# Lets slow this train down a bit.



## chrispyweld

I think we are probably turning a lot of people away from this cite and all the GOOD info on it. Whether it's jumping down peoples throats for hybrids or telling people they need outrageous sized set ups for common cichlids it's getting ridiculous. This forum has turned into a serious SNOBFEST!!!

When I started coming to this cite 4+ years ago a 20L could house cons, dithers, and a bristlenose plec. 55g was the MINIMUM for a lone oscar. (Don't fully agree with this) Tanks needed to be filtered 10X with HOB and 4-6X with a canister. It's not uncommon to hear you need 15X filtration with a canister now and there is a current thread where the OP is being told they cannot have any other cichlids in 55g besides a pair of cons and that dithers might not even work!!

There is a group of posters that started here a year or so ago (maybe the last couple years) that although they have had only a few tanks and very limited experience with many species, just regurgitate information they heard that is not based on personal information at all and it keeps ballooning requirements for keeping these fish to a point that is completely unrealistic. 
Is it reasonable to tell people the need a $500+ dollar set up for a pair of cons??? (55g and a couple XP3's) Sure the cons would be happy but c'mon many of us have had WAY more then that in a 55g and it has worked just fine.

We can start the "ideal V. doable" argument but lets be real none of us can have a Amazon Basin sized aquarium.(other than TFG and a few others :lol.

Raise your hand if a scientist has ever come to your home and asked you to repopulate the waterways of a foreign land. Anyone? Didn't think so.

Yes there are some added responsibilities to owning hybrids if you have a breeding pair. Don't sell them as something they are not. But how many of us are really mass producing fry for sale or trade? Should they all be flushed. I'm guessing all those that love FH would disagree. Not my bag but others love 'em and I have seen some good looking hybrids. And lets be real we are not going to produce as many as the large scale Asian breeders already are.

Lets start to be more realistic around here. I would never have owned a cichlid if i was told all those years ago that my 55g could hold one 6in and one 4in fish I would have 55 inches of tetras for the last half decade and been missing out on all the great things about these lovable guys.

I just smoked a cigarette and I'm wearing a blindfold so fire away.

Or if you agree for crying out loud go ahead and say so.


----------



## sirdavidofdiscus

I agree with you somewhat. It seems the consesnses on here is in a 55, or any other 4 ft tank, the only way to keep more than 1 6-8in fish in there is if they are mated. I've kept and breed most of the common sa and ca (not oscars though) that are found in lfs. I've always started with 6 or more juvies in either a 55 or 75. When a pair forms I'd relocate the pair if and only if I wanted to keep the fry. I have had 6 severums in a 55 for 7 yrs. with lots of plants and hiding spots ( i wanted to change the tank around so I sold them). Same with jds and cons.


----------



## steve_58

I agree for the most part also. Back 25 yrs ago i was into aquarium and fish keeping big time. I had a 30 gallon high that i raised two oscars in. They were 2" when i put them in the tank . I haf them a few yrs and the one reached 12" and the other was 10" and healthy as could be. I had a 20 gallon i put a 1 1/2 " piranha in and he reached 6" . I had a 10 gallon with a jack dempsey in ,he reached 5" then i decided to quit the hobby. I sold them to a local fish store and everyone that saw them were amazed with how healthy and great they looked.


----------



## terd ferguson

At one point, I had five breeding pairs of cons in a 10g, lol.  They bred like rabbits and I didn't have a murder for the year they were in there. Later, I moved them to a 20g and then a 30g. I didn't have any problems at all until they went in the big tank and met up with 2 TSN's.

I mostly agree with what chrispy said. You've got to remember that most of these questions are posed by people who are very new to the hobby. They see a 2" jag and think how cute, totally not knowing the havoc a fully grown version can create. They will have gone to Petsmart and bought a jag, JD, firemouth, and cons for their 30g or 55g. Minimum tank sizes for large fish can't really be ignored. However, the responses of x can't be kept with y may or may not be valid. In my experience, it's all up to the individual fishes' personalities.

