It's bigger than the Tang thread

[BrianD]

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.

It is not a matter of someone taking offense to a term. Rather, it is the overwhelming use of that term by those who have no experience to support their position, and whose only contribution to a thread is to post those two words. It really isn't a matter for debate. Our position is clear.

 

[JHemdal]

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.

Brian,

I just finished the rough draft of my HLLE research on Monday and it has been reviewed internally. It is surely going to "pass muster" in regards to external peer review because the results were trenchant. Briefly, 100% of the fish exposed to lignite carbon developed HLLE, and zero % of the control fish did. Fish exposed to pelleted carbon were intermediate. The sub-test of the diet showed no difference, so that was not a variable. All other variables were tightly controlled, and the test fish were examined by a well-known pathology firm. Oh yes, and there are two other papers in preparation from other researchers who have concluded the same thing about lignite carbon use....I'm sure I won't make it to press first, but we all arrived at this conclusion independantly. Expect to see these papers out within the next six months...so go ahead and say that I'm wrong, but one of these other researchers is just going to say the same thing.


Re: "inches of fish per gallon" is like saying your car gets 500 pounds to the mile. There is no way this can ever work unless you are speaking of one specific size of a fish. The example I always use is that you can put ten 2" barbs in a ten gallon aquarium, but try to put one 20" pacu in there! The total inches are the same, but the fish's VOLUME goes up exponentially as the length increases in a linear fashion. Now, what DOES work, is to use the mass (volume) of the fish compared to the volume of the aquarium. I've been advocating that for 20 years or so - the problem is that no home aquarist is willing to weigh their fish. I did come up with a database program that will estimate fish weight for people, and actually sold that for many years as a module for my Aquapro software. If I can't convice you of this, then all that says is that I'm a poor teacher, because the numbers aren't wrong.


Jay

 

[sslak]

I try to provide the best possible home for my pet fish. I realize my tank is not as grand as the ocean reef they came from, but it has it's perks!

They won't be eaten by a shark or an eel while under my care. They won't end up on a dinner plate, or on a sport fishing line, or a spear. The water in my tank is probably less polluted than the sea (sadly).

I feed them the best quality foods I can find, and I make sure they get plenty to eat.

Is my condo really big enough for my cat? Cats roam for miles in the wild! In the end, I think my cat has a pretty nice life, she doesn't have to deal with Wisconsin winters and she gets food/water and companionship and spends most of her day lounging in the sun. I think my cat has a better life than I do!

That said, I will not own a Tang in my 58g just as I wouldn't lock my cat in her carrier all day every day. I think we as fish keepers just need to use some compassion and do our best to provide a good home. Keeping fish appropriate for my tank, and tankmates is important to me.

 

[LisaD]

+1 sslak, well said.

Also, props to Stuart - thoughtful thread and posts. And I really like his list of stressors. My feeling is that they may be more useful indicators of unsuitable environment (not restricted to tank size) than Jay's. I think Stuart is onto something. I hope that isn't lost in this divisive thread.

Regarding Jay's method of using respiration as an indicator of stress in wild vs captive fish... I'd imagine fish in the wild, swimming against currents, courting/displaying to potential mates, defending territories, hunting for food (as well as being hunted) may very well have a higher respiration rate than fish in a tank without the same stimuli and space to move. Relative respiration rates for fish in captivity may be a reliable indicator of stress, but I'm not sure comparing respiration rates in wild vs captive fish, and inferring stress is higher in the wild, is a valid comparison.

To provide a human analogy - athletes exerting themselves may have a high respiration rate. It may in fact be similar,when measured, to that of someone stressed from being bullied, or placed in an unsuitable and stressful environment, like a closet. But while the respiration rates may be similar, the level of stress is not necessarily equivalent. Unless there is other data to back up the inference that high respiration always = high stress, maybe another measure of stress would be more useful? I'd be interested in knowing the results of the cortisol in the parrotfish poop data.

"Tang police" is a loaded term. By using that term, a person is pejoratively painting with a broad brush anyone that doesn't agree with the conditions in which they are keeping their fish. Using that kind of labeling is not conducive to thoughtful discussion or disagreement. And using it in the title of an article doesn't give me the preconception that a thoughtful and rational researcher is presenting a valid and well researched perspective.

