It's bigger than the Tang thread

[Stuart60611]

Stuart,

I do agree, some tanks are simply too small for some fish. Also, I agree that if the fish is exhibiting morbidity and later mortality in captivity then some if it's needs are not being met. In some cases that could be generally related to living in an inappropriately "small" environment. However, if the fish is not exhibiting morbidity and mortality over an extended period of time than you simply cannot argue that it is living in "too small" of an enclosure. The problem we get into now is that different people have different results. Here are some examples (these are all real and observed by me):

-Percula clownfish breeding and living for years in a five gallon aquarium.
-A hepatus tang living for ten years in a 55 gallon aquarium and growing to ten inches in length. A queen angel , hepatus tang, volitians lionfish, engineer goby all living together in a 75 gallon aquarium for years.

You may not be happy about some of these examples (same for me in some cases) but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Minimum tank size is simply not a quantifiable variable. But, again, I certainly agree that bigger is best.

Frank:

I understand where you are comming from with respect to the above. However, there are going to always be situations where some fish can survive and sometimes even thrive to a degree in poor environmental conditions. Certainly, people, for example, vary greatly on how well individuals can endure poor environments. Some people who have a good mix of genetics are more capeable of enduring poor environments than others. However, what I think is important here is how poor environmental conditions affect most fish of a given species and not the far less frequent and often rare instances where a given fish can manage to endure these poor environmental conditions successfully.

 

[JHemdal]

Stuart,

You wrote: "... I strongly disagree with this statement from Jay's above article:..."

- You cannot refute that paragraph just by using a "consensus of many hobbyists". First of all, you DID NOT POLL THEM FOR THIS CONSENSUS!

Secondly, a consensus doesn't make it correct. For example, the consensus has been for 20+ years that HLLE in tangs is caused by dietary problems. My recent research project that balanced diet against carbon usage proved that it is the latter that is the cause, so all these years, the common wisdom was wrong. I was also one of the first people to prove why the "x inches of fish per gallon" rule cannot work because people were comparing length to volume - again, the consensus was wrong.

Now - this is going to sound really conceited, but I wrote that paragraph bringing ALL of my 25 years of public aquarium experience, 15 years of pet industry experience, 200+ articles, and five books into play developing it. I've presented it to variety professional and hobbyist audiences for analyis. Pardon me if I get a bit testy when you dismiss it out of hand with a personal opinion.... please re-read it and tell me what objective metric I missed. I've asked you this at least three times and have not received a straight answer.


Jay

 

[mthomp]

i would like to add that a large part of the consensus among hobbiest do not come from experience but rather from what others are saying and joining in on what they feel is fact.

so unless you were to poll people that have actually kept fish in a varying degree of conditions, you would in no way get an accurate result.

 

[Toddrtrex]

Jay -- so one is not allowed to have their own opinion on this, and dismiss what you say? So because I have never written an article, or the like my 18+ years of experience doesn't count?

Also, I had a hard time reading your article, based on the title of it alone "Beware the Tang Police!" comes off as very opinionated.

 

[Original Fin]

Frank,

I wrote an editorial about "happy fish". I had recently linked this in another similar thread, but I don't think I did so in this one yet:

http://microcosmaqx.typepad.com/jay_hemdal/2009/01/beware-the-tang-police.html

The last paragraph is the most important IMO....and I fully understand the ramifications of supplying personal opinion in a discussion (it is because I say it is!). Referencing one's self is usually considered poor form, but it does save a lot of typing. I'm still waiting for somebody to refute that last paragraph....


Jay

Thanks for such a great read Jay. This really helps noobs like myself gain some perspective on the whole Tang Police thing.

 

[Stuart60611]

Stuart,

You wrote: "... I strongly disagree with this statement from Jay's above article:..."

- You cannot refute that paragraph just by using a "consensus of many hobbyists". First of all, you DID NOT POLL THEM FOR THIS CONSENSUS!

Secondly, a consensus doesn't make it correct. For example, the consensus has been for 20+ years that HLLE in tangs is caused by dietary problems. My recent research project that balanced diet against carbon usage proved that it is the latter that is the cause, so all these years, the common wisdom was wrong. I was also one of the first people to prove why the "x inches of fish per gallon" rule cannot work because people were comparing length to volume - again, the consensus was wrong.

Now - this is going to sound really conceited, but I wrote that paragraph bringing ALL of my 25 years of public aquarium experience, 15 years of pet industry experience, 200+ articles, and five books into play developing it. I've presented it to variety professional and hobbyist audiences for analyis. Pardon me if I get a bit testy when you dismiss it out of hand with a personal opinion.... please re-read it and tell me what objective metric I missed. I've asked you this at least three times and have not received a straight answer.


