It's bigger than the Tang thread

[Original Fin]

Is there any other subject that gets more critical attention here on RC? Use of that word in a thread title is like driving a red sports car past a speed trap. You might be obeying all the rules of the road, but you're still going to get more attention than that crazed teenager in Mom's Camry going 20 over the limit.

So now that I have your attention, what to do with it?
The subject of Tangs in the context of this thread is just a spring board to spark discussion of some bigger philosophical questions and observations.

I participated in a recent post about you know what, and some interesting and unexpected dialogue came out of it. Let me qualify that...Interesting and unexpected to me. I'm still pretty new at this.

I had made a statement that 99.9% of us wouldn't support the OP's views on Tang's being ok to keep in smaller tanks. It was clearly an uninformed statement to make. For that, I appologize. Admittedly, I've not been at this long enough to make such a claim, and judging by the mixed responses, there seems to be more than meets the eye to this particular argument.
Before I continue, let me be clear that I'm not flip flopping on the subject of Tangs. I still believe they need/deserve more space than most of us are willing or able to provide. I'm not sure if I'll ever own a Tang for those reasons.
Both sides made compelling arguments. First of all, we can't even seem to agree upon what makes any particular fish a good captive fit for marine aquaria, nevermind the Tang. This whole idea of fish being "happy" seems ludacris to me. When fish start talking to us and telling us what they like, ok, maybe then, but for now the best we can do is observe their health and behavior in captivity, and compare that to observations in the wild. HLLE, for example, is an indicator of some sort of need not being met, with tank size being the most plausible potential cause , but who really knows for sure? Am I far off on this?

At any rate, none of the fish we keep are domesticated. Some of them fare better than others in general, and some do better with particular equipment and methodologies. The x factor is of course the aquarist him/herself.
I'd really be interested in finding some stats that compare tropical marine (pet) fish mortality rates with those of say, dogs, or birds. If anyone knows of any, please point me in the right direction. My gut tells me it's proportionally much higher, and that's what makes this bigger than the Tang thing.
There were a couple comments directed to the "Tangs belong in big tanks" people in which the opposition made mention of rock throwing and glass houses. Emotional responses aside, I don't beleive they were wrong for saying so.
At what mortality rate is it morally acceptable to base a Pet industry on? Why is it different for different animals? Why is so much weight given to animals with higher intelligence? Do less intelligent animals have less of a right to live and thrive?

As far as I'm concerned, there is hypocrisy and moral conflict just below the surface of almost everything we do and enjoy, but somehow most of us still manage to sleep at night. I'm not saying that makes it right...I just think it's because we haven't found a better way yet. This hobby is no exception.
What's wrong (to me), is when people become so rooted in selfish convenience that they refuse to accept that there just might be a better way.
The Tang thing is admittedly annoying, and practically a loaded gun when it comes to the jobs of the moderators. Watch a new thread about Tangs and see how quickly the emotional/political posts magically dissapear. I'm responsible for a couple deletes. None-the-less, I beleive these sorts of re-hashed arguments still have value, and apparently so do you, or else we'd all just stop talking about them. It's when we challenge eachother...question the status quo, and continue to strive for a higher standard that our hobby advances, and I like being a part of that...whatever side I'm on, no matter how many times I change my views.

 

[flyyyguy]

Your aquarium is too small

 

[Original Fin]

Haha! Wait. How do you know? My signature doesn't give a measure of unit...only a number. It could be 55 MILLION gallons!

 

[seafd]

When I consider a fish for a tank I always ask myself 2 questions. The first question is how far and fast does the fish swim (tang are long/fast swimmers, clown are short/slow swimmers)? The second is would I want to live in a similar sized room if I scaled the fish and tank to my size (8" long tang is equal to a 6' tall person) (that means that a typical 55 gal tank is the equivalent of a 346 ft^2 room)... Now ask yourself if you would want to live in a 346 ft^2 room with 14' tall ceilings for the rest of your life? If the answer is no, then you shouldn't keep a tang in your tank!!! Game Set Match...

 

[JHemdal]

seafd,

So - Game, Set, Match, you're right and there is NO way to refute your comment?

