Estimate Your Success Rate...

[Reeferhead]

Please don't vote if you've been in the hobby less than a year!

And don't count fish still alive as "wins"

Be honest and think back all the way to your entrance into the hobby until today. How many fish have you purchased? How many lived out what you would consider their maximum lifespan?

For the sake of this poll, if you ordered a fish and in came in dead or died within the first few days still count it in your "lost column." I'm trying to get an idea of the success rate after the fish leave a store, whether online or brick and mortar." Well... our perceived success rate anyway.

Please just keep it simple. No need to debate semantics here. Yes, we're all aware every fish is ecologically dead as soon as it leaves the ocean.

 

[humaguy]

well, for almost the last 20 years my purchases have all been mail, either online or diver/collector...
the ten years before that were lfs and around 1990 I started purchasing online...
the success rate, believe it or not, has been higher during the last 20 years and has been almost perfect the last 10 years...
overall, I would say close to 75-80%..

 

[ca1ore]

Well, pretty good since about 2000, when I started doing QT for almost all fish and stopped making foolish purchases - probably in the 75% range. A lot worse before that - below 50% certainly. I'd also define success as a year or longer.

 

[HiImSean]

I'm 100%, two years in and only 2 fish I hope to be adding some more soon and hopefully I can keep a good track record.

 

[madweazl]

A year constitutes success?

The only fish I can say had close to a full life was a yellow watchman goby that was in my tank for about 11 years. Beyond that, I've had to take the rest of the tanks down for moves so nothing was established for more than a couple years. Based on that, I'm probably around 2%!

 

[passedpawn]

I've been keeping saltwater fish since the 80's. I have 6 fish now. I'd say I've watched a lot of the little guys die. Sorry for that.

If success is 1 year or longer, I'm doing really really well. I did have a suicide about a year ago, but I'm not taking responsibility for that!

 

[Reeferhead]

I may need to reword and restart this poll. As I read it again, what I'm asking is a bit confusing.

IMO 1 year does not mean success. Unless of course, the fish's maximum potential lifespan is only a year.

For the purpose of this poll, I would not count any fish I currently own (no matter how long I've had it) as a success. If my tank crashes today and I lost all my fish then I have cut short their maximum potential lifespan. I wouldn't count these fish yet as either successes or failures

I have also kept a YWG for 8 years and it died of what I can only assume was old age. This is a success. I kept an orchid dottyback for 9 years with the same result, success. 3 pearly jawfish for 2+ years, successes also as their maximum potential lifespan is only about 3 years and I assume they were already a year old when I got them.

On the other hand I have bought and lost easily over 100 fish in my 20+ year career in this hobby. Most of the deaths came within the first few week but some after several years. Jumpers, disease, various tank mishaps early on in the hobby when I was still learning, etc.

For the purpose of this poll, I wouldn't could fish that you remove for you system as a success unless it has lived out the majority of it maximum potential lifespan in your tank. If not, don't factor it in as a success or failure.

With these stipulation I believe if everyone was truly honest in their assessments, the average success rate in the poll results would be much lower. I think I will wait a few weeks and restart this poll fresh to see if this is the case.

Thanks for your participation and comments

 

[SDguy]

I'd say less than 20%. Life never allowed me in the past to keep a tank for 20 years, which is what most larger fish should live to be. By your definition any fish sold or given away doesn't count.

Gobies, wrasses, and some anthias I've kept to what I think was an average lifespan.

Will I have my current large fish into my sixties? Unlikely. And since there is a 40+ year old angelfish in France, I'm actually not sure even 20 years is appropriate for the expected life of larger fish, considering there have been 20 year old clownfish.

FWIW my success rate with cats throughout my life is even lower, by these guidelines

 

[SDguy]

well, for almost the last 20 years my purchases have all been mail, either online or diver/collector...
the ten years before that were lfs and around 1990 I started purchasing online...
the success rate, believe it or not, has been higher during the last 20 years and has been almost perfect the last 10 years...
overall, I would say close to 75-80%..

Ted, by his definitions, unless you still have a fish that you bought in 1990 or so, none of them count

 

[humaguy]

Ted, by his definitions, unless you still have a fish that you bought in 1990 or so, none of them count

thanks for the laugh Peter, I needed it...
ironic that I am in this thread as I am still waiting for the baby clarion, which, sad to say, I am pretty sure will be doa...
heat pack just hit its limit and I have still not been given a delivery time...fish was in Newark about an hour ago...ugh...

 

[SDguy]

Oh no!! So sorry, Ted Seeing these pics lately has almost turned me to the dark side

 

[humaguy]

Oh no!! So sorry, Ted Seeing these pics lately has almost turned me to the dark side

Thanks Peter...lol...

