my fish don't grow

[tahoe61]

Why?

Why?

No one with any experience is going to tell you what you want to hear. If you are serious about the health of both your tank and fish you will get rid of the tangs and trigger. Fish looking happy just means they have no visable signs of disease, are still eating, and swimming. You should be working towards what ideal environment you can manage with your tank, instead of thinking you can pull it off. In the end you will not pull it off, you can't fool mother nature.

 

[timdam]

thanks guys.

but to my defense....yea, i'm not going to get any more clown triggers. and my regal fell into the overflow. and alot of people have had trouble getting a butterfly to eat. my loss.

 

[michael_cb_125]

Unfortunately there will be none here with any experience who will side in your defense.


~Michael

 

[timdam]

that's cool, mike. i understand.

but i know i'm not the only one in this world who has a few too many fish. it's not like my tank is that small. it's a 110.

 

[Stuart60611]

that's cool, mike. i understand.

but i know i'm not the only one in this world who has a few too many fish. it's not like my tank is that small. it's a 110.

It is incredibly small for those of your fish which each need in excess of 200 gallons. You situation is not merely one in which you have a few too many fish, but it is one in which you have placed multiple fish in a tank which is too small to house any one of them. If you think it is ok to abuse animals in this fashion, then I guess go ahead and do so. For me, I respect animals too much to place several fish that need in excess of 200 gallons in a 100 gallon environment. Imagine if I locked you in a closet for the rest of your life. I would bet that you would not mature normally either in such an environment.

 

[michael_cb_125]

You are correct, you are not the only one.

A 110 gallon is small when you have the density of fish in it that you do.

~Michael

 

[timdam]

but can people just argue that all fish just belong in the ocean? where they have miles and miles to swim?

 

[Stuart60611]

You are correct, you are not the only one.

A 110 gallon is small when you have the density of fish in it that you do.

~Michael

Mike's point is correct in that even a big tank becomes too small when the density of fish becomes too large. But in your situation, that is by no means your sole or bigest problem. As I stated before, your stocking practices are not merely placing too many fish into the tank, but they consist of placing several fish into a tank that is more than 100% too small to house any one of them alone. Kind of like locking up a dog in a shoebox, along with several other of your pets.

 

[jhawkor]

but can people just argue that all fish just belong in the ocean? where they have miles and miles to swim?

Yes, but if your going to take them out of the ocean you need to give them the best enviorment possible.

 

[timdam]

or how about feeding other fish live fish? that's pretty mean in itself too! i'm sure this has been debated in other treads, but i'm just saying. where do people draw the line?

 

[michael_cb_125]

Trying to point out other aspects of the hobby that may or may not be touchy is not going to relieve the fact that your tank is over-stocked and most likely destined to fail.

While I do not wish this on your fish, the reality of the situation must be acknowledged.

~Michael

 

[Stuart60611]

or how about feeding other fish live fish? that's pretty mean in itself too! i'm sure this has been debated in other treads, but i'm just saying. where do people draw the line?

Feeding fish other fish is natural part of the predator/prey relationship. Housing fish in a fish tank is not natural. Now if you are going to do so for your own pleasure, do you not think that it is at least your ethical duty to provide the fish a tank that is sufficient to meet the basic needs of the fish? Dogs run miles and miles in nature also. Dogs cannot in a domesticated pet situation often be given miles to roam. However, every dog owner knows that it is inhumane to house a dog without enough room to at least allow the dog to strech his legs and run a bit. Fish have these needs also. To house a fish without enough room to meet its basic needs for sufficient movement is where the line is drawn and where such practices imo amount to animal abuse.

 

[timdam]

so are u saying that if a minimum tank size for a harlequin tusk is 125 gallons, then anything else that you add makes it too crowded?

 

[Stuart60611]

so are u saying that if a minimum tank size for a harlequin tusk is 125 gallons, then anything else that you add makes it too crowded?

No, but to use your analogy, what I am saying is that your stocking practices are the equivolent of housing the tusk in a 50 gallon along with several other fish which also need a 125 gallon.

 

[vermonter310]

or how about feeding other fish live fish? that's pretty mean in itself too! i'm sure this has been debated in other treads, but i'm just saying. where do people draw the line?

They draw the line wherever there own personal comfort zone lets them and then that's it.... Opinions are rarely ever changed. The point they are all trying to make to you is two fold: One, The volume of water in relation to the amount of bio load you have is not one that is conducive to long term health of the animals you're keeping and two, the fish you are keeping are swimmers and would be better served with much more space.

While I understand (and to a certain degree, agree with you) on your point about even large home aquariums being small comparatively to a fishes natural environment, and therefore open to the same debate. They are in fact two separate points. One a factual one, concerning bio load and our ability to maintain a healthy environment and the second a subjective one open to all kinds of debate. Hence my opening line.

I appears to me, and apparently others, that you have to many fish for the size of tank you have. You asked a question and it was answered. You're debating the point won't change it.

Weather it's ethical to keep any animal in a less than natural environment is a debate that could last a lifetime"¦.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

I reaffirm my previous comment with:

The OP here obviously does not think, nor understand, that what he is doing is wrong. Good luck to you, and better luck to your fish. They'll need it.

 

[timdam]

so your suggestion is to remove my koran and french?

 

[timdam]

oh, and thank you vermonter310. whether u believe it or not, i appreciate your insight.

as far as bioload, my water is always good.

 

[Stuart60611]

While it is is true that we can never re-create enough space in our tanks to even come close to emulating a fish's natural environment, and whether a particular tank is large enough is often subjective and debateable. There IS an objective and absolute point in which a tank is too small for a fish and to house a fish in such an environment is abusive. For a large angel that swims miles each day in nature, I find it hard to fairly debate the point that a tank is not too small to house this fish when the tank is not even wide enough for the fish to turn around. To me, there is no reasonable debate in this situation and reasonable minds cannot differ because tank is too small, period.

 

[timdam]

but no one ever asked how big my angel is. it's not full size.

hey, i'm just going by advice that someone once told me.... 'It's not the size of the fish tank, it's the motion of the ocean"