Common misconceptions on swf.com

[1journeyman]

I volunteered at the TSA for a couple of years while I was in college. I'm aware of the struggles and issues they had and have.
As Ophiura noted fish can be kept at lower salinity. I've seen nothing that says that is what is best for the fish, however.

 

[stanlalee]

Originally Posted by ophiura
PS...for those saying damsels shouldn't die why cycling...well let me play devil's advocate.
Proponents of "old school" fish cycling used 1 damsel per 5 gallons, fed very heavily, and left the dead bodies (yes, there were) in there. They thought this was THE way to cycle a tank...a hard cycle. Way hard. It presented the tank with a worst case scenario.
And yes, damsels do die. If you want a hard cycle...that is a fact. It is a hard environment. Now if you have fish and live rock, well this is a different issue and a different type of cycling that may ultimately have no cycle to speak of. We all have different ideas and opinions on these topics, and even different thoughts on what "damsel cycling" means.
.
I believe I addressed that. I have never heard the "hard" cycle method and it makes no sense to me why that is better than time. a damsel per 5 gallons and heavy feeding is not the proper way to cycle a tank with damsels. 1rst nano's werent a big craze when I got into the hobby and no one was starting saltwater tanks with less than 30gallons. What I did and what I was taught was to use 1 or 2 damsels regardless of tank size (30 gallons or 130gallons) and feed like you feed damsels which is infrequently (every other day at best)to anybody interested in decent water quality during a time when skimmer use was practically non existance. by the time a damsel or two in those size tanks built up an ammonia build up the biofilter was slowly on its way to development. I have NEVER lost one damsel OR clownfish for that matter doing this. The next key to that method was to WAIT a long time after the cycle before adding a new addition. Once you cycled a tank with a damsel it would be 3-6 months before another fish was added. instead of cycling "hard" to build a large biofilter you were to just wait longer to add fish thats the old school method we used and we NEVER lost a damsel or had one act anything different than normal.

 

[ophiura]

The point is we can be talking about apparently the same thing, and yet be talking about totally different things.

 

[stanlalee]

Originally Posted by ophiura
The point is we can be talking about apparently the same thing, and yet be talking about totally different things.
yes but in this case there is a definate right and wrong way. one way kills fish and exposes them to high toxicity and one doesn't. Different than discussing tank size which is subjective to us (only the fish know for sure. hell maybe they arent even smart enough to know).

 

[myreef05]

I started my 1st sw tank in 1987 and made all the wrong mistakes because there wasn't anyone available to share their knowledge with me. So I started a 55 with UG filetrs, CC from the beach in Hawaii and went through many Morish Idols, Blue Hippo's, YT's and even a sweetlips in there with 2 morays. NEVER CYCLED the tank, did water changes with tap water, and dumped in the salt directly into the tank until my floating thermometer/hydrometer floated at the correct salinity level "range". I never checked the water parameters and always thought that the fish store was ripping me off with poor selection of fish that was not healthy collected right there in Hawaii.
Knowing what i do now it is shocking what I did as a new aquarist. My tangs now in my 6 foot 125 gallon tank NEVER swim all the way to the left touch the side like an Olympic swimmer and then sprint back to the other side to touch that wall. The 6ft rule is there to help a new aquarist not make the same mistakes as we did many years and or fish ago. Some lessons are best learned for your self.
The rules can be argued all day long, but it is actually dependant on the:
1. health of the fish
2. number of fish
3. size DOES matter guys but the more room they have the better. The stress level is lower if a fish has the ability to swim in more room. Doesn't mean they will though as i described earlier.
4. quality of water to include temp., and all the other parameters.
5. and lastly, not overfeeding but feeding them QUALITY and VARIED diet.
Just my observations/experiences over the past 20 years.
And my closing statement is, if you have to ask about an anemone or mandarin dragonette or tang, you are not ready.