Not that it really matters, but I have been keeping marine tanks for over 30 years, and am a Ph.D. biologist, and former college biology instructor.

 

[frankpayne32]

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.

You are completely correct.

 

[Original Fin]

+1 sslak, well said.

"Tang police" is a loaded term. By using that term, a person is pejoratively painting with a broad brush anyone that doesn't agree with the conditions in which they are keeping their fish. Using that kind of labeling is not conducive to thoughtful discussion or disagreement. And using it in the title of an article doesn't give me the preconception that a thoughtful and rational researcher is presenting a valid and well researched perspective.

Lisa,

I am beginning to understand what all the hub-bub is about. If nothing else comes out of this discussion, at least there's one less new guy unknowingly fanning the flames. Thanks for breaking it down so succinctly.

 

[BrianD]

It is not a matter of someone taking offense to a term. Rather, it is the overwhelming use of that term by those who have no experience to support their position, and whose only contribution to a thread is to post those two words. It really isn't a matter for debate. Our position is clear.

 

[Fibinotchi]

You should all agree to disagree and move on to help others in need. I vote to close this thread.

 

[Stuart60611]

You should all agree to disagree and move on to help others in need. I vote to close this thread.

Definitely not. Someone may have something important or beneficial to add. What is wrong with disagreement? Civil and intelligent debate is the foundation for many great decissions and has given rise to many valued discoveries and insights. Certainly, on a website like this, this is a very important topic worthy of examination. I value all views especially those who disagree or know more than me. This kind of a thread is all what a "discussion" forum about reefkeeping should be about and should remain open for others to participate.

 

[JHemdal]

LisaD; "Not that it really matters, but I have been keeping marine tanks for over 30 years, and am a Ph.D. biologist, and former college biology instructor."


Lisa,

I must say that this trumps me in regards to formal education. I had previously opined that my aquarium knowledge should be greater than that of, say; a lawyer or an accountant, so I would be remiss not to concede to your higher degree (I only have a B.S. in aquatic biology, and that was obtained by just the skin of my teeth!). I've always regretted not attempting to work towards a higher degree, but I knew deep down that I didn't have the ability, so I just wrote some books and stuff.

So, what was the topic of your thesis?


Jay

 

[Stuart60611]

I had previously opined that my aquarium knowledge should be greater than that of, say; a lawyer or an accountant

Perhaps, not in this case since I must be the lawyer you are refering to. :lol2: By the way, I did not graduate by the skin of my anything and was on law review. I would add that determining the correctness of a viewpoint based on the credentials of the view's advocate rather than the merits or lack thereof of the view itself is really not a very thoughtful approach.

 

[Fibinotchi]

The way I see this is, both sides have very convincing arguments, and yet there will always be two distinct feelings about this subject. There will always be people pushing the limits with how small of aquariums they keep tangs in, and there will always be people insisting that tangs should be housed in larger tanks.

You need to ask yourself if you are willing to be convinced otherwise in this case, because if you aren't, how can you expect your opponent to be convinced of something other than what he already has formed a strong opinion about.

If you are looking to protect tangs, I beleive there are a lot better ways you could use your time and energy than arguing this point right here. Let's face it, I would bet many tangs have lost their lives today sitting in pet stores under poor conditions that would just have loved to get out of that 15 or 20 gallon display tank.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me if this thread stays open or not, because I will either choose to read it, or not, just like I will choose what size fish I put in what size tank. It is ultimately our conscience that guides us, not people on forums, or people at the pet stores. Those people can only give us little tidbits of information that we can use in shaping our conscience.

By the way, if you really want to flail, I know a pet store that keeps a 2 inch hippo tang in a ten gallon tank and feeds it one pellet a day, and have kept it there for at least 2 years.

 

[LisaD]

Fibinotchi,

I don't agree the thread should be closed, or that the arguments are necessarily all that convincing on either side. We could use more good data, and that is not easy to collect in the hobbyist world. Public aquaria observations and data are useful, but not always completely relatable to hobby conditions.

If there is no continued discussion of different views, then no one's ideas will be tested, and everyone will stay firmly planted, and self-satisfied, in their own camp. (Kind of like people that only get their news from the media outlets that reflect their politics - they never feel the need to seriously consider another viewpoint, and don't evolve much in their thinking.)

