These fish have the ability to stunt there size for the surrounding conditions. Does this make them unhappy? I dont think so. Like said, in the wild it is a constant battle to stay alive. If we do not have them in pairs then we have taken there very reason for living away. There may not be FACTS about what size tank is right for a given spices, but there are facts telling us everything we do in this hobby is wrong for the fish and corals. If you cant admit that then it is pointless for you to coment because you cant get your head out of you know what. If the fish is being cared for and not showing any of these signs of distress there is no problem, big or little tank. If you cant come to grips with that then break your tank down and get rid of all fish and corals. Know that the reason we enjoy this hobby is for our OWN pleasure and nothing we are doing is for the fishes benifit.
It's bigger than the Tang thread
- Thread starter Original Fin
- Start date
- Status
Stuart60611
New member
No, but as my above article indicates, it very well may make them unhealthy. Such stunting is not some kind of ability the fish develop to help them survive, but it is instead an unnatural physical manefestation which occurs from being housed in too small of artificial conditions. In the wild, fish never need to stunt b/c they have unlimited space. Someone who becomes extremely skinny from not geting enough food is not demonstrating some natural ability to be thin, but they are instead thin because of the poor nutrition.
The problem I have with this analysis is that although fish certainly suffer great stress when being preyed upon, such stress is intermittent and eleviates once the given fish feels out of danger. In contrast, the stress in being kept in a grossly undersized system is contant and unrelenting. If you could never relax imagine how bad you would feel.
Last edited:
Stuart,
What you are describing is a well-known difference between chronic and acute stress. The problem is that the fish in the wild were breathing faster ALL of the time, so although you say that in the wild, the stressors are intermittant, they actually result in a chronic response. That is to say, the fish were not just stressed out right after avoiding a predator, but were chronically stressed - from constantly looking for food and avoiding predators/conspecifics, rogue waves, etc.
I will ask you AGAIN, please quantify the "contant (sic) and unrelenting" stress that fish in captivity show. What are the physical manisfestations? Rapid breathing? Nope! Acute death? Nope! What are the signs, and what is your reference? Otherwise, you are just back to your lengthy subjective diatribes, and there is no further discussion warranted because subjective opinions cannot be accurately compared to objective measures.
Jay
What you are describing is a well-known difference between chronic and acute stress. The problem is that the fish in the wild were breathing faster ALL of the time, so although you say that in the wild, the stressors are intermittant, they actually result in a chronic response. That is to say, the fish were not just stressed out right after avoiding a predator, but were chronically stressed - from constantly looking for food and avoiding predators/conspecifics, rogue waves, etc.
I will ask you AGAIN, please quantify the "contant (sic) and unrelenting" stress that fish in captivity show. What are the physical manisfestations? Rapid breathing? Nope! Acute death? Nope! What are the signs, and what is your reference? Otherwise, you are just back to your lengthy subjective diatribes, and there is no further discussion warranted because subjective opinions cannot be accurately compared to objective measures.
Jay
No one is arguing that the ocean isn't a big place with very little life in it. We are discussing coral reefs, a much smaller space then the entire ocean with a much higher density of life. The massive amount of water in the ocean is providing the filtration and stability of the reef water, which is what a skimmer, active carbon and other filtration methods do in our fish tanks... The space an animal needs to be healthy and happy is what is in question here. When we talk about animals like clown fish we are talking about a fish that has a territory of several feet from it anemone in the wild. Therefore putting it in a healthy, stable tank is not taking anything from it. When we are talking about a tang it has a territory of the entire reef, so putting it in a tank is always taking something from it. The point is that we have to be responsible for our animals and to do that we have to set limits for ourselves. I could keep a cat alive in a small box for its entire life, but that would be irresponsible. I could keep a horse alive in a small box for its entire life, but that would be irresponsible. I could keep a tang alive in a small tank, but that would be irresponsible. The trend here is not that it can't be done, but that it isn't responsible to do so!!! I happen to be a responsible person, I set limits on what is reasonable. The question you need to ask yourself is what is your limit? If you can keep a tang in a 55 gal then what is to stop you from arguing that a 10 gal is also acceptable. Eventually you will have to admit that the size of the tank plays a vital role in the health of the fish. Once you admit that the tank size matters, then you realize that bigger is better (lol). Now ask yourself what the most reasonable large size tank is for the average person to keep, maybe a 100 gal. Hmm, do you think the tang is better off in a 100 gal or 200 gal. The answer is obvious, but you have to ask what is reasonable and responsible for people to be asked to do. If we don't set limits for ourselves then outside people will use our animal cruelty to end this hobby, and I'm to selfish to let that happen... Best of luck
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumcrazy
These fish have the ability to stunt there size for the surrounding conditions. Does this make them unhappy?
