*Where exactly do you think the German Shepherd came from? For us to have the German Shepherd, at some point a wolf had to have been put in an unnatural environment that made it a more reliable, loyal animal. In doing so, the German Shepherd sacrifices its ability to survive on its own, without human intervention. Thus in the grand scheme of things it is made weaker to ensure ultimate survival (Which do you think will go exctinct first, German Shepherds or wolves?). The same thing can and has happened with many species of fish; clowns, dottybacks, cardinals, etc. We would not have the domesticated dog without having put the wolf in an unnatural state, and we will not have domesticated fish without placing them in an unnatural state (granted fish are not dogs and some fish will never become domesticated, but there is really only one way to find out).
*I didn't want to single out the particular person, but I believe msman825 was dancing around that notion when he started saying things like,"there's a lot of fish coming out of this tank in a bodybag.." etc.
*I don't like the way this guy is keeping his tank, I have said that repeatedly. There is no way those fish are going to be healthy for any length of time in there. The point of my illustration was to point out that I feel the health of the individual fish takes precedence over the size of the tank or how many you choose to place in your tank. If you can keep a fish perfectly healthy in a smaller tank (not everyone can afford large tanks, so for many this is their only option), then by all means I think you should do it if you want to. However, much of the time tank size and space are directly proportionate to the health of the fish, and thus they should not put a fish into an environment in which they do not stand a fair chance of survival.
*I understand why you wanted to make this comparison, but I think it weakens your point when you try to compare fish to people, and it sometimes causes people to dismiss an otherwise valid observation.
*True, the clownfish is an example of a fish that adapts very well to captivity. Why is this? It breeds successfully in the tank environment! That is the height of natural behavior: reproduction. The vast majority of species, however, do not breed in captivity very often, if at all. Tangs, angels, butterflyfish, etc. (as well as several smaller species), are not known for having a good track record of breeding in aquariums, no matter the size of the tank. Thus clearly demonstrating that we continue to fail to provide an adequate environment for these fish. As far as keeping fish comfortable... for clarity, my point is that if you can keep a fish physically healthy in the environment you provide, I believe you are doing your job. That does not mean that I think keeping 86 fish in a 240 gallon tank will accomplish that goal. It is a pretty strict criteria I am talking about. However, if Seafood comes to find out that 40 fish can be kept in that tank with each one living for many years (those that have long lifespans, at least), and be as physically healthy as they could conceiveably be in a larger tank, I think that is fine. But this is purely in theory, no one I know can accomplish this. My point was that if the only objection is that they are too densely packed, I would say it is irrelavent so long as they are physically thriving (and living long lives). I personally don't think a fish cares whether it thinks it has a lot of room or not, so long as there are no predators and it is well fed. That said, many fish absolutely need a lot of room to stay healthy.
*To a degree I am playing devil's advocate, but I do think a lot of people here tend to forget that these are fish we are talking about and not people. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of these creatures, not necessarily to provide them with every conceivable comfort under the sun. I think we as humans should seek to provide them with all they need for physcial health, first and foremost. Within that boundary, however, I think people should be able to make the decisions they want as to how a tank's compostition is shaped. If they want more fish, they should get more fish (so long as no fish suffers physically from the addition). I think some people place more emphasis on the emotions of the fish than the desires of the human. You cannot prove to me that a fish has emotions. The only real means of measuring how a fish is doing is to analyze it's physical health. I do not believe they are capable of appreciating extra space unless it is a requirment of their physical well-being. They are not known for their intelligence, and I do not think fish are as "deep" (please pardon the pun, lol) as some people seem to think they are. (this is not directed at you in particular, kalare, I wouldn't say you really fit this category)
*Mostly I agree with your last point. What I meant to say is that often I cannot keep fish as healthy as I would like (they do very well, but I think I can always do better), even when using generally "accepted" methods (I've got 6 fish in my 75 gallon tank, the largest being a female false percula clown) . If someone can do a better job than me, using more unconventional methods, then I personally can't find fault with their approach. That would be the point at which I would ask them for information as to how they accomplish what they are able to accomplish. Seafood has given me no indication that all of these fish are healthy, and that they will continue to be that way in the foreseeable future, and I have so far criticized Seafood's methods. You are right in that Seafood is open for criticism because of the title of this thread and the way this topic has been handled so far. Lol, "Crazy bio-loading" is not a phrase that inspires confidence in Seafood's methods.
I think I've said enough on this topic, hopefully people understand where I am coming from. Thanks for your input, kalare, you've made some pretty good points.
P.S. I'll try to cut down on the Devil's Advocate thing in the future, lol.
I've never seen the tang swim across the entire length of the tank... EVER.
).
