A few of my fish

bob a.

bob a.

Member
Here are a few shots of the fishies. My wife and I have two tanks, one is a reef and one is fish only. The fish only currently has a queen angel, yellow tang, coris wrasse, picasso trigger and a clownfish. My last addition to this tank is going to be a powerder blue, currently in QT.







The reef tank is the older of the two, been up for about 4 years unless you count the time about a 8 months ago when it started leaking and I had to empty it and recaulk. Besides a host of critters, there is a rather large hippo tang, a yellow and achilles tang, flame angel, 6 line wrasse.




 
theonlykc

theonlykc

Member
Originally Posted by Bob A.
Here are a few shots of the fishies. My wife and I have two tanks, one is a reef and one is fish only. The fish only currently has a queen angel, yellow tang, coris wrasse, picasso trigger and a clownfish. My last addition to this tank is going to be a powerder blue, currently in QT.







The reef tank is the older of the two, been up for about 4 years unless you count the time about a 8 months ago when it started leaking and I had to empty it and recaulk. Besides a host of critters, there is a rather large hippo tang, a yellow and achilles tang, flame angel, 6 line wrasse.


do your blue tangs get along with your yellow one?
 
aw2

aw2

Active Member
Originally Posted by Ohioguy06
Bob if u wouldnt mine me asking what size tanks are these?

WAY too small for any of those fish...that's how big they are.
 
ohioguy06

ohioguy06

Member
Originally Posted by AW2
WAY too small for any of those fish...that's how big they are.

i would have concur on this one aw2
 
bob a.

bob a.

Member
Originally Posted by AW2
WAY too small for any of those fish...that's how big they are.

The tanks are both 90's, both have sumps with chaeto. As for the size of the fish relative to the tanks, you are entitled to your opinion but the bioload is good in the reef and pretty low in the fish only. The queen angel is the largest fish in the FO and it was about 1.5" when we got it, the hippo was about the same size, they have probably gotten about as big as they will get.
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bob A.
they have probably gotten about as big as they will get.
Do you know what you are talking about? Have you ever seen a full grown queen angel? Yeah.... a 90 is a TAD small for both the queen and the powder blue for starters. Both need MUCH more swimming space. And I just read you have an achilles tang in the other tank?!
I won't get into any of the others because a fish's growth and adult size is a matter of "opinion".
 
bob a.

bob a.

Member
Originally Posted by lion_crazz
Do you know what you are talking about? Have you ever seen a full grown queen angel? Yeah.... a 90 is a TAD small for both the queen and the powder blue for starters. Both need MUCH more swimming space. And I just read you have an achilles tang in the other tank?!
I won't get into any of the others because a fish's growth and adult size is a matter of "opinion".

Yes, I do have an idea of what I am talking about, but it wouldnt matter to you I'm sure. Why dont you post some pics of your tanks and open youself up to criticism.
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bob A.
Yes, I do have an idea of what I am talking about, but it wouldnt matter to you I'm sure. Why dont you post some pics of your tanks and open youself up to criticism.

Look, I really would not have criticized since I have no clue what you have in mind for the future as far as upgrading. However, it was your last statement of your argument that left you open for criticism. Thinking that that is how big a queen angel will get is just false.
I never criticized your tanks. I criticized your line of thinking. I actually think your live rock is quite nice, and all of the fish look very nice, for now. However, if they are not moved to a bigger tank, they will not stay that nice and healthy. And by the sound of your last statement, it does not sound like you have any intentions on upgrading ever.
 
37g joe

37g joe

Member
I have gone to several different websites and for the achiles tang it says minium tank size 75 gallons and for the hippo tang 70-75 gallon. So even the experts say this is an alright tank for the fish but for the queen angel I would suggest getting a much larger tank and since the two tangs well much more perfer a larger tank you really should get a biger tank. I would sugest a 150 long at the bare Minimum if you want to keep the angel. Instead of insulting you I hope have good luck with these fish and hope my advice well be taken to heart. I do think your two tanks look great though.
 