It's not that bad information is being given out. It's just erring on the side of caution, which isn't a bad thing. But with the maximum, the minimum should also be given. Personally, I try not to give out stocking advice. It's because when you're talking about American cichlids, it's mostly a gamble as to what will work with what.


----------



## tankmates

Chrispyweld,

I agree with what you have said. I have been lectured about keeping certain species in tanks that are "too small". I have been breeding and raising various cichlids for many, many years, with great success. I do get a chuckle when someone with two tanks explains to me that I am torturing my fish by letting them breed in a 29 gal. tank.

I guess that I am guilty of keeping certain fish in less than ideal tanks. However, the tanks are clean, the fish are healthy, well fed and reproduce often. Many people on this site have to lighten up. Let's try to keep the hobby going, not destroy someone's new found passion.


----------



## Joels fish

I agree with you for the most part *chrispyweld*, there is certainly alot of caution here regarding tank size and compatability. I've kept and bred many species in less than the "ideal" tank sizes that many here would say was even close to what was needed. Like *terd ferguson* said it's personality as much as anything that makes any setup sucessfull or not. Especially with CAs. Personally I like to stock around the largest fish I plan to keep in any given tank and with consideration for typical temperment, but thats just me and my advice is based of my experience. I also like to try and make sure that I let folks know that by statements like "just my 2 cents , IMO, if it were me" or something to that effect. There really are no hard rules beyond you need water in the tank , feed your fish , and do a waterchange periodicly (frequency is left to the person owning the tank). Everything else is circumstancial. I like helping the noobs because it reminds me of that initial passion I had when I got started in this all those years ago. I just try and help stear them away from those disaterous mistakes that I made and hopefully make their experience (especially the early ones ) better and less frustrating than what I experienced since I'm old enough to not have had the benefit of resources like this one when I started. The individual members know their tanks and their fish better than we do . While we may think something just wont work, that's just it *we* don't think it will. We need to lighten up a tad and help ,not berate. Just because something didn't work for us certainly doesn't mean it won't work for someone else. We are asked for advice and we should give it but we need to do our collective best to guide as well as encourage. Otherwise we are little more than a bunch of A-holes with fish , and that's not why we're here.


----------



## dwarfpike

Heh.

I guess I am one of those old fuddy duddies when it comes to stocking. I know I am one of the few here that believes you shouldn't keep 10-12" fish in a 12" wide tank for instance. Personally I won't keep anything larger than a 6-7" fish in a 12" wide tank, and tell people that it's both my preferance and that I stock conservatively.

As for a pair of convicts in a 20 long, I either recommend against or have a divider handy. This comes from experience of losing female convicts to the males in that exact size tank. Obviously I'm not going to recommend it to others, especially newer aquarists if I am losing fish in the same setup. Can it be done? Of course. Based on experience though I don't recommend it, though others have had no issues with the same setup.

But instead of saying just "no" I do think we should be stating why we are doing so ... like above example with the convicts. Or recommending a 90 gallon over a 75 gallon for sev's is because I've seen full grown 10-12" green sevs and they are just massively tall fish where the extra height would do them well.

Two dwarf or medium pairs in a 55 is pretty standard though, I admit I don't get that one. **** I've kept two pairs of dwarf (up to 4") cichlids in 3ft 38/40/50 gallon tanks. Oh, and I only aim to filter 10x with HOB even though of course with media, it is less than this.

But I do believe in giving advise on the conserative side. The reason is simple: most people are going to try and cut short the stocking anyway. If you are being conserative, and they try a short cut, odds are the fish will still be okay. If you give the 'absolute min' and they still try to shortcut it, odds are they will lose fish.

