It isn't "buyer beware" that I would advocate for, but rather "buyer be aware".
Jay
Stuart,
I've heard you cite the lionfish example a number of times, so for grins, I ran it through my swimming space calculator, and for a single fish, in an open 48" x 18" 50 gallon tank, and an estimated adult size of 15", it isn't good, but it doesn't work out nearly as bad as you would portray:
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=3048
It comes out to be a 1:4.4 ratio. You can't have any rock in the tank, and no other fish, but it CAN work as an absolute minimum. Would I suggest it? No - but it can be done without causing acute mortality in the fish. The problem is that it is still a bit subjective to categorize lionfish as either sedentary or a maneuverable swimmer (my category 1 or 2). Personally, I would categorize lionfish in 2, (and thus need a 1:5 ratio) but if LA thinks they are more sedentary, then the numbers actually work.
So - can you refute this? Can you say that a fish in this scenario will outright die from that size tank? If so, by what mechanism and in how much time? Will the fish just be unhappy? If so, how do you measure this? Regarding the problem of hepatic lipidosis in this species - do you think the fish will even live long enough in the hands of a typical home aquarist to grow too large?
Jay
p.s. - I have never purchased a fish from LA, so I'm not defending them per-se, its just that I want to see some more objective measures be used when determining tank sizes for fish.... "I feel it is too small of a tank" just doesn't cut it any longer.
First the fish cant be 15 inches long 15 inches high and 15 incehs wide so your theory is one of a two year old throwing a tempor tantrum. Seccond you could twist and contort any reasonable claim that anybodoy else says just because your mind is made up and you are not willing to listen. So when your done with your tantrum maybe it's time for a time out.
i wasn't attacking just stating what "seemed" like someone who no matter how much anyone says something different then your opinion is wrong. example: I do not think even your example can work for a volitan. A 50 gallon aquarium that is 48Lx 18W will be only 13 inches tall. How can a 15 inch tall fish live in a 13 inch tall tank?
Actually, a standard 50 gal. tank has interior dimensions of approximately 35 X17x20 inches. You could easily keep a full grown lionfish, perhaps two, in such an aquarium if you restrain it securely by limiting all but the smallest motion, as is done in commercially designed aquatic troughs or cages, fold the extended fins close to the body, employ an advanced toxin and metabolite scrubbing filter, run oxygenated water over the gills, and force feed pellets. Problem solved. Where in the ads does it say you have to let the fish swim around?
The older original 50s were 20 inches high. Like candy bars, standard sizes have shrunk slightly over the years. More importantly, the dimensions you quote are EXTERIOR dimensions. I wrote "interior" dimensions. Next time use a ruler, not a publication. In your business, you should know better. Read carefully.
I also specified that the fins be folded as part of the restraining process. A sentence to which you make reference has a compound descriptive adjective: "a toxin and metabolite (etc)". One filter removing two substances. Like an argumentative and untruthful client. Two qualities in one person. 'Cleans and deodorizes your laundry' One detergent doing more than one thing. Fairly clear English, I think.
In any case, a 'toxic filter" is an oxymoron. Not that such things do not exist.
It's fairly common knowledge that aquarium manufacturers use OD dimensions to measure tanks. Most if not all are what they say they are. Hey, another lawsuit for you :lol:
The last post, beyond the section that dealt with tank measurements, was so obviously meant as sardonic satire, I am amazed that you do not know how to respond. Did you think I was seriously suggesting the encasement of fish in mechanical cocoons? Do you take things that literally? Have you seen the film 'The Rain Man"?
I wonder if, when you read ( every educated person I've ever met has read this essay in basic required literature classes) Jonathan Swift's 'Modest Proposal' you were filled with moral outrage and attempted to contact him, even though he's been dead for two centuries. In 'Modest Proposal', Swift suggests in a most serious and well reasoned manner that instead of having impoverished Irish children starve to death, a system be devised through which they be raised in well nourished comfort, and killed for their meat around the age of 10. Without having seen Swift, somehow every reader knows immediately that this is satire. Swift was commenting on the cruelty of the 18th century British government, and its willingness to allow children to perish in agony. With similar intent, but in a far less skillful and unavoidably brief manner, my suggestion that big fishes be placed by aquarists in restraints and force fed pellets in order to house them in small containers was meant as satire. I thought that was obvious, but clearly I was wrong.
I apologize for any misunderstanding, and have no doubt that the fault lies in my poor writing skills and not in any problems with sophisticated reading and interpretive skills on your part. I mentioned the Rain Man film because the central character has a form of autism that, among other things, prevents him from understanding things like irony and satire. Have you read George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'? In Animal Farm Orwell writes "Everyone is equal. Some are more equal than others." If you ever read this short, entertaining book, let me warn you that Orwell was fully aware of the comment's inner contradiction. It was meant as political satire. When reading his text you do not get to observe Orwell, so I thought it might be useful to reveal his intent.