rasboras right? I mean they'd tear it apart!

Edit: meant rummy-nose tetras, but my statement stands regardless ^_^

On a serious note though...yeh I agree anything thats gonna scare the cat when she sticks those claws int he tank is monster to me.

 

[Delhezi222]

In my opinion, all fish can be monster. A neon tetra may not be able to eat a mouse, but it can certainly hit a worm just as hard as an aro would a mouse. It all has to do with proportions. A neon may not be monster compared to an aro, but compared to some other fish, it is.