But it comes down to how it's phrased more than the advised given though. :thumb:

PS: Won't even get into the H-word part though being one of the conserative types who believes they are a sign of the apocolypse ... but that debate takes away from the purpose of the orginial post. Hence not saying anything. Well mostly. :thumb:


----------



## SinisterKisses

I agree that I can't see the logic in keeping a 10-12" fish in a 12" wide tank. Of course the tank could ALWAYS be bigger, and not everyone can have a 400gal tank for two fish. But, when we enter the hobby I feel we have an obligation to provide the best for our fish. I've had full grown male Midas, for example, in 75gal and 90gal tanks. They'll do, and I still advise on this site and others that a 75gal would be a minimum for an adult male, but personally I feel they're just too small. My boy has a 120gal tank to himself, and no one can understand how I can keep just one fish in such a large tank - until they see it in person. It's hard to imagine confining him to anything smaller than that.

In terms of convicts...I've seen some adult males easily 6" in size. A 6" fish should not be kept in a 20gal long IMO, especially not with a mate. The 20 long would make a great grow out for a pair, likely for a good deal of time, but in the long run I feel a pair of convicts should get at least a 33gal tank to themselves.


----------



## chrispyweld

dwarfpike said:


> I know I am one of the few here that believes you shouldn't keep 10-12" fish in a 12" wide tank for instance. Personally I won't keep anything larger than a 6-7" fish in a 12" wide tank


I totally agree with this one myself, fish shouldn't have the master the three point turn around!



> PS: Won't even get into the H-word part though being one of the conservative types who believes they are a sign of the apocalypse


:lol:

Chocolate and Vanilla, people have different tastes. I think Oscars are huge, ugly, codependent, **** machines but if huge, ugly, codependent, **** machines make you happy who am I to judge.


----------



## SinisterKisses

chrispyweld said:


> I think Oscars are huge, ugly, codependent, #%$& machines but if huge, ugly, codependent, #%$& machines make you happy who am I to judge.


LOL!! Me too! They're kinda cute when they're tiny babies...but then they get all bug-eyed and ugly. And don't even get me started on Blood Parrots...


----------



## chrispyweld

:lol:
Agreed there are hybrids and then there are insults to GOD.


----------



## Joels fish

chrispyweld said:


> :lol:
> Agreed there are hybrids and then there are insults to GOD.


 :lol: :thumb:


----------



## con-man-dan

I have to agree with both sides....but if you think its bad here there are some other forums you should visit. This is nothing, on other sites with more scientists and proffessional collectors and breeders, you'll get thrown to the wolves for even suggesting wet pets. 6ft tanks aren't big enough anymore, you have people building 8, 10, 14ft aquariums to hold a few fish of a single species. Some of their points ARE spot on...such as breeding. Breeding isn't always a sign of happy fish, its the most basic survial instinct in any animal species in the world, including us humans. Propogation of the species will be attempted regardless of conditions. I didn't say optimum greatest results, mind you. I also think a fish should have half again its lenth min to turn around. IE 6" in a 12" tank, 12" in an 18" tank. And frankly I think, imo, fish over the 18" probably shouldn't be kept in the hobby outside of extremely large tanks which may as well be indoor ponds. If you want to see the more natural behavoirs, you're gonna need a lot more space then noobs realize. That insane blood thirsty jag in a 125, might be a docile happy go lucky fish in a 10x3x3ft tank.

I use smaller tanks then I suggest...but I have years of experiance and dozens of species under my belt. However, I don't push the limits, and I'm still keeping relatively small cichlids in 3x1.5 tanks. I used to be a very heavy breeder, so I also know the difference between breeding set ups, and long term display tanks, and suggestions vary between the two.

