jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Agreed LisaD. This hobby is not black and white. There are an infinite number of degrees of suitability. We shouldnt leave it as polar extremes of "leave everything in the oean", or "do whatever the heck we want".
This is pretty sad...
- Thread starter DGee
- Start date
jmanyapanda is right, but the principle should be expanded. A fifth of the world's population regards the killing of innocent cows to be barbaric. Some westerners feel the same about dogs and monkeys, maintaining for no reason that makes sense coming from a meat eater that eating dogs, cats and monkeys is morally wrong. These people generally will eat fish, but draw the line at slowly suffocating them in an aquarium. Suffocation of fish in the bottom of a boat is ok, unless it's a small cute fish. Killing people is regarded as ok, even admirable under certain conditions, but eating them is seldom countenanced, despite the fact that doggies and fishes and little miniature piggies eat one another's corpses, and humans too, for that matter.
I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere. Have you read about chicken factories? The ones that produce most of the poultry we eat? The ones where beaks are amputated because the chicks are jammed into quart bottle spaces all their lives might peck the merchandise in front of them? People are as unpleasant as the worst rodent, but we have an unlimited capacity for self-deception. Those who keep those crowded decorator aquariums are no worse or better than most of the rest of us. Just a different perspective, part of our infinite diversity in this rainbow world.
I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere. Have you read about chicken factories? The ones that produce most of the poultry we eat? The ones where beaks are amputated because the chicks are jammed into quart bottle spaces all their lives might peck the merchandise in front of them? People are as unpleasant as the worst rodent, but we have an unlimited capacity for self-deception. Those who keep those crowded decorator aquariums are no worse or better than most of the rest of us. Just a different perspective, part of our infinite diversity in this rainbow world.
Beaun
It's pronounced Bone
From what I have read I dont see where these comments about racism are coming from. I see the posts as generalizations (definitly over-generalized) about culture influencing a method of husbandry in one area of the world, which I find to be illogical. However, I dont think that race has anything to do with the discussion, while regional methods do. Different regions have differnt methods of husbandry, some can be argued to be better than others, but that dosnt make it a racial/cultural issue.
That said, of course there are people everywhere that have severely overcrowded tanks with fish that are too small for their enclosures. How many posts are there about "can I fit this fish in a..." There is no way we can perfectly replicate what a fish experiences on the reef day to day. But we can at least give them enough room that they are not stressed or having issues with swimming space. How you come about figuring out what is "enough" is a very complex question. Personally, this hobby is about learning and about respect, that's obviously not the goal for everyone.
This is certainly an interesting discussion that will bring out a lot of response from many people because it is an ethical question, along the lines as how to kill a sick fish. There is a lot of room for discussion, but it's my belief that one sign of adequate space is longevity of fish, which brings up the question again of how long have these fish been sustained in these systems.
That said, of course there are people everywhere that have severely overcrowded tanks with fish that are too small for their enclosures. How many posts are there about "can I fit this fish in a..." There is no way we can perfectly replicate what a fish experiences on the reef day to day. But we can at least give them enough room that they are not stressed or having issues with swimming space. How you come about figuring out what is "enough" is a very complex question. Personally, this hobby is about learning and about respect, that's obviously not the goal for everyone.
This is certainly an interesting discussion that will bring out a lot of response from many people because it is an ethical question, along the lines as how to kill a sick fish. There is a lot of room for discussion, but it's my belief that one sign of adequate space is longevity of fish, which brings up the question again of how long have these fish been sustained in these systems.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
It is indeed!! The purpose of ethical aquarium keeping is not to prevent death. That is impossible. It is to prolong life. Conditions such as that do not prolong life.
Without obliterating the dead horse here, it all boils down to the defintion of "success", as well. If me dumping a 3 foot nurse shark, in a four foot 125 gallon, taking a picture, and posting it is success, then this has different meaning than the same setup a day/month/year down the road. Can corallivorous fish be "successfully" kept on no coral diets? Define success, and you'll have your answer.