Oh, but wait! There is:

As I've pointed out before, the biomass of fish in the ocean is on the order of one clownfish in a 20,000 gallon tank - so maybe to keep things on the same order of magnitude, you better not keep ANY fish in your tank.

* The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics gives the density of living matter in the oceans as: 15*10^-8g/cm^3.

Seriously, if you want to anthropomorphize your fish be comparing them to you living in a small room, that is your perogative, but don't apply it just to tangs and not every other fish you keep in your aquarium....


Jay

 

[LifeAquatic]

He's watching you = p

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/tang police/icebryce/tangpolice.jpg?o=1" target="_blank"><img src="http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l91/icebryce/tangpolice.jpg" border="0"></a>

 

[spieszak]

I'd just like to point out that it is my personal belief that in that other not to be mentioned thread a lot of the folks that disagree with the OP aren't posting.. mostly because once someone's mind is made up, the quality of the argument for or against no longer matters. I could be wrong though..
Since there is no authoritative view on most things that will be quibbled about though, I think it all comes down to whether or not you can with the knowledge you have of the fish and its environment... can you really believe that you are doing what is best for the animal. At that point, as skewed or correct as as your view may be.. it's your soul.

 

[Stuart60611]

I have been engaging in a protracted discussion of a very related issue in another thread in this forum and thus have recently put quite a bit of thought into such matters.

See, http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1932521&page=8

There are those who contend that discussions of appropriate tank size make no sense because this is a purely subjective issue incapeable of objective parameters based on substantial experience and reasonable consensus. Such folks argue that we can never replicate the open conditions of nature and therefore placing fish in a home aquarium is always inappropriately small and therefore not subject to minimum size requirements. These people also assert that everyone will never ever agree as to what size system is appropriate for a given species, and there will always be substantial differences of opinion, thereby making such determinations useless.

These postions are unjustified. As I often like to say, you may not get all people to agree with what is the appropriate size tank for a given species, but you can usually get virtually all of them to agree with what clearly is not. Determining what is an appropriate tank size for a species is not difficult or beyond determination. It has nothing to do with fish "happyness", "morality", nor how closely the system replicates natural conditions. It is has to all to with a singular result of inappropriate tank size --fish stress. A fish who is very stressed will engage in varying degrees (depending on the species) of abnormal behavior and/or suffer negative physical effects which can manefest themselves in a number of ways, including, without limitation, aggression, excessive hiding, excessive pacing, greatly impaired immune response and susceptability to disease, reduced feeding, faded color, and stunted size. Based on the reports from many hobbyists who have kept certain fish for years, we are able to determine which tank sizes are apprppriately sized for a given species, which is very simply those sized tanks which do not cause severe stress and these manefested symptoms.

Different groups of fish tolerate such stress to varying degrees. For example, as the link to the below article explains, large angels cannot tolerate this stress well and often succumb to disease when forced to endure it. The same can be largely said of tangs based on everything that I have read, although not to perhaps as severe of a degree. Physically, tangs have a real disadvantage which may explain, in part, why they are so susceptable to disease and parasites. Tangs have a very thin to non-existent slime coat. Slime coats are very important in assisting fish to resist parasites and disease. Severe stress combined with the lack of protection from a slime coat is a recipe for tangs becoming sick.

In summary, a tank is too small for a given species if it causes severe stress which manefests itself in one of the ways described above. Some fish, like triggers and groupers, can tolerate such stress better than others; while large angels and tangs often succumb to disease when exposed to such stress. Therefore, you cannot severely undersize the system or overcrowd it when keeping these fish. At bare minimum. most fish also probably live greatly shortened life expectancies when forced to live with such stress just as people do when forced to live in difficult environmental conditions. Read the below article which willl help you understand why you cannot keep certakin fish in too small of a system. Undersizing a tank for a given species is not a moral issue. It is a health issue.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/fish

 

[Alex T.]

The minute we start rationalizing the ethics of keeping a tang in a whatever sized tank, we should consider if we truly believe that we are providing a better home from that which they came...the wild. From dogs, to cats, to fish, to bats, the answer is clearly a big, fat, NO! If we can't agree on that, then we're not speaking as rational adults.

Now that the air is cleared and we've agreed on Point A, the question remains in keeping any animal in captivity. It is purely for our own enjoyment and doesn't benefit the animal in the least. A cage is a cage..no matter the size.