No, but as my above article indicates, it very well may make them unhealthy. Such stunting is not some kind of ability the fish develop to help them survive, but it is instead an unnatural physical manefestation which occurs from being housed in too small of artificial conditions. In the wild, fish never need to stunt b/c they have unlimited space. Someone who becomes extremely skinny from not geting enough food is not demonstrating some natural ability to be thin, but they are instead thin because of the poor nutrition.
I would absolutely agree with you and the article. My point is that if the fish are not showing signs of stress what gives you the right to tell someone its not ok to have it. If you want to go home and tear your tank down then come on this forum tooting your high horse about whats moraly right then more power to you. Atleast your living by it. But if you own a singal fish or coral then you do not have the right to tell someone else what is right or wrong to do with there tanks. I would hope that people can agree to disagree, and would hope that when people see signs of stress they would take the right steps to correct the situation.
Originally Posted by chumcrazy
These fish have the ability to stunt there size for the surrounding conditions. Does this make them unhappy?
No, but as my above article indicates, it very well may make them unhealthy. Such stunting is not some kind of ability the fish develop to help them survive, but it is instead an unnatural physical manefestation which occurs from being housed in too small of artificial conditions. In the wild, fish never need to stunt b/c they have unlimited space. Someone who becomes extremely skinny from not geting enough food is not demonstrating some natural ability to be thin, but they are instead thin because of the poor nutrition.
I would absolutely agree with you and the article. My point is that if the fish are not showing signs of stress what gives you the right to tell someone its not ok to have it. If you want to go home and tear your tank down then come on this forum tooting your high horse about whats moraly right then more power to you. Atleast your living by it. But if you own a singal fish or coral then you do not have the right to tell someone else what is right or wrong to do with there tanks. I would hope that people can agree to disagree, and would hope that when people see signs of stress they would take the right steps to correct the situation.
Stuart60611
New member
I described these objective manefestations which include excessive hiding, aggression, faded color, stunted size, reduced feeding, inability to resist disease or parasites, excessive pacing, and shortened life expectancy -- just to name a few. These are NOT purely subjective but are instead largely objective in nature which can be observed and recorded over a of period years. This data can be used to form a consensus of what tank sizes do not cause a given species to suffer these manefestations. Yes, there will be problems in terms of maintaining controls and eliminating other causes for these manefestations to the satisfaction of absolute scientific certainty. Nevertheless, this analysis does not need to be merely a guessing game based on the pure subjective thoughts of a given hobbyist and instead can be predicated on measurabe criteria which are largely objective in nature. The author of the article I posted was able to do precisely this type of analysis as it relates to large angels where he personally observed and collected data about these matters from other hobbyists over a 22 year period. I would add that simple common sense demonstates that that any stress caused from being in an undersized system is constant and unrelenting because the system size does not change. In contrast, any stress from being preyed upon reduces once the fish is no longer being preyed upon and out of danger. I do not think any further proof is needed for this intuitive concept. Observation of animal behavior and physical manefestations have been the basis for many scientific concepts. I am suggesting nothing more novel here.
Last edited:
Stuart,
These are not things that you have personally measured. In fact, aggression is mitigated by crowding, ask anybody who breeds dottybacks or keeps Pseudotropheus cichlids. Shortened life expectancy is also not observed due to small tanks, in fact, because of lack of predation, captive fish have the potential to outlive their wild counterparts, if it wasn't for human error (but this happens in small OR large tanks). The increase in disease is simply a function of proximity to the host, and NOT some inate lack of resistance to disease. Faded color is a function of diet, not water volume. Reduced feeding is not a result of small tank size, see my previous comment about hepatic lipidosis in lionfish.
The only metric that you mentioned that I know has ANY validity in this case is stunted size (as in my own Fishbase.org data research!).
However, you did miss ALL the other important symptoms of a fish being housed in too small of a tank; deformed fins rays, bumped chins, and rubbed eyes.
Jay
Last edited:
Stuart60611
New member
I never claimed that I measured any of the foregoing manefestations. Moroever, I clearly articulated that my list of manefestations resulting from an undersized tank was not all inclusive, and there may be many others, including the deformed fins rays, bumped chins, and rubbed eyes you mentioned, which by the way are also objective in nature and observable. I do not quarel with your contention that overcrowding causes stress, but if you have one species in a system which is too small for the species and another species where the system is adequately sized aggression can often occur from the species which is too large for the system because this fish is considering the entire tank (and beyond) its territory and thus undersizing a system can, indeed, cause aggression. Likewise, there are many studies that have been conducted on a wide array of animals which demonstrate that stress reduces immune system effectiveness. Disease is not merely a function of proximity as you describe. Animals are in constant proximity to pathogens, but animals can often resist these pathogens when they have a healthy and functioning immune system. I am reasonably confident that this is accepted science at this point. Many, including the author of the article I posted, report that faded color in fish, particularlly large angels, occurs from undersized tanks. In fact, many report that some young large angels do not change to adult coloration correcly when kept in an undersized tank. Also, many report fish hiding excessively and refusing to feed when they are very stressed. I personally have observed this on many occassions. Finally, puting predation aside, I think life expectancy of a fish under severe and constant stress is going to be shorter than when the fish is not subjected to such stress. I know of know study of this as it relates to fish, but I know that poor environmental conditions have been linked to shortened life expectancies in a variety of animals. I cannot fathom why this would be so different with fish.
