That woud be a HUGE tank.
jdennis
New Member
You make a good point that you do care about the fish, which is why you want them in a big enough tank to live out their full life. Yet being in any tank at all their life is reduced compared to the ocean. Of course, in the ocean they are subject to predators.
Yet I have to agree that they often do seem to do fine in smaller tank than people suggest on here. But I imagine a curve could be drawn, if you charted life expectancy vs size of tank, and the bigger the tank the longer they live. You might even find they they get their longest life expectancy at 500 gallons. Does that mean that is the minimum tank size? Of course not. Instead we justify a 100 gallon because while they do live shorter, it is still long enough to make us feel as though we are not being cruel. Yet regardless of all this, you may still be shortening it's lifespan by simply owning it.
(Reminding anyone else of college Ecology?)
I always thought that if you liked fish enough to want them to live fully, it's better to leave them in the ocean. Or take the losses and accept it, and realize that others threshold for reducing the lifespan of the fish may be the higher than yours.
Yet I have to agree that they often do seem to do fine in smaller tank than people suggest on here. But I imagine a curve could be drawn, if you charted life expectancy vs size of tank, and the bigger the tank the longer they live. You might even find they they get their longest life expectancy at 500 gallons. Does that mean that is the minimum tank size? Of course not. Instead we justify a 100 gallon because while they do live shorter, it is still long enough to make us feel as though we are not being cruel. Yet regardless of all this, you may still be shortening it's lifespan by simply owning it.
(Reminding anyone else of college Ecology?)
I always thought that if you liked fish enough to want them to live fully, it's better to leave them in the ocean. Or take the losses and accept it, and realize that others threshold for reducing the lifespan of the fish may be the higher than yours.
sleasia
Active Member
Well, here's the deal. I did put three yellow tangs in a 25 gallon qt (quarantine/hospital) tank for two weeks in hyposalinity. I cut the qt time short because the three began fighting, and transferred them to the display (200 gal tank) They have thrived and have been in the 200 gal tank now maybe 4 months without problems. So apparently the two weeks in the 25 gal did not adversely effect them....but any more than two weeks would have probably killed them all. I would only put saltwater fish in small tanks for qt or treatment purposes, and then you may not be able to keep them there for the desired length of time. My mistake was putting three in. But I have found that having three yellow tangs works out better in terms of the aggressive factor. They fight less with other fish than if there was only one in the tank
ophiura
Active Member
Originally Posted by jdennis
I always thought that if you liked fish enough to want them to live fully, it's better to leave them in the ocean. Or take the losses and accept it, and realize that others threshold for reducing the lifespan of the fish may be the higher than yours.
This is a very common argument in this debate.
I don't personally subscribe to it, because I think it is, to be honest, an easy out. There are some fish, for sure that I feel should not be sold in this hobby at all. But for others, IMO, there is still a minimum level of care that I think we are obligated to provide animals, especially those that are collected from the wild for our specific entertainment. If I bought into this argument, then yeah, I could keep anything I wanted even if it lived a few days without a guilty bone in my body, but I don't believe its right. Believe me I have worked with people who wanted to stock up the tank for the big game and party, but you wouldn't be buying things from me.
There is no harm at all in being vocal and having an opinion about this, IMO. And I'll add on either side of the argument
It shouldn't cross a line into bashing, or the "no way no how under any circumstances" line that is common in some cases (and drives me nuts)...but I think it is great that people will openly argue for minimum care levels for animals. And often they are bringing to light certain outdated ideas, and by education, changing the threshold.
The "threshold" argument, IMO though, is risky...why do we have things like the ASPCA if we should embrace different thresholds for reducing lifespans by keeping animals in inappropriate conditions? I understand this argument, I really do...but I still think there is a point that line crosses where it is not reasonable and I think that most people can agree with that when really provided with the facts (eg that fish actually DON"T just grow to the size of their tanks - if they are healthy). We are pretty certain now that there are requirements in diet and tank size that do significantly improve growth in these fish and we can provide well for them.
But it really crosses more into an ethical debate over a biological debate at points. :notsure:
So we need to find that compromise point.,..which I think has settled around the 5' tank mark.