I guarantee that if I were to incarcerate any of those reading this post in the largest penal facility known to man and got rid of 90% of the current inmates to make more room for you, it wouldn't be enough. You're still confined, not allowed to pass a specific barrier and eat at your own convenience. This is the definition of confinement. Man created the breeds of dogs and cats we see today, but their instinct is still to be with their larger pack, hunting for food and being a dog. Fido would rather be with them than sit on command and lay at your feet at night. It's us that humanizes the animals we keep. Your dog, cat, bird or fish don't think they're human...trust me. Our fish are provided a much better captive environment than maybe 30 years ago...but it's not home. That's why there are sizes of fish in the wild that will never reach the same size in captivity. No fish we keep could ever be fed what it receives in the wild, or reach a full adult lifespan under "normal" captive circumstances.

I can sleep at night because I understand that I'm selfish in this reefing endeavor. I don't believe my tank educates people on the crucial need to save our reefs. Seeing pictures of wild reefs and having the opportunity to snorkel a few I'm well aware of the artificial environment I've created. A half a day with no electric in the middle of the winter and I can guarantee that my "slice of nature" becomes a septic waste land, only to be reassured by others that it's OK and that they're sorry to hear for my loss. Quite honestly, a loss that never needed to happen in the first place.

So before we go pointing fingers at those keeping tangs in Bio cubes we should all just admit that this hobby is a selfish pursuit to keep some of the most difficult animals on Earth alive in our homes for our own personal enjoyment.

 

[Stuart60611]

So before we go pointing fingers at those keeping tangs in Bio cubes we should all just admit that this hobby is a selfish pursuit to keep some of the most difficult animals on Earth alive in our homes for our own personal enjoyment.

More the reason that we have a responsiblity to keep these animals in conditions where they can have good health (read my above post) and can live near or about their natural life expectancies. I do, indeed, point all of my fingers at someone who keeps a fish in a sized system which will greatly impair the health of the fish. This is what I and most others define as animal cruelty. By the way, keeping marine fish is by no means the most difficult animals on earth to keep alive in our homes, particularlly because many thousands of people do so successfully and responsibly for many years. The same cannot be said for lions or elephants.:lol:

 

[jenglish]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with point A. You are making blanket statements. A dog is a domesticated animal. It lives far longer in captivity under ideal conditions than in the wild. Some wild animals can live longer in captivity and be less stressed (measured via cortisol levels) than their wild counterparts if they are free from predation/competition, treatment for disease/injury and have ample food supplies.

A tank bred clownfish in an adequate tank does not suffer IMHO, nor does a sessile invert in a well kept tank. Other fish such as tangs we can argue if any of us meets their basic needs. I think there are some tanks that most people would agree do not meet their basic needs.

 

[jenglish]

Oh.... and if you think this is bad, you may not have been around for the DSB wars or ATS threads. People were having this same talk about tang tank size for years and years. It, like ich debates come up over and over.

 

[Alex T.]

Stuart, according to fishkeeping standards I am by no means an animal abuser. I have a 6 foot 150 gallon sps tank and one yellow tang resides in it.

Also, jenglish I think you're confusing domestication with what's best for the animal. I also don't believe that I'm making blanket statements. If I were to castrate a male and feed him a diet low in saturated fats and high in fiber but kept him in a bubble he may or may not live just as long or longer in captivity but is he better for it? Is his life fulfilling and true to the norm of his species?

And I think it's fairly safe to say that more fish have perished in captivity than lions or elephants.

All kidding aside though, a tang would need a larger space than most other fish we keep in reef tanks. I'm not denying that. But as far as I'm concerned, my entire house footprint would start to approach a tang's territory in the wild. The fact that we can stick four tangs in a 6 foot tank without fighting doesn't make it right.

 

[Fibinotchi]

It sure would be nice if there was a little more balance going on right now in this hobby, in this forum. People just need to try and be reasonable and fair, and know when to quit beating a dead horse. Opinions are like buttz, everyone has one, and everyone else stinks.

Hopefully most of the people being helped on this forum are smart enough to think some of these things through and make informed decisions. In the end this hobby has both a positive impact and a negative impact on marine life, hopefully there is more positive than negative.