mthomp
New member
what JH said about crowding reduces aggression is absolutely true. african cichlids, one of the most aggressive fresh water fish we keep in our tanks, in order to eliminate aggression and potentially killing of each other was to crowd them. for instance a 55gal tank would hold about 25-30 fish that would grow 6 inches or so.
Stuart60611
New member
I know this is true with cichlids, but it really does not hold true with marine fish. In fact, I just stumbled today upon a thread started today in the Aggressive Forum where a large angel was showing physical signs of illness from overcrowding and stress (see below).
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1946980
mthomp
New member
hybridazn
New member
I think rc should just adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy lol jk. Most of the threads that involve this topic get out of hand when the op asks for advice but has no intention on listening. If your gointo do what you want, then don't ask for advice, Its really that simple. Less crud the nods have to shuffle thru
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Stuart60611
New member
A lot of the youtube videos are staged and not really on-going systems. One has no idea how long the system has been runing. Many of these videos are of systems where the fish are placed in the tanks temporarily just for the video and not maintained together for any substantial length of time. If you think that video contains a lot of fish in a small system, check out the video in the below link. Based on how prestine and unlived in the tank looks in this video, I highly doubt that this is truly an on going system which has been maintained and stocked in this manner for any substantial length of time. The fish also look pretty healthy in this video, despite having virtually no area to claim as their own.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1934688
Last edited:
Original Fin
In Memoriam
Rest assured, I am listening intently... But I know what you mean!
Original Fin
In Memoriam
Great dialogue, and I always appreciate the links to some real data. I'm in no way qualified to interpret it, but it certainly helps to broaden my understanding. Please keep it coming!
Realistically, none of us are going to win the tank size debate
no matter how logically we state our cases. It's a classic fallacy.
What interests me more than the issue itself, is understanding the mechanisms behind the chaos that quickly ensues shortly after first mention. If we can get a grip on that, we might have a chance to make some real progress.
This is a hobbyist forum. You've got beginner, novice, and expert reefkeepers. There are conservationists and collectors. Young and old. Proffessionals, scientists, researchers, business people...etc, etc...We all have different pre-conceived notions and opinions of eachother, and we all have different ways of getting things done. It seems the more diversity you stir into that pot, the harder it becomes to agree on anything at all, and yet paradoxically, the more information is made available to solve these types of problems in the first place. A product of the information age I suppose. Maddening, isn't it?
Realistically, none of us are going to win the tank size debate
no matter how logically we state our cases. It's a classic fallacy.
What interests me more than the issue itself, is understanding the mechanisms behind the chaos that quickly ensues shortly after first mention. If we can get a grip on that, we might have a chance to make some real progress.
This is a hobbyist forum. You've got beginner, novice, and expert reefkeepers. There are conservationists and collectors. Young and old. Proffessionals, scientists, researchers, business people...etc, etc...We all have different pre-conceived notions and opinions of eachother, and we all have different ways of getting things done. It seems the more diversity you stir into that pot, the harder it becomes to agree on anything at all, and yet paradoxically, the more information is made available to solve these types of problems in the first place. A product of the information age I suppose. Maddening, isn't it?
Stuart60611
New member
OriginalFin:
+1 and really well said. I am certainly all for any progress that can be made with this issue. :beer:
+1 and really well said. I am certainly all for any progress that can be made with this issue. :beer:
frankpayne32
New member
You are correct in that we are keeping animals in captivity primarily for selfish reasons, a statement that I have made to many anthropomorphic keepers in the past about other groups of animals. However, you are not correct when you say that we cannot provide a BETTER environment than the natural environment of the animal in question. In MANY cases, captive animals (not necessarily fish) experience a level of health, comfort, and reproduction that they majority of their kind would not in the wild. You are making some very anthropomorphic, assumptive, and biologically incorrect statements about what animals "want".
frankpayne32
New member
Excellent point and something that is often overlooked and misunderstood by environmentalists with no biology training let alone experience.
- Status