Frogmanx82
New member
I just don't see how they keep the tank super clean. It seems to me to be a newly set up tank or they are adding some chemicals to keep out the algae. Is copper addition pretty typical for these tanks. With tangs being pretty popular in these types of tanks I would assume copper is needed.
Sardaukar
Premium Member
Did you ever get that resolved? The fish disease forum is probably the place to go for info like that.
aninjaatemyshoe
New member
I don't think that calculating the ocean's biomass against its volume will give you a number that has any kind of real meaning for the "humane" stocking density. After all, a huge portion of the ocean is desert-like pelagic regions where the fish density is very low... A better guide would be to look at the density the fish tend to occupy within their own small areas of the reef. For instance, you'll have large communities of clownfish all occupying one large anemone on the reef. Do the fish really make use of all the extra space available to them on the reef? In the case of clownfish, for instance, I would definitely guess not.
I would agree, however, that we have a rather false notion of what an appropriate stocking density is. This comes from a tendency for us to give an anthropomorphic look at our fish. We imagine what we'd believe to be an acceptable amount of space if we were a fish. Instead, we should be simply more observant about the health and behavior of the fish to gauge whether they are stressed.
aninjaatemyshoe
New member
I think successful fish keeping is actually being able to breed and propagate the fish, or at least managing to keep them alive to within their average adult lifespan in the wild. I think the vast majority of the people who post on RC would agree with this definition.
Tying up the question of whether what we do is ethical is another issue. If people want to get philosophical debate about this, the simple fact is that we are all moral relativists. Ultimately, we base what we believe to be ethical on preconceived notions, our emotions, and what other people have told us. We do have a fantastic ability to delude ourselves that we can have a pure objective ethical stance on any issue. People also love to take the moral high-ground and look down on others. That said, I think it is awful how they keep the little fishies in such a small bowl
+1 the size of the ocean has nothing to do with it. Just like humans, some live on islands, some live on continents and some live in jail. Just like in jail, sometimes you cell mate kills you.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
I think successful fish keeping is actually being able to breed and propagate the fish, or at least managing to keep them alive to within their average adult lifespan in the wild. I think the vast majority of the people who post on RC would agree with this definition.
Tying up the question of whether what we do is ethical is another issue. If people want to get philosophical debate about this, the simple fact is that we are all moral relativists. Ultimately, we base what we believe to be ethical on preconceived notions, our emotions, and what other people have told us. We do have a fantastic ability to delude ourselves that we can have a pure objective ethical stance on any issue. People also love to take the moral high-ground and look down on others. That said, I think it is awful how they keep the little fishies in such a small bowl
I wish this were true. Sadly, I dont think it is. These forums are littered with threads of "success" of fish keeping where such "success" is measured in months or even shorter. I, too, think success should be measured in relative terms to wild counterparts, but I dont think it's done so. For example, I have read many many accounts of people "converting" obligate consumers to "aquarium fare" food, and proclaiming success after days, weeks, and maybe months. Is this accurate? IMO, definitely not. There is a reason thses fish ahve evolved to eat specifically coral polyps, or mucous, or whatever. And while an animal may survive for a period on substitute items, said period is only relative.
aninjaatemyshoe
New member
Actually, there have been genuine accounts of what I would deem success with obligate consumers. The most amazing example is the guy who managed to get Oxymonacanthus longirostris entirely on prepared foods. He managed to ween them into excellent health and even breed and rear the young of this "obligate" coralivore using prepared foods.
http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=1922
http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=1922
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Actually, I am well aware of Matts efforts and trials, but, once again, how have you deemed success? Reproduction? Or lifespan? If these fish are capable of growing, breeding, living, and functioning just as longa nd happily on other food sources, why do they only eat corals in the wild? There IS a tradeoff, we just havent seen it in the relatively short duration. IMHO.
aninjaatemyshoe
New member
Getting fish to the point where they are healthy and fat enough to rear viable offspring is something that many of us fail to do when feeding a more natural diet to other fish. These fish, though somewhat undernourished, can still live for quite a long time. Still, I would not count keeping such a fish alive for over a decade as being as big a success as getting it to breed and rearing offspring.