 

[ca1ore]

IMO 1 year does not mean success. For the purpose of this poll, I wouldn't could fish that you remove for you system as a success unless it has lived out the majority of it maximum potential lifespan in your tank. If not, don't factor it in as a success or failure.

Then even those of us who would consider themselves experts would perform poorly. If living out its maximum potential lifespan is your benchmark, then I'd rate myself at something less than 1%. I have kept two fish, a yellow stripe marroon and a yellow tail damsel, for a length of time that I'd consider a maximum normal lifespan. All other fish either were given on to other reefers (so not counted) or died in my care due to various tank crashes, disease outbreaks, bullying, etc.

Of course a maximum potential lifespan is a also not particularly likely even if the fish is left on the reef, given predation, disease, etc. Reason I suggested a year is that seems like a reasonable proxy for average lifespan on the reef. In retrospect, perhaps a bit short, so maybe 2 years?

 

[OU11BB]

I say anywhere from 60-80%. Most of the ones I have lost were due to disasters with prolonged power outages that killed off my tank as well as a faulty timer that gave me a 4 day photo period when I was away for vacation. I think without these disasters my success rate would be higher.

 

[Reeferhead]

I admit, I have set a high standard for what I define as success. IME, seeking perfection is the most direct route to producing improvement. Closing the lifecycle should always be the ultimate goal but I believe providing an environment stable enough to maximize the lifespan of the creatures we keep should be a realistic mark for most hobbyists. FWIW

 

[Reeferhead]

IMO, the argument that success can be defined by meeting the fish's natural lifespan if left in the wild (accounting for predation, etc) is illogical. If you adopted a starving child from a 3rd world country and brought he/she to live with you in your home and that child died after 2 years due to lack of care on your part, would you consider the raising of that child a success because he/she would have died anyway in their native home?! Gruesome and perhaps a bit out there but still a valid analogy.

 

[ca1ore]

IMO, the argument that success can be defined by meeting the fish's natural lifespan if left in the wild (accounting for predation, etc) is illogical. If you adopted a starving child from a 3rd world country and brought he/she to live with you in your home and that child died after 2 years due to lack of care on your part, would you consider the raising of that child a success because he/she would have died anyway in their native home?! Gruesome and perhaps a bit out there but still a valid analogy.

I don't find that analogy to be valid at all. In one case you are talking about a human being, in the second a fish! Not comparable at all, and very different survival strategies (not going to bore with mammal versus fish progeny survival strategies, but they ARE different). For example, many years ago I had a very large tank and kept a sizable group of Lyretail Anthias. They established a pecking order, and bickered constantly, and every now and then the individual at the bottom of the order would wither and die. Direct analog to nature, so success or failure?

I just think judging the 'success' of a captive fish based on the maximum potential lifespan (a measure without clear delineation) makes no sense, and the vast majority of the animals we keep will not meet this criteria - thus making comparisons largely pointless.

If I am able to successfully acquire, acclimate, QT and integrate a fish (or invert, for that matter) into my DT ... and then have it live in that tank for at least a year ... then I count that as a success. That seems to me to be a much better 'standard'.

'nuff said!

 

[Reeferhead]

I don't find that analogy to be valid at all. In one case you are talking about a human being, in the second a fish! Not comparable at all, and very different survival strategies (not going to bore with mammal versus fish progeny survival strategies, but they ARE different). For example, many years ago I had a very large tank and kept a sizable group of Lyretail Anthias. They established a pecking order, and bickered constantly, and every now and then the individual at the bottom of the order would wither and die. Direct analog to nature, so success or failure?

I just think judging the 'success' of a captive fish based on the maximum potential lifespan (a measure without clear delineation) makes no sense, and the vast majority of the animals we keep will not meet this criteria - thus making comparisons largely pointless.

If I am able to successfully acquire, acclimate, QT and integrate a fish (or invert, for that matter) into my DT ... and then have it live in that tank for at least a year ... then I count that as a success. That seems to me to be a much better 'standard'.

'nuff said!

Would the the individuals lowest in the pecking order wither and die from submission under natural conditions? Given near unlimited space on the reef and the option to change shoals? If this is actually the case than yes its possible to construe what you describe as a success under the definition above as you were able to mimic natural conditions (and selection) and allow the group as a whole to live out their maximum potential lifespan in your tank. The big difference however, is that the anthias in your tank are not reproducing so the benefit of this natural adaptation to build a stronger group over multiple generations is lost in captivity. Perhaps a better option would be to remove the weaker fish before its killed off?

 

[nonstopfishies]

well, for almost the last 20 years my purchases have all been mail, either online or diver/collector...
the ten years before that were lfs and around 1990 I started purchasing online...
the success rate, believe it or not, has been higher during the last 20 years and has been almost perfect the last 10 years...
overall, I would say close to 75-80%..

Written anywhere your methods? Have seen the many amazing fish you keep. Wondering what steps you take to ensure success, mostly QT wise.