 

[fishyg]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Very well put. I can accept this... the only problem is that those with nominal experience, who were once given this advise, start flame wars based on these theories and think that they are true scientific guidelines.
Crimzy, I agree with you 100%. Please read my replies under " Pygmy Angel in 12 gallon tank". It just amazes me how some people want to cut someones head off if a tang is not in a 6 ft tank. Half the people that say this probably dont even have a tank, they are just wanting to " stir up the bee nest". BTW, has anyone ever asked the fish? When you get a reply, please let me know what it says.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by FishyG
.... BTW, has anyone ever asked the fish? When you get a reply, please let me know what it says.
Good point. I'm gonna go buy a litter of puppies and leave them in my trunk. I mean, if they don't like it I'm sure they will tell me.

The fish is your responsibility. You are obligated to provide adequate habitat for it.
Your post on the Angel btw was ill-advised and inaccurate. For one thing Angels can be aggressive. Putting a fish that can reach 3 inches into a tank that is too small is asking for a nightmare. Your sole justification was" it's your money so go for it".

 

[murph]

First off this has been an excellent debate and this community should be commended. It is a rare Internet forum were such strong opinions get expressed and the thread does not degenerate into mindless arguments and name calling. Good job everyone.
On the other hand I believe this thread speaks to general viability of keeping salt water fish in general.
As long as I can remember I have had some sort of aquarium. I had breeding set ups with various species of FW fish with the occasional FO saltwater tank and outside ponds. However it was only in the last few years that you could say I had a true reef setup with all the bells and whistles and at this point I am giving serious consideration to putting and end to that and going in a different direction as far as aquarium keeping.
I think if the evidence in total were presented to an objective jury of people who have never been in the hobby that the verdict would be that SW species in general do not fare well in home aquariums and from the evidence in this thread even large commercial operations.
I know that some of you will respond with "I have had this particular fish for x number of years" or "my SW system has been running well for x number of years" but I truly believe what we are all involved in here is a somewhat costly and always uphill battle that given enough time we will all eventually lose.
This break down of system occurs even in the wild. Take a microscopic portion of the wild system; a reef aquarium, and that system break down is greatly accelerated.
By no means am I suggesting that everyone leave the hobby over any sort of ethical concerns. But with the dawn of Fenners "Conscientious Marine Aquarium" (IMO an oxymoron) debate about this hobby's various methodologies gets constantly injected with ethical undertones rather than based on scientific realities or even anecdotal evidence.
Websters
Conscientious
1 : governed by or conforming to the dictates of conscience
Conscience
1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c : the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego
As you can see these terms have far more to do with human emotion than anything else. IMO it is a mistake to combine this with an endover such as reef keeping. However an excellent tool when combined with the exercise of denial.
So the final point is, the next time you are tempted to admonish or back up a point on this forum based on some sort of ethical argument keep in mind that to the layman it could easily be argued, and with a good degree of success, that the entire hobby is of questionable ethics. Lets not lend them any help in this regard.

 

[m0nk]