There could be a very simple explanation for why these fish only eat coral polyps in the wild: it's called optimal foraging strategy. The filefish eats coral polyps because they are the easiest source of food for it to get. It is a matter of expending the least amount of energy to gain the most amount of nutrition. Therefore, the filefish might not be eating other foods, such as zooplankton, because it is not designed to catch such food in the wild. That doesn't mean that it can't have a balanced diet eating such food, but that they simply are ill-equipped to integrate it into their natural diets. In an aquarium, where such food is offered dead and easy to get to, they are not so limited.
I will agree that it perhaps is still too soon to mark this one as a complete success. Perhaps there is something extremely limiting in this diet. We'll just have to wait and see.
There could be a very simple explanation for why these fish only eat coral polyps in the wild: it's called optimal foraging strategy. The filefish eats coral polyps because they are the easiest source of food for it to get. It is a matter of expending the least amount of energy to gain the most amount of nutrition. Therefore, the filefish might not be eating other foods, such as zooplankton, because it is not designed to catch such food in the wild. That doesn't mean that it can't have a balanced diet eating such food, but that they simply are ill-equipped to integrate it into their natural diets. In an aquarium, where such food is offered dead and easy to get to, they are not so limited.
I will agree that it perhaps is still too soon to mark this one as a complete success. Perhaps there is something extremely limiting in this diet. We'll just have to wait and see.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
We will have to agree to disagree ont his topic. If these animals (and ipso facto, reef fish) can acquire and metabolize the same requirement, whether they eat coral poluyps, slime, etc, or zooplankton, there would be no specialization. If polyps are easier to eat, why would a fish ever evolve to eat zooplankton, or vice versa? There is a missing link, that we just are not seeing. You say they are "not designed" to catch such food in the wild. Why not? Once again, I am not referencing fish like angels, etc, which consumer a variety of organisms, but instead obligate consumers in the wild. I find it quite impossible to believe that these fish can acquire the same bioessential elements from eat mysis and brine, spriulina, whatever, that they could from their natural diet of coral polyps, slime, etc. Thats just my opinion, though.
Also, IMHO, I think far too many people disregard all animals drive to procreate, and pass along "their" genes. spawning, or reproduction in the home aquaria is not hard. Raising the offspring typically is. Animals know how to spawn, and they are going to try to do it at all cost. That is their "purpose" in life. To pass along their genes. This is why there are many man craeted hybrids, where the occurance of such in the wild isnt near the density. Heck, there are even cross genera hybrid made by man. In our aquariums, you can ellicit a tridacnid clam to spawn by doing a water change! "Reproduction" of these animals is not a good benchmark, IMO. In fact, I believe it to be a misleading one.
Before we claim success, I would like someone to look at the overall fitness of said animals. And first and foremost, be able to provide some degree of replication. IMO, losing 15 animals to have 1 survive is not success (I just amde up that number. Im sugfgesting the principal, not trying to provided "data"). But even furthermore, I would like to see exactly how these "alternative" diets are effecting the fish physiologically. Do their livers and endocrine systems still function as well? Is their lifespan shortened? ETC ETC ETC. I can eat pizza everyday, all day, and survive until next month/year/whatever. But does that mean its a successful diet for me to be on, and when I do die, will people say I ived a healthy and full life? Or will they same my life was shortened by a poor diet and poor lifestyle?
Sorry to derail this thread so much.....
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
sorry for the awful typing too.
happyjack
New member
Although the tank does seem a bit "lifeless" as you put it, it's not "sad" IMHO. The conspics look nice and fat, the tank is super clean so the owner obviously does tons of maintenance on the tank (the BB is easy to keep clean). We never even see the right side of the tank so it's hard to judge how big it is. One of the bandits did appear skinny though... and there are four of them it appears.
The second one is definitely pushing it though
This is about the worst I've seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOQcT0kEZ0s&feature=related
agreed that is disgusting
Similar threads