Those people that care about providing the best environment possible for their fish, given their budget and space, will keep reading and talking. Those that don't care so much, or feel they already know what's best, will do whatever they want without looking further. It's a free country. And RC is an online resource for obtaining and disseminating information, not a governing body.

For myself, I limit my fish selection to those fish I think I can accommodate. So I won't be keeping lookdowns or sharks or green morays or vlamingi tangs. Not because I don't believe anyone should keep them, but because I don't have the space or the money to give them the environment I think they will need. As I learn more, or can afford larger tanks, I may adjust my views.

Do I push the envelope? Yeah, I do, somewhat. I just posted in another thread about keeping three angels in a 210 for the past couple years. But I don't promote this as something everyone should do, and I have other tanks in case fish need to be moved.

I don't think it helps the hobby for any of us to be too dogmatic about our own views, or judgmental about the positions of others.

Jay,

My background is in plant genetics and population biology. My thesis was done in land-locked Wisconsin, on terrestrial crop plants. I have experience in a previous job with a biological supply house. I was over the living materials, including aquatics, for 12 years. We shipped fish and other aquatic animals around the country to schools and research institutions. I also was involved in the design a 50,000 gallon fish holding system. I don't usually bring up my scientific training on the boards. My years of hobby experience are more important, though having a strong biology and research background helps, IMO. Saw others doing it in this thread, so jumped on board.

I don't claim to be an expert - I can only share my experiences and viewpoints. There are many folks on RC with little or no formal biology training that are real experts in the hobby.

 

[JHemdal]

Perhaps, not in this case since I must be the lawyer you are refering to. :lol2: By the way, I did not graduate by the skin of my anything and was on law review. I would add that determining the correctness of a viewpoint based on the credentials of the view's advocate rather than the merits or lack thereof of the view itself is really not a very thoughtful approach.

Stuart,

That is exactly the problem. What I have been trying to explain is not a matter of VIEWPOINT (opinion), but of real life husbandry facts. You keep bringing a VIEWPOINT into the conversations as your proof.

The point I was trying to make here is that I could NEVER conceive of a situation in which I would be telling a lawyer that they are wrong about a matter of jurisprudence. I could say that in my opinion, I did not like the outcome of a particular case, but I wouldn't say they were wrong.....because I don't have the background to know that.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding of my postings in these two threads. If you check out my threads in the fish disease section, you'll see I make two kinds of postings - to correct errors in other posts, and then I post about a specific few fish diseases that I have a good answer for. There are huge numbers of posts to which I don't respond because I DON'T KNOW the answer. I get PM's from some of these people asking me for help, but I have to tell them I can't because I don't know. I refuse to guess or throw out opinions (but that stops very few of the other posters in that section).
That is the basis of all my posts here - if I don't have an intimate and complete knowledge of a particular subject, I usually just sit on my hands and try and learn something. If I do decide to post an opinion, I'll use IMO - and really mean, it is JUST my opinion.

Now regarding aquariums in general, I'll give you my personal opinion (just as I have been listening to you reiterate your own):

I have not had a home aquarium in 20 years - except a few years ago when I set up a slew of tanks as models for my Mini-Aquarium book. I question the keeping of wild caught fishes in private homes. Is that selfish use of wildlife? I keep wild caught fish, but they are seen by 700,000 people a year, and I hope that this consumption of wildlife will help inspire people to understand the environment better. I also try to have an "environmental offset" in that I spend a lot of time trying to help people keep their fish alive longer, etc.
In the home, the fish are only viewed by family and friends - yes they are likewise inspired, but does the number of people outweigh the environemental cost? I don't know, and it nags at me.
Regarding tangs, I don't like 'em, and have very few on exhibit. They are prone to ick and don't play well with each other. I can't even use them as good educational tools because they are basically just underived Perciform fishes, that don't really have much of a story to tell......


Jay

 

[Stuart60611]

Jay:

Fair enough, and I do not want to waste a lot of time here on such things. However, not everyone like you operates in a world where we only take strong stances on issues when our postions can be proven true with scientific certainty. Also, I think you are assuming a false premise which some could view insulting. In my own profession, I have opposed many "non-lawyers" in litigation, and a suprising few of them were highly capeable and skilled in the courtroom, despite one of them having never graduated high school and who imo was more skilled than most licensed attorneys I oppose. As Lisa points out, there are many people in this world who are capeable of educating themselves to a suprisingly high level of knowledge on a variety of subject matters without formal education. There may, indeed, be other people here at RC who may not have a formal education in biology or related scientific fields who may know something about fish husbandry not known to someone with formal education.