powers

powers

New Member
I think your tanks look great, and as long as your fish are fat and healthy more power to you. Keep up the good work. I admire you for posting your pics.
This is exactly why I will not post mine on here (or even post anything for that matter. I read post after post after post and I bet that at least 60 percent of them have someone who feels that they must critisize something on the post. Do not let those people get you down.
Good luck to you.
Leslie
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
Leslie, that is where you are wrong. The majority of the people on here do not "feel that they must criticize something on the post". The people who say that the fish needs a bigger tank are simply stating the truth, so that the fish can get the best care that is possible. These fish have been kept long enough and by enough people to know how big a tank a certain fish needs. Any place you look you will see that a queen angel needs a minimum of a 150 gallon tank (key word there is minimum). There is no way a queen angel will live very long in a 90 gallon tank. It is just not going to happen with a fish that gets close to 18 inches. That is how big a queen angel will get. Bob A's angel is nowhere close to 18 inches, so it is far from "getting as big as it will get". That is why I criticized his statement. He tried arguing with everyone that posted saying the fish will need a larger tank and that was his reasoning. That reasoning is factually incorrect.
 
fishieness

fishieness

Active Member
Originally Posted by 37g Joe
I have gone to several different websites and for the achiles tang it says minium tank size 75 gallons and for the hippo tang 70-75 gallon. So even the experts say this is an alright tank for the fish but for the queen angel I would suggest getting a much larger tank and since the two tangs well much more perfer a larger tank you really should get a biger tank. I would sugest a 150 long at the bare Minimum if you want to keep the angel. Instead of insulting you I hope have good luck with these fish and hope my advice well be taken to heart. I do think your two tanks look great though.
some websites, esspecialy those trying to sell fish, are not a good thing to always go by. and i would hardly classify that info as being form the experts most say a mandarin will be fine in a 30 gallon..... and this is true..... if you have a 75 gallon fuge....

i admit yoru tank looks nice, but those fish deserve a larger tank.
 
powers

powers

New Member
I should have been a little more detailed in my response. I am on here often and I have read alot of good advise. I would not have the succesfull tank I have If it weren't for all the wonderful people on this site. I just do not understand why some people must respond negatively. Bob was not asking if his/her fish load was to large. He/she simply was sharing with us his/hers tanks. Your response was not harse, but I feel some were.
To mention that an upgrade in the future will be needed is one thing. To say that all the fish are to big is another. It is not what you say so much as the manner in which you say it. Did not mean to start anything, just wanted to give a positive response.
Leslie
 
lion_crazz

lion_crazz

Active Member
Originally Posted by powers
I should have been a little more detailed in my response. I am on here often and I have read alot of good advise. I would not have the succesfull tank I have If it weren't for all the wonderful people on this site. I just do not understand why some people must respond negatively. Bob was not asking if his/her fish load was to large. He/she simply was sharing with us his/hers tanks. Your response was not harse, but I feel some were.
To mention that an upgrade in the future will be needed is one thing. To say that all the fish are to big is another. It is not what you say so much as the manner in which you say it. Did not mean to start anything, just wanted to give a positive response.
Leslie
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
 
aw2

aw2

Active Member
Originally Posted by powers
I read post after post after post and I bet that at least 60 percent of them have someone who feels that they must critisize something on the post.
It's not critisism...it's us, pointing something out, that needs to be addressed (i.e. - giving advice, making suggestions, etc) hence what this board is for. I've posted the pics of my fish and my tanks here and have gotten critisism...it's all part of the game. Dont be afraid to post your pictures.
I will admit I came across negatively, in my last post...I didnt realize how rude it sounded when I typed it out.
That doesnt change the fact that he has med/large fish in a 90gal. tank, with the mentality that "they wont grow too much more". That's completely incorrect.
Those fish will continue to grow, their territories will continue to grow, there will be fighting over territory, the fish will stress, then get disease and then die. That's what I dont want to see happen. It's not an opinion...it's a stone cold FACT.
From looking at the very first picture, that he posted, and seeing the Tang and Trigger, you can tell, right off the bat, that the tank is too small...and, there are many more fish in there with them.
They are very nice tanks...nice aquascaping, lighting, cabinets, etc. But for the health of the fish, he either needs to upgrade or give the fish to someone who can properly care for them and give them the space that they need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top