Hybrids need to be gone. There are more then enough natural species for everyone to find something. Want a FH? Get a trimac. Its the same as all these new dog cross breeds you see because someone wants to make money and create a market (all these new poodle crosses like puggles)

Beyond that, there are so many fish that need to be gone from pet stores period. If you're a serious keeper and have the know how and space, special order it. pacu, shovel nose cats, red tail cats, tinfoil barbs, kissing gouramis, dovii, snakeheads....the list goes on and on. Specialty fish stores are one thing, but honestly it makes me sick to see midas, red devils, distchodus, jags and even pikes at big box stores. The average person buying from them does not have the experience, tanks or knowledge to really give these fish full lifes, and I can almost guarantee its an e x t r e m e minority who become dedicated fish keepers who will provide what these creatures need. I'm with dwarfpike on this, its a 100x better to err on the side of caution then witness too many gold fish in a bowl outcomes then to tell people to stock to their hearts desire. But, I also think a lot has gotten out of hand as well, on all forums just not here in CA. Such as the 17839475x filtration. If you're down on filtration, be up on more water changes (within reason)


----------



## lam man48

I agree with you toatly chrispyweld


----------



## chrispyweld

Thanks Dan and Lam man,

I feel if your ammonia and nitrites are at 0 you've got enough filtration. Period.

You might need more for aesthetics if you want crystal clear water. My school has one of the very small handfuls of Aquaculture programs in the country and the mechanical filter went out a year ago. They just do HUGE water changes. They supply fish that go into the local waterways, they know there stuff.

Good point Dan, breeding is a basic biological instinct. Even in the worst conditions animals will try even if there is no chance at being successful. Watch "American Me" and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## klumsyninja

I'm with you on this one chrispyweld. As someone who is relatively new to this forum and cichlid keeping. I find it to be really frustrating to sort through all the 'you need a thousand gallons and fifty filters and three panes of 2 inch glass and then you can have one fish in there' responses to what seem to be innocent enough questions.

That being said, I have ample filtration on my African tank because they produce a lot of waste due to their high numbers, and I have a nice big 180 for my CA/SA fish cause they grow pretty big and need room to turn, swim and breed..

I guess it just bothers me and I wonder if this site would get more traffic and responses if ppl were a little more sensible in their responses..

I'm glad you started this thread because I wanted to as well but as a newer member didn't think it would carry any weight around here.


----------



## chrispyweld

I don't now that I carry any more weight than anyone else, at least I shouldn't.

Really I consider myself a novice still. I have experience with very few different species and have only bred fish a few times. Watching the trends on here for a while gives me a little perspective is all. I watched this cite and others for probably a year before I joined and the info here helped me a lot in the early years. I would hate to scare people away when their is so much knowledge compiled here.

I was completely clueless when I started I brought home a 10g tank with an Oscar and set it up all the same night. This cite taught me to stop changing ALL the water when it got "cloudy" like I did the first four months I had my tank. I would break it down and scrub out the inside and all the decorations cause I couldn't figure out what was making my water do that.  I would have given up if not for this forum.

But glad to help get the ball rolling anyway.


----------



## Feverdream

I've been hanging around this forum for a number of years now... I don't post a lot, but what I do post usually consists of something like this...

"Of course you can put those fish together in THAT tank". or...

"Heck, if it gets to be a problem, you can always remove a fish or two..." or...

"Don't listen to that obsessive woman."

Now... don't get me wrong, I've had my share of screw ups over the years, but one thing I've realized is this... Most of the "fish-snob" types... well, their hearts are in the right place, and they really do hate to see their fish (which they've usually given cute names to) die, and they've taken extreme precautions to see that they don't have to have another funeral in the back yard (complete with tears and a elaborate poem that they've written themselves).

But in the long run... cichlids are feral... extremely feral... They will kill each other sometimes, even in a 10,000 gazillion gallon tank, so I'm thinking... keeping 27 separate fish in 27 separate tanks is, in the long run, pretty silly.


----------



## terd ferguson

chrispyweld said:


> I don't now that I carry any more weight than anyone else, at least I shouldn't.
> 
> Really I consider myself a novice still. I have experience with very few different species and have only bred fish a few times. Watching the trends on here for a while gives me a little perspective is all. I watched this cite and others for probably a year before I joined and the info here helped me a lot in the early years. I would hate to scare people away when their is so much knowledge compiled here.
> 
> I was completely clueless when I started I brought home a 10g tank with an Oscar and set it up all the same night. This cite taught me to stop changing ALL the water when it got "cloudy" like I did the first four months I had my tank. I would break it down and scrub out the inside and all the decorations cause I couldn't figure out what was making my water do that.  I would have given up if not for this forum.
> 
> But glad to help get the ball rolling anyway.