Originally Posted by Murph
First off this has been an excellent debate and this community should be commended. It is a rare Internet forum were such strong opinions get expressed and the thread does not degenerate into mindless arguments and name calling. Good job everyone.
On the other hand I believe this thread speaks to general viability of keeping salt water fish in general.
As long as I can remember I have had some sort of aquarium. I had breeding set ups with various species of FW fish with the occasional FO saltwater tank and outside ponds. However it was only in the last few years that you could say I had a true reef setup with all the bells and whistles and at this point I am giving serious consideration to putting and end to that and going in a different direction as far as aquarium keeping.
I think if the evidence in total were presented to an objective jury of people who have never been in the hobby that the verdict would be that SW species in general do not fare well in home aquariums and from the evidence in this thread even large commercial operations.
I know that some of you will respond with "I have had this particular fish for x number of years" or "my SW system has been running well for x number of years" but I truly believe what we are all involved in here is a somewhat costly and always uphill battle that given enough time we will all eventually lose.
This break down of system occurs even in the wild. Take a microscopic portion of the wild system; a reef aquarium, and that system break down is greatly accelerated.
By no means am I suggesting that everyone leave the hobby over any sort of ethical concerns. But with the dawn of Fenners "Conscientious Marine Aquarium" (IMO an oxymoron) debate about this hobby's various methodologies gets constantly injected with ethical undertones rather than based on scientific realities or even anecdotal evidence.
Websters
Conscientious
1 : governed by or conforming to the dictates of conscience
Conscience
1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c : the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego
As you can see these terms have far more to do with human emotion than anything else. IMO it is a mistake to combine this with an endover such as reef keeping. However an excellent tool when combined with the exercise of denial.
So the final point is, the next time you are tempted to admonish or back up a point on this forum based on some sort of ethical argument keep in mind that to the layman it could easily be argued, and with a good degree of success, that the entire hobby is of questionable ethics. Lets not lend them any help in this regard.
So your justification is that because you believe the hobby to be of questionable ethics (or even somewhat irresponsible, based on your post) to begin with then it's ok not to worry about the well-being of the fish? My particular beliefs (not going to bring my religion into this, just going to stick with "beliefs") are that we have no right to purposely hurt any living thing for any reason. So, based on this belief I shouldn't be in the hobby?
I look at it this way; we all drive cars, right? Cars hurt the environment, right? That's questionable ethics, a paradox, because we know it isn't healthy for something, somewhere, but yet we do it. Why then is this not worse than the general reef-keeping hobby? Most people that realize how driving motor vehicles hurts the Earth and some of it's inhabitants try to make as little impact as possible, perhaps by reducing the amount they drive alone or by buying cars that are more fuel efficient, etc. So it goes with reef-keeping. If we know something isn't good for the fish we try not to bring it into the equation. We're not purposely going out to hurt the fish (even though, yes, it does sometimes happen - things do die) but we have a responsibility to the live inhabitants to make it as healthy for them as we can in the paradox of keeping them.

 

[fishyg]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Good point. I'm gonna go buy a litter of puppies and leave them in my trunk. I mean, if they don't like it I'm sure they will tell me.

The fish is your responsibility. You are obligated to provide adequate habitat for it.
Your post on the Angel btw was ill-advised and inaccurate. For one thing Angels can be aggressive. Putting a fish that can reach 3 inches into a tank that is too small is asking for a nightmare. Your sole justification was" it's your money so go for it".
You still dont get it. I will still stand behind what I say. Good luck.

 

[reefforbrains]

My Dad can beat up your Dad............
Horse is dead, put the whip away. And for the record- no the horse didnt die from being in too small of a corral....

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Murph
So the final point is, the next time you are tempted to admonish or back up a point on this forum based on some sort of ethical argument keep in mind that to the layman it could easily be argued, and with a good degree of success, that the entire hobby is of questionable ethics. Lets not lend them any help in this regard.
This is a good point. The entire hobby of keeping sw fish is riddled with hypocrisy. So many on here portray themselves as fish lovers, however our collective involvement in this hobby causes drastic damage to the environment. We do not keep fish for their benefit, we do it for our own. While it is true that there are minimum standards of care (that change often), the "holier than thou" attitude is ridiculous considering the amount of deaths that each of us has contributed to. And this is not even considerinng the massive losses from collecting, shipping, maintaining by retailers, as well as collecting liverock, corals, etc.
All this being said, I can live with it but let's not hold ourselves out to be something we're not... true fish lovers.