 

[LisaD]

As Lisa points out, there are many people in this world who are capeable of educationg themselves to a suprisingly high level of knowledge on a variety of subject matters without formal education. There may, indeed, be other people here at RC who may not have a formal education in biology or related scientific fields who may know something about fish husbandry not known to someone with formal education.

There are plenty. I would hold up Kevin Cohen for one. I don't think Copps is a scientist by training, or at least not a biologist. Not sure about Martin Moe's scientific credentials, I think he has an MS in marine biology, he certainly doesn't have a Ph.D., but IMO he is a giant and a pioneer for the hobby. Mike Paletta is another I have a huge amount of respect for, but his advanced degree is in something like psycho-pharmacology. Scientific background helps, but it is not the be all and end all.

When listening to others regarding this hobby, I base my opinions on:
1) their experience and long term success in the hobby, industry or public aquaria,
2) their contributions to the hobby, via publications, posts, livestock or products, and
3) how much they use experience, data and logic to present a viewpoint, and to do so without an agenda.

At this points, all we can do is use experience, observations and data to support viewpoints and opinions.

 

[bertoni]

As far as the last paragraph in the "tang police" article, I didn't find it convincing at all. We might not have objective metrics, at least not yet, or to which you will admit, but that doesn't imply that the fish are doing well. Caged monkeys often last a very long time, although they show signs of, well, mental illness. By the metrics given in the article, they're perfectly healthy. Treatment like that we give to large fish is considered unacceptable in medical testing labs nowadays, I do believe. We can argue about whether fish are the same as monkeys, but I'm not willing to limit the discussion to what some might call "objective factors".

 

[JHemdal]

bertoni,

But in your own example you say that caged monkeys show SIGNS of mental illness. What are the signs in the fish then? At some point, you must have a metric to go by, unless you operate wholly on belief and opinion - and that is o.k, for those who wish to do so, just don't use it as an argument against measurable factors.

I believe that I covered all of the measurable signs by normal aquarium husbandry standards. The only additional one I've come up with is cortisol levels, and I have a call in to a researcher who has worked specifically with the corticosteroid levels in captive fishes to see what he thinks....not that home aquarists are going to be able to measure that in their fish.

I'm serious here - my working definition is just that, a work in progress. I am more than willing to change the wording to make it more accurate, more objective, more inclusive...just keep opinion (my own included) out of the mix.

Everything else in aquarium husbandry is closely measured - temperature, water quality, medications, etc. Why then do some people just toss that all out and say, "a fish needs this size tank because that is what feels right to me."


Jay

 

[bertoni]

I disagree completely. I am not willing to subject fish to conditions that alters their behavior in the ways we discussed for our guidelines, whether or not we have developed objective metrics. Monkeys in labs were treated poorly for decades with that kind of logic. Personally, I am going to try to avoid that approach.

 

[Stuart60611]

What is clear to me is that the status quo is not working on many levels. What is also clear from this thread is a purely objective standard is likely unworkable and maybe not even desireable for a variety of reasons. The question I think now becomes can a better means be fashioned which, although not purely objective, nor scientficly unchallengeable, is more realistic and accurate. Something between pure objectivity and pure subjective heresay.

In this regard, I have some thoughts. First, I think when speaking of minimum tank size one must approach the answer both from a bioload and behavorial/psychological needs of the fish perspective. To properly address each, it seems volume measurements are best for bioload considerations while dimensions seem more appropriate to express behavorial/phsychological needs of a fish. As such, I think whenenver minimum tanks size is expressd both units of measurement should be used together so the information adequately addresses each of these needs.

Second, I think it is important that minimum tank size clearly indicate whether it is applied to juvenile or full grown adult fish. Minimum tank size could be given for both categories or simply indicate to which it applies.

Third, minimum tank size should be expressed in a consistent way with other suggested husbandry information. In other words, if the suggested husbandry of a fish requires a lot of rock in the display then minimum tank size needs to be expressed large enough so that it allows the tank size suggested to be maintained consistent with all the rock and remain large enough.

I have some other ideas, but I thought that this was a good list to start with to encourage some other peoples' input.