I laughed at the second part. Check out my first posts here to see how much of a novice I am, lol. It went something like this:
me: Why is my water cloudy? 
them: Test Your Water.
me: Ammonia 9ppm.  
them: Nothing should be alive in there.
me:They seem fine to me? 
them: You should do regular water changes.
me: What's a water change? 

It's thanks to the knowledge here and MFK that I've learned so much in such a short time.


----------



## chrispyweld

*Feverdream*
I have only named a few of my fish. My daughter has named them ALL. She is almost six now so at least they are not all named "Rainbow", "Raindrop" and "Unicorn" any more.

I started telling her a while back that I was sending them off to a friend with a pond where they could swim and swim until they got tired, then at night they could curl up next to a fire place and dream about hunting.

That second part might have been when the dog died come to think of it.

*terd ferguson*

I'm glad someone knows how I feel now looking back. :lol:


----------



## CiChLiD LoVeR128

It has been my experience with that when wanting to have spawning pairs it's best to keep the pair in their own tank alone! It just seems to work better a lot less problems arise. I don't mean to scare people away but when they are beginners I feel that it is important that they get practice and have one pair until they get their feet wet and understand how much room a breeding pair will need. But like I said it's just my opinon and my experience. I have tried keeping a pair of Sajica with just 2 Firemouths and 1 Firemouth killed the pair that was too much for me and made me realize that when wanting to have a pair it's best to just have one per tank. If you want to keep 2 pairs in a 55 gal be my guest I don't give a **** but I will never try it again! 

Now about hybrids yes I know that it does happen and that's usually on accident but then theres people out there that are in for the money and do it on purpose. If its on accident then I understand but I just don't agree with it. It's not right to play God. In the wild they don't hyrbidize and as aquarists it's our duty to take care of the fish the right way and give the fish the best that we can and make sure they are healthy. I really don't like mixing cichlids with other cichlids I prefer to keep one specie per tank but again that's just me. But again I know it does happen and as long as people either keep the hybrids or sell them to individuals and advertise them as hybrids and don't flood the market with them I am ok with hybrids somewhat. :lol:

Happy cichlid keeping!


----------



## dwarfpike

I do think breeding a pair of a species new to you alone first is a good idea. That way you can learn how much space the parents require, ect ... before trying to mix pairs in an aquarium.


----------



## truett

I think alot of the minimum tank requirements come from books and articles we read. Most of them will tell you 30 gallon for dwarf cichlids and 50 gallons or more for any thing else. When I am thinking of buying a cichlid that I have never kept before I will look it up to see what the max size it will get.

Twenty five years ago when our oldest son was three I had just cleaned a 3o gallon tank and he liked to help. A couple of hours later I wallked into the room the tank was in there was sudds flowing out of the tank and across the floor. My son was standing next to the tank, I ask him what he was doing. " Cleaning the fish." He had dumped Tide in the tank. The next week I was buying more fish.


----------



## LJ

truett said:


> A couple of hours later I wallked into the room the tank was in there was sudds flowing out of the tank and across the floor. My son was standing next to the tank, I ask him what he was doing. " Cleaning the fish." He had dumped Tide in the tank. The next week I was buying more fish.


Didn't this happen with Rudy on The Cosby Show?


----------



## earth intruder

dwarfpike said:


> But I do believe in giving advise on the conserative side. The reason is simple: most people are going to try and cut short the stocking anyway. If you are being conserative, and they try a short cut, odds are the fish will still be okay. If you give the 'absolute min' and they still try to shortcut it, odds are they will lose fish.


As an employee at an LFS, I second this. I've found that when you tell the average person "minumum 55 gallons," they figure 40 is enough. When you say "maximum 10 fish," they figure 15 is close enough. If you give them a conservative minumum or maximum, they're less likely to end up with dead fish when they push the limits of their tank.