 

[ophiura]

I think "holier than thou" is often confused with people who genuinely don't feel "you," another hobbyist, has to make the same mistakes they made. That they have an opportunity to learn and yes to advance the hobby.
This hobby has come a long way in recent years in regard to developing sustainable ways to not have dramatic impact on the environment. There are many ways to promote that, and people are ENTITLED to promote that just as anyone else can promote their contrary beliefs. There ARE people who have gone to buying only tank raised, tank propagated, etc. While the original fish/corals whatever were wild, great strides are being made in maintaining these lines through captive breeding.
There are changes people can make, even in the purchase of wild caught specimens. That is where discouraging keeping fish with extremely high mortalities comes in. It is where discouraging people keeping fish that don't have appropriate tanks to house that animal in long term.
I am tired of people dismissing the opinions of others based on what those opinions are. Demeaning them by implying they must not have a tank because they said such and such. Everyone's view is WELCOME on this board, so long as it is stated politely, even if it is "holier than thou" or completely contrary to that.
What do we have in this thread?
We have folks saying "oh there are the holier than thou closed minded PETA types" and others saying "oh you should be more responsible for keeping that fish!" types.
Sounds like a discussion board in the works...all opinions are valid - but name calling, dismissive comments and overly judgemental comments (leading to sarcastic jibes) aren't good for sharing ideas. That is what we are all here to do, on any side of the topic.
But do keep in mind:
- limitation of discussion boards
- misunderstanding tone
- lack of facial emotions that tell people you are joking, etc
- talking about the same, yet really totally different ideas (eg the damsel cycling above).
Be clear, polite, and productive and people will consider your opinions - even if they are "outlying" opinions!

 

[fishyg]

Originally Posted by ophiura
I think "holier than thou" is often confused with people who genuinely don't feel "you," another hobbyist, has to make the same mistakes they made. That they have an opportunity to learn and yes to advance the hobby.
This hobby has come a long way in recent years in regard to developing sustainable ways to not have dramatic impact on the environment. There are many ways to promote that, and people are ENTITLED to promote that just as anyone else can promote their contrary beliefs. There ARE people who have gone to buying only tank raised, tank propagated, etc. While the original fish/corals whatever were wild, great strides are being made in maintaining these lines through captive breeding.
There are changes people can make, even in the purchase of wild caught specimens. That is where discouraging keeping fish with extremely high mortalities comes in. It is where discouraging people keeping fish that don't have appropriate tanks
I am tired of people dismissing the opinions of others based on what those opinions are. Demeaning them by implying they must not have a tank because they said such and such. Everyone's view is WELCOME on this board, so long as it is stated politely, even if it is "holier than thou" or completely contrary to that.
What do we have in this thread?
We have folks saying "oh there are the holier than thou closed minded PETA types" and others saying "oh you should be more responsible for keeping that fish!" types.
Sounds like a discussion board in the works...all opinions are valid - but name calling, dismissive comments and overly judgemental comments (leading to sarcastic jibes) aren't good for sharing ideas. That is what we are all here to do, on any side of the topic.
But do keep in mind:
- limitation of discussion boards
- misunderstanding tone
- lack of facial emotions that tell people you are joking, etc
- talking about the same, yet really totally different ideas (eg the damsel cycling above).
Be clear, polite, and productive and people will consider your opinions - even if they are "outlying" opinions!
Well said.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
This is a good point. The entire hobby of keeping sw fish is riddled with hypocrisy. So many on here portray themselves as fish lovers, however our collective involvement in this hobby causes drastic damage to the environment. We do not keep fish for their benefit, we do it for our own. While it is true that there are minimum standards of care (that change often), the "holier than thou" attitude is ridiculous considering the amount of deaths that each of us has contributed to. And this is not even considerinng the massive losses from collecting, shipping, maintaining by retailers, as well as collecting liverock, corals, etc.
All this being said, I can live with it but let's not hold ourselves out to be something we're not... true fish lovers.
Crimzy I am a true "fish lover". I dove the GBR 4 years ago and fell in love. I've studied the plight of the world's oceans. I'm a member of several conservation groups. I do my part.
My aquarium is an educational tool. Because of it a lot of students saw first hand the complexity of the reef. I had high school students hang out in my office just to watch "their" fish. The lined up to feed the tank. They fell in love with it. 10 of my students have gotten SCUBA certified, 2 are currently Biology majors in college.... I treat my fish well, research my specimens, and provide great habitat. Their diet is better then my own as I make my own food to feed them.
I've argued this before. In a perfect world we wouldn't need Sea World, or the State Aquariums, or Zoos, etc. We don't live in a perfect world. If people don't see an issue they won't be concerned about it. My aquarium provided a window to the reef that many people otherwise would never see.
This is more then a hobby to me. My aquarium isn't decoration. It serves a good and noble purpose and it's working well.