Jay

Jay:

No need to be testy b/c we are simply having a disagreement. I do not challenge you credentials which far exceed mine in this area. Nevertheless, I am entitled to have my opinion which is also shared by others who have substantial credentials -- some of which are comparable to yours. I never ever stated I have taken such a consensus and merely stated that the consensus approach was a viable approach to determine minimum tank size. I fully conceded, repeatedly, that the consensus approach is not always going to get the correct result and is not based on exact science. However, more often than not, this consensus approach has yielded good husbandry information and has been used successfully in many instances in this hobby for decades. I have listed repeatedly the behavorial traits and physical manefestations often attributed to inappropriate tank size and really do not know how much more I can say in that regard. I understand and recognize that science has not proven that these observable behavorial traits and physical manefestations are absolutely proximately caused by inappropriate tank size, but until scientific studies are funded and/or conducted, anecdotal information is all that is available. I do not dismiss your views out of hand and have given them careful consideration. I just do not concur.

 

[Original Fin]

All opinions are welcomed in this thread. Let's try to keep it on the tracks and not regress into challenging and discrediting eachother. That is where progress ends. If you must do that, take it offline.
We all share the same passion. Let's try to focus on what we have in common instead of what makes us different. That said, I'm not advocating we should all sit around patting eachother on the back in agreement either, but there are more civil/productive ways to disagree.

 

[frankpayne32]

Stuart,
I think that what Jay was trying to say that "behavioral traits and physical manifestations often attributed to inappropriate tank size" are not a metric as you called them. Also, just because people attribute a variable (poor fish health) to tank size doesn't mean that it is correct. There are SO many variables to consider when talking about organismal health in a marine system that just lumping a large, possibly unrelated, group of problems on one variable (tank size) is simply not possible. I'm certainly not trying to gang up on you here, you obviously care about the fish and your heart is in the right place. It's just that when you work with animals in a lab or otherwise professional setting you have the tendency to distance yourself emotionally from the topic and instead view it from a strictly analytical standpoint. Many people would be very unhappy with how most off-display zoo animals are housed. But that doesn't mean that the animals aren't healthy and reproducing, more so than they would be in "nature" I might add.

 

[Stuart60611]

i would like to add that a large part of the consensus among hobbiest do not come from experience but rather from what others are saying and joining in on what they feel is fact.

so unless you were to poll people that have actually kept fish in a varying degree of conditions, you would in no way get an accurate result.

Completely agree. RC, for example, just compiled (not sure of the methodology used) information from Team RC members to determine minimum tank size for tangs. From what I have been advised, Team RC members were chosen both because of their greater reliability in providing accurate information and because they have have many years of personal experience in this regard. Who you use to form this consensus, and the controls used to best make certain that the information provided to make the consensus is accurate and based on personal observation instead of heresay is critical to the reliability of the consensus.

 

[Stuart60611]

Stuart,
I think that what Jay was trying to say that "behavioral traits and physical manifestations often attributed to inappropriate tank size" are not a metric as you called them. Also, just because people attribute a variable (poor fish health) to tank size doesn't mean that it is correct. There are SO many variables to consider when talking about organismal health in a marine system that just lumping a large, possibly unrelated, group of problems on one variable (tank size) is simply not possible. I'm certainly not trying to gang up on you here, you obviously care about the fish and your heart is in the right place. It's just that when you work with animals in a lab or otherwise professional setting you have the tendency to distance yourself emotionally from the topic and instead view it from a strictly analytical standpoint. Many people would be very unhappy with how most off-display zoo animals are housed. But that doesn't mean that the animals aren't healthy and reproducing, more so than they would be in "nature" I might add.

Frank:

You make a good points. I understand as a scientist how one could be troubled by the approach I am advocating and that it can, indeed, lead to incorrect conclusions. I also understand that proximate cause is something that can be difficult to determine in this context and that many of the traits and manefestations could be argued to be proximately caused from other sources. However, much of the husbandry information we use in this hobby is subject to the same flaws, but it nevertheless has served hobbyists well for quite a while and much of this information is believed by virtually all in the hobby, as well as many scientists, to be correct. Also, most hobbyists do not have the skill or resources of a zoo or public aquarium in terms of fish husbandry. Therefore, I do not think what a zoo or public aquarium is able to achieve in terms of fish husbandry should be translated to what is appropriate in the hobby.

 

[frankpayne32]

Stuart,
Thank you, and while it may not seem like it I actually agree with you and the general promotion of larger aquaria for the average reef hobbyist. Like you just pointed out I was just making some comments on the subjective nature of personal aquarium keeping. I do promote the use of larger aquaria when possible, like you. But, like Jay, I also have a problem with the aggressive and opinionated nature of many on this board that attack a person for keeping an animal (tang) in what they BELIEVE to be too small of an aquarium. If everyone realized their opinions were subjective and not the be all end all of animal culture and were just plain old a little bit nicer, I think a lot more would be accomplished in terms of increasing the amount of successful aquaria and aquarists.

 

[BrianD]

Stuart,

You wrote: "... I strongly disagree with this statement from Jay's above article:..."

- You cannot refute that paragraph just by using a "consensus of many hobbyists". First of all, you DID NOT POLL THEM FOR THIS CONSENSUS!