And, in defense of the fish snobs, I do think we carry a certain amount of responsibility when we choose to become the caretakers of our fish.


----------



## palotpot

I agree that some people are getting snobbish and thrashy around here esp. to newcoemrs asking " stupid" questions..
But on the other hand i think we do owe our pets the desire and intent to be as knowledgeable and responsible fishkeepers.what I mean is : IF YOU CANT AFFORD A BIG TANK, DO NOT BUY BIG FISH...stick with guppies and neon tetras..
its bad enough we deprive our fish of their freedom but we make it worse by incarcerating them in a small cell with jeffrey dahmer as cellmate and make their life a living ****.....


----------



## George Walker

I agree with all you guys. I've progressed to a 100 ga and I will stock it with what has worked for me in the past, and not necessarily what everybody thinks you should do. I'am concious of what is ecologically correct, but if I want to house large agressive, with semi large moderate , with small non agressive and it works so be it.It's about the hobby not the ego of it's constituents in this forum. Thanks


----------



## tankmates

I think that we are going backwards here. Who determines which tank is "too small?" In most cases, with responsible fishkeepers, the fish are not being "incarcerated." I'm sure that most people are not taking fish out of the wild and confining them to a prison. Most of the fish have been in a tank all of their life. Their freedom is not an issue.

Common sense should dictate aquarium size.


----------



## palotpot

> Common sense should dictate aquarium size.


i agree...and common sense derives from the knowledge we get from experienced aquarists..
im relatively new to the hobby and i learn from those who trialed and erred before me. i really shouldnt have brought up the freedom issue because this is such a touchy subject...but what i really mean to say is provide our fish with enough room to swim and go about their business....without fear of being bullied by other fishes...


----------



## gage

> This forum has turned into a serious SNOBFEST!!!


kinda why im not on here much anymore.

i do agree that a 12" fish definitely requires a tank larger then 12" wide, but i think a majority of times we (including myself at times) really need to tone it down with jumping on people that have tanks to small for there fish. To me, it would be much more beneficial to give people info politely as opposed to aggressively, as i know myself that when people get snappy with me, it is my response to snap back, fully knowing i was in the wrong for keeping these large fish. thing is, we were all new to the hobby at one point, and probably had all of these big fish in tanks to small when we didnt know better, yet i find we people become non-tolerant of this, even though we (including myself), did the same thing.

so i ask, when you got your first tank, did you do all the research first? im willing to bet 90% of you (again, including myself) did not, therefore how much of a right do we have to "snobs" to these people new to the hobby

educate, don't attack.


----------



## dwarfpike

I researched, was already subscribed to an aquarium magazine before I had my first tank! :lol:

But that's just the way I am, I research everything before buying. Having worked in a pet store for 5 years, I deffinately agree with the average about 90% of the people don't.

And I agree with *gage*, and as I said back in the first post, it all comes down to how you say it. If I can't think of a decent way to phrase something carefully, I just won't post.


----------



## Toby_H

*So call on me brother... when you need a hand... we all need somebody to lean on...*

I just posted in the "We were all new once" (paraphrased) thread down in the General Aquaria forum reminding myself of my first tank... I'm surely not the one to pretend I haven't made my mistakes.

As described int he last two posts, it's as much of how we say things as it is what we say...

I'm all about being honest and not beating aroudn the bush... but at the same time there is being argumentative and there is sharing a differeing opinion... None of us are perfect and I've bumped heads with a couple people around here and I'm sure there are a few that don't care for me... but I've also mended quite a few simple misunderstandings with a friendly conversation...

I've also shared many difference of opinions with people I am friendly with and we have remained friendly the whole way through.

I can also completely understand/agree with the "standards" that are commonly suggested have changed a good bit. I used to be one of the conservative members around here... but now I'm far more on the liberal side, yet my stocking/filtering opinions haven't changed much at all.