 

[rattler739]

I just have to say that I just read this entire thing and I learned a lot (might not actually help me but still interesting, but, then again might down the road).
There is one question that I have, how long have all of you been keeping sw (FO, FOWLR, Reef, Nanos, Picos, or worked at an Aquarium)? To me, being new to the sw hobby (bout 5 months), that would be the most important thing, and I will still consider, and research, what everyone says. But I will more likely take an opinion from someone that has been doing this for 20yrs over someone like myself with little experience even though we might say the exact same thing.

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in
will definately check this one a lot

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by rattler739
There is one question that I have, how long have all of you been keeping sw (FO, FOWLR, Reef, Nanos, Picos, or worked at an Aquarium)?
I got my first sw tank when I was 10, which would be 21 years ago, (not to date myself or anything... no pun intended). I worked at an LFS for about 4 years in high school and the beginning of college.

 

[sc0rp_xiii]

Originally Posted by ReefForBrains
My Dad can beat up your Dad............
Horse is dead, put the whip away. And for the record- no the horse didnt die from being in too small of a corral....

NiCe....

For the record, I am new to this compared to the others posting here as I have less then two years experience with SW. When I started, I resurrected a 55G from the garage with crushed coral, penguin bio wheel filter, and no live rock. I have come along way since then thanks in large part to this forum, but the point being is that it was cycled using damsels after the water setup for a few weeks and they never seemed to mind it at all. The LFS directed me to do so. They were moved to my brother's newly setup 72g bowfront to help it cycle when I was setting up my 125G and taking down the 55G and all are alive and doing great.

 

[reefkprz]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
My aquarium is an educational tool.
This is more then a hobby to me. My aquarium isn't decoration. It serves a good and noble purpose and it's working well.

110%
I use my aquarium (and many other pets) to educate any kid (this includes adults) that comes into my house about whatever questions they ask about them. which is great because sometimes they ask questions I dont know the answers to and I learn more by finding the answer. plus I think I may have helped educate at least one or two people on how to aquaculture their own corals. my small part to preserve the worlds reefs.

 

[crimzy]

Gentlemen,
Let me start by making it clear that I am not opposed to fish keeping. I love my fish tanks and enjoy maintaining them. However, I am also realistic about the damage that our hobby has on the oceans. We should not kid ourselves.
I respectfully disagree with the value that journey and reefkeeprz (and probably many others) place on your role in the marine environment. I think that you completely underestimate the damage that this hobby, and your particular roles, have on the oceans. You indicate that you use your tank(s) as an educational tool and therefore are contributing to the greater good by keeping these fish. However, if you have been in the hobby for 10 years, I am going to estimate that, conservatively, probably 50-60 fish have died on your watch... maybe more, maybe a few less, (I'm assuming more in the beginning and less as you gain experience). Of course, if you've been doing this longer, then add to this number. Furthermore, if you contribute, for instance, $1,000.00 a year to the hobby (either livestock or dry goods), you have to assume your pro rata share of the damage that the overall hobby causes in terms of collection, shipping and retail losses. Therefore, for every kid who says "your tank is cool, is that a nemo?", you have probably, inadvertantly caused the death of many fish/corals, etc.
I'm sure that most people will disagree because we all want to hold ourselves out as virtuous for being involved in this hobby. As I said before, you can love your fish tanks, you can love maintaining salt water fish, but if you truly loved the individual fish, you would not keep them. This is like claiming, "I love the silverback gorilla that I captured in Uganda... I hug him every night and feed him the best food."
Am I a hypocrit for thinking this way and still keeping my tanks?

Probably not, (I'm a cold hearted

[hr]
, BTW).