Secondly, a consensus doesn't make it correct. For example, the consensus has been for 20+ years that HLLE in tangs is caused by dietary problems. My recent research project that balanced diet against carbon usage proved that it is the latter that is the cause, so all these years, the common wisdom was wrong. I was also one of the first people to prove why the "x inches of fish per gallon" rule cannot work because people were comparing length to volume - again, the consensus was wrong.

Now - this is going to sound really conceited, but I wrote that paragraph bringing ALL of my 25 years of public aquarium experience, 15 years of pet industry experience, 200+ articles, and five books into play developing it. I've presented it to variety professional and hobbyist audiences for analyis. Pardon me if I get a bit testy when you dismiss it out of hand with a personal opinion.... please re-read it and tell me what objective metric I missed. I've asked you this at least three times and have not received a straight answer.


Jay

Re: lateral line disease, do you have some peer-reviewed material that refers to this research and confirms your findings?

Re: the "inches per gallon", I don't agree with any of your premise.

 

[BrianD]

I would also mention that an article with that title already indicates the author's bias.

 

[frankpayne32]

My common sense is telling me not to argue with a mod... But BrianD, while you may not like the phrase "tang police" don't you think it is a common occurrence on this board for said people to be quite aggressive and downright mean towards people keeping surgeonfish in tank sizes which in their opinion is too small?

 

[BrianD]

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

That is not a reasonable argument in my opinion. There is little difference in relative terms between a goldfish bowl and a swimming tool to the ocean, but substantial relative differences between the goldfish bowl and the swimming pool.

 

[BrianD]

My common sense is telling me not to argue with a mod... But BrianD, while you may not like the phrase "tang police" don't you think it is a common occurrence on this board for said people to be quite aggressive and downright mean towards people keeping surgeonfish in tank sizes which in their opinion is too small?

Until the term is meant as other than a pejorative/insult to those who hold a differing opinion, there is little reason to allow its use.

If people are "mean", the simplest approach is to report the post for a moderator to deal with it. People can disagree without having bad manners.

 

[Stuart60611]

Stuart,
Thank you, and while it may not seem like it I actually agree with you and the general promotion of larger aquaria for the average reef hobbyist. Like you just pointed out I was just making some comments on the subjective nature of personal aquarium keeping. I do promote the use of larger aquaria when possible, like you. But, like Jay, I also have a problem with the aggressive and opinionated nature of many on this board that attack a person for keeping an animal (tang) in what they BELIEVE to be too small of an aquarium. If everyone realized their opinions were subjective and not the be all end all of animal culture and were just plain old a little bit nicer, I think a lot more would be accomplished in terms of increasing the amount of successful aquaria and aquarists.

I appreciate your comments and thoughtful input as well. The problem with minimum tank size information in the hobby cuts very deep, and therefore, I think that is why people seem like they are sometimes attacking others whom they beleive are housing fish in an inappropriate tank size. As I explained both here and in the thread I posted on the first page of this thread, experienced hobbyists often feel as if they have to become quite aggressive on this issue because they have to overcome the substantial misinformation being published on this topic by leading forces in the hobby, such as leading pet educators and even reference materials. The problem imo starts at the top and filters its way down. How are experienced hobbyists going to be able to convince others to practice this hobby responsibly and keep fish in appropriately sized systems when the authoritative sources of fish husbandry information affirmatively provide inaccurate, misleading, or materially incomplete minimum tank size information which gives the reasonable impression that it is recommended that fish be kept in very small systems and which is given much more credence than the opinions of experienced hobbyists? If these authoratative sources provided no such informaion instead of misleading information, then hobbyists could search out this information and discuss it rationally to arrive at their own reasonable conclusions. Rather, the playing field is not even and instead weighted heavily in favor of creating a misimpression with hobbyists that it is recommended that fish should be housed in very small systems. Aggressive advocacy to the contrary which is sometimes viewed as "attacking" behavior is often felt to be the only recourse available.

 

[mthomp]

Until the term is meant as other than a pejorative/insult to those who hold a differing opinion, there is little reason to allow its use.

If people are "mean", the simplest approach is to report the post for a moderator to deal with it. People can disagree without having bad manners.

the fact you said this leaves the door wide open for other terms to be considered insulting. for example if some one is called a rookie or newbie and takes offense to it, is that term also going to be disallowed. fact is the term in question is not so much an insult as it is a label. And often times rightfully placed.

 

[JER-Z]

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...

That was about the size of my old NY apartment and I'm 6'3". Just sayin...

 

[Toddrtrex]

the fact you said this leaves the door wide open for other terms to be considered insulting. for example if some one is called a rookie or newbie and takes offense to it, is that term also going to be disallowed. fact is the term in question is not so much an insult as it is a label. And often times rightfully placed.

Funny that you should be asking about insults.

But, the higher ups here at RC (( and not on a whim )) have decided that it is an insult, one that shouldn't be said. It really isn't that hard to post without using it.