 

[jenglish]

Also, jenglish I think you're confusing domestication with what's best for the animal. I also don't believe that I'm making blanket statements. If I were to castrate a male and feed him a diet low in saturated fats and high in fiber but kept him in a bubble he may or may not live just as long or longer in captivity but is he better for it? Is his life fulfilling and true to the norm of his species?

A male what?

You are not talking about meeting an animals needs in your allegory. Does a dog live a better life than feral dog? I would say so. You are free to say not but act as if it is clear cut and dry seems a bit of a stretch. Asking if an animal has a fulfilling life is anthropomorpizing to the extreme. I still strongly disagree with your point A. There are animals that live better in captivity than the wild. In the wild animals try to adapt to their environment where in captivity we try to adapt their environment to them. In wild animals this is likely the exception rather than the rule, but to make a blanket statement that the wild is superior to captivity is simply not true.

 

[Fibinotchi]

And I think it's fairly safe to say that more fish have perished in captivity than lions or elephants.

I think it's fairly safe to say that more fish have perished by me pulling them out of the water with a fishing pole than lions or elephants in captivity. Shoot, I caught six steelhead last week. :fish1:

 

[Stuart60611]

It sure would be nice if there was a little more balance going on right now in this hobby, in this forum. People just need to try and be reasonable and fair, and know when to quit beating a dead horse. Opinions are like buttz, everyone has one, and everyone else stinks.

Hopefully most of the people being helped on this forum are smart enough to think some of these things through and make informed decisions. In the end this hobby has both a positive impact and a negative impact on marine life, hopefully there is more positive than negative.

Unfortunately, balance is impossible to achieve when faced with a plethoria of misinformation. People cannot make informed decissions because of the amount of false information being published even from reliable authoritative sources who market themselves as leaders in pet education while at the same time advise people to purchase fish and keep them in grossly undersized systems for financial gain. This hobby has gotten to the point that people cannot even determine correct information concerning fish husbandry because the "experts" in the field are providing false or materially inaccurate or incomplete information even in reference books, such as the information on minimum tank size found in the most popular marine fish reference books published by Scott Michaels. It is like looking up a word in the dictionary to check its spelling and receiving the incorrect spelling from the dictionary. This problem has gotten way out of hand, and responsible hobbyists need to put a stop to this outright deception which is occuring at the expense of well intended hobbyists, the animals they keep, and the reputation of the hobby as a whole. The culturalized and indeed supported in reference material keeping of fish in grossly undersized systems provides plenty of fuel for those who oppose this hobby on moral grounds or because it is too harmful to the environment. If this hobby has any chance of continuing long term, it can only do so if the hobby attempts to take a responsible approach. The experts in the field seem unwilling to do so, and therefore, ordinary hobbyists are left carrying the ball.

 

[Ranchero]

I dont think the word 'cruel' should be used when talking about a fish in too small of a tank. I mean come most of all our fish are straight out of the ocean. They were out there swimming so freely and enjoying themselves when BAM someone snatched them up and you stuck them in a tank
sooo that is my two cents on the ''thats so cruel'' word :rollface:

 

[Fibinotchi]

I dont think the word 'cruel' should be used when talking about a fish in too small of a tank. I mean come most of all our fish are straight out of the ocean. They were out there swimming so freely and enjoying themselves when BAM someone snatched them up and you stuck them in a tank
sooo that is my two cents on the ''thats so cruel'' word :rollface:

Actually that fish was swimming away from a snapping barracuda. Haven't you seen finding nemo?:dance:

 

[JHemdal]

Fibinotchi,

Actually, that is a salient point: For years I had a project that measured the respiration rate of fishes in captivity as a means to determine relative stress levels. I had thousands of measurements in my database. Sure enough, respiration rates increased with relative stress, just like my hypothesis said (except for ammonia toxicity for some reason). I then made data collections in the Bahamas and two trips to the Galapagos. Funny thing - taking out the two main variables (water temperature and fish size) the wild fish (presumably less stressed) breathed FASTER than captive fish by a huge margin. It turns out that "swimming so freely" as Ranchero wrote, was done to keep from being eaten, or in a struggle to find food - and it caused them STRESS.

Jay