I always thought that if you liked fish enough to want them to live fully, it's better to leave them in the ocean. Or take the losses and accept it, and realize that others threshold for reducing the lifespan of the fish may be the higher than yours.
This is a very common argument in this debate.
I don't personally subscribe to it, because I think it is, to be honest, an easy out. There are some fish, for sure that I feel should not be sold in this hobby at all. But for others, IMO, there is still a minimum level of care that I think we are obligated to provide animals, especially those that are collected from the wild for our specific entertainment. If I bought into this argument, then yeah, I could keep anything I wanted even if it lived a few days without a guilty bone in my body, but I don't believe its right. Believe me I have worked with people who wanted to stock up the tank for the big game and party, but you wouldn't be buying things from me.
There is no harm at all in being vocal and having an opinion about this, IMO. And I'll add on either side of the argument
The "threshold" argument, IMO though, is risky...why do we have things like the ASPCA if we should embrace different thresholds for reducing lifespans by keeping animals in inappropriate conditions? I understand this argument, I really do...but I still think there is a point that line crosses where it is not reasonable and I think that most people can agree with that when really provided with the facts (eg that fish actually DON"T just grow to the size of their tanks - if they are healthy). We are pretty certain now that there are requirements in diet and tank size that do significantly improve growth in these fish and we can provide well for them.
But it really crosses more into an ethical debate over a biological debate at points. :notsure:
So we need to find that compromise point.,..which I think has settled around the 5' tank mark.
O
oreo12
Guest
75 gal min. imo. A 10 is way to small for anything
jdennis
New Member
I like your argument ophiura. I dont really agree with it, but you make good points on the side of pet husbandry in general. By all means, if you keep something as a pet it is your responsbility to treat it humanely. Somewhat ironic that I would use the term humane, but it applies nonetheless.
However, I would point out that there are probably others like myself that like the science of it as well. No this does not mean "let's experiment on animals and torture them to learn stuff". My degree was in environmental science, and much of this delved into ecology and studying things like species density and species diversity. How many animals can live in a given size of area? Will they actually thrive in this area or will their life be reduced? How much will it be reduced?
Most of the time there are so many other factors than just the size of the area though. While say a deer doesnt really need other animals to survive, just vegetation to feed on, they tend to suffer if there is not much diversity in the animals around them. This might be because a lack of other animals would reduce the fertilization and eventually reduce the vegetation.
Fish are the same. We seem to believe that putting them in a big enough aquarium will provide them with everything they need, but in reality we can never replicate the kind of diversity they have in the ocean. I applaud those who try. Regardless of this, many factors in how this species would have lived will be changed. A smaller tank is one more factor. While a critical one, you do have many stories of people having a tang live in a 35 instead of a 55 for quite a few years. Would he have lived longer in the 55? Probably. Maybe even 7 instead of 6 years. But he may have lived for 8 in a 120. Maybe 9 in a 500. So no matter what you have this threshold that we are obviously willing to cross in order to enjoy them in our homes.
However, I would point out that there are probably others like myself that like the science of it as well. No this does not mean "let's experiment on animals and torture them to learn stuff". My degree was in environmental science, and much of this delved into ecology and studying things like species density and species diversity. How many animals can live in a given size of area? Will they actually thrive in this area or will their life be reduced? How much will it be reduced?
Most of the time there are so many other factors than just the size of the area though. While say a deer doesnt really need other animals to survive, just vegetation to feed on, they tend to suffer if there is not much diversity in the animals around them. This might be because a lack of other animals would reduce the fertilization and eventually reduce the vegetation.
Fish are the same. We seem to believe that putting them in a big enough aquarium will provide them with everything they need, but in reality we can never replicate the kind of diversity they have in the ocean. I applaud those who try. Regardless of this, many factors in how this species would have lived will be changed. A smaller tank is one more factor. While a critical one, you do have many stories of people having a tang live in a 35 instead of a 55 for quite a few years. Would he have lived longer in the 55? Probably. Maybe even 7 instead of 6 years. But he may have lived for 8 in a 120. Maybe 9 in a 500. So no matter what you have this threshold that we are obviously willing to cross in order to enjoy them in our homes.