I think we also need to accept that not every hobbyist is going to follow the ideal... I mean, how many of us live our lives according to the ideal? Have you drank eight 12 oz glasses of water today?


----------



## wolf13

I also research and plan extensivly, in fact thats what I am doing now for my expansion from confined apartment dweller to home owner with space to have more then a 55g. I was doing research for weeks before i bought my first tank and knew exaclty what I was going to have before I bought a fish, and also researched what i could change on the list. this time I will have had months of planning so I should have lots more go wrong.

I tend to jump right into the deep end, but when I do i'll know my water wings are under inflated, the pool is 12 ft deep and the sharks weren't fed recently.

That said, I think a lot of people are so used to trying to work under good or excellent conditions (multiple tanks of various sizes, large tanks, multiple large tanks, years of experiance) and having their fish be one of the primary aspects of their life and budget; that its hard to remember when it wasn't. They are true dedicated hobbiests and professionals that mean well. theres also the folks that mean well, but are just regurgitating information without experiance to temper it. We've all done that, whether trying to look cool, to show off or just trying to be helpful. But what happens is person A says this fish killed this fish, person B reads that and when person C asks if they can keep the two together, person B says "No, Never work" and pretty soon it becomes established common knowledge. Maybe is not such a bad thing if it helps prevent problems, but sometimes its better to try and do damage control.


----------



## chrispyweld

wolf13 said:


> this time I will have had months of planning so I should have lots more go wrong.


 :lol:


----------



## illy-d

Toby_H said:


> Have you drank eight 12 oz glasses of water today?


I will have by the time the work day is over... I know this is off topic but I made a conscious effort to do this a few weeks ago and it's actually quite easy if you have access to a 2L container and a fridge... I fill up the container at night and then drink from it through out the day and it's pretty easy to go through the whole jug... I have to pee all of the time but I feel better, have lost a little bit of weight and haven't had headaches (which is why I started doing this).

Try this for 2 weeks and you will feel better - even if you feel good you will still feel better.


----------



## RyanR

Research and planning is just fun. I so rarely can afford to be "in the market" for anything, that I just savor being in the "buying" position. Why rush? 

-Ryan


----------



## terd ferguson

I think Toby hit things on the head. It's not as much what is said as how it's said. A lot of times, I've seen people being "talked down to". This can turn people away from the hobby just as quickly as fish deaths due to irresponsible fishkeeping from not knowing any better. If someone is berated for asking what knowledgeable people think is a "stupid" question they've heard 1,000 times before, they may not stick around to get the good info they need to be responsible fishkeepers.

Toby and I have had disagreements in our fishkeeping philosophies, but it has always been with the utmost respect for each other in the process. I wish everyone here was as much of a gentleman as Toby. You guys can read back through my big thread to see what I'm talking about.

There was another thread similar to that one that ended up deleted becasue of the closeminded berating we're discussing here. If you were around back then, you'd see none of the people attacking my philosophies in the deleted thread post in my current big thread. Most predicted a two week life span for my tank and setup. It's closing in on two years now, lol. It's for this reason I spent a lot of time on MFK instead of here. But, I still keep my thread current because it's such a good reference with all kinds of good info that can benefit the new and experienced fishkeeper. It's taught me a lot from people providing ideas and info.

The thing we are battling here is habits. Old habits are hard to change. The technologies of the past dictated how people stocked their tanks. New technologies and techniques bring new possibilities. Some of the "old timers" are slow to accept this. It's that way with almost anything in life. In the end, some will be convinced to change with the times and some won't. It's just the way it is. I try to show what is possible with results rather than jibber jabber.


----------



## Toby_H

^^ did he just call me old?

lol, jk... and thanks Terd... We defintely haven't agreed on everything... and I do believe we can both agree we have each learned from the other in the process of discussing our sometimes opposing ideas...

We even agreed without being disagreeable to the point I got to stop by and see that monster tank in person and do some fish trading. It's a frikkin beautiful tank y'all...


----------



## phishes

RyanR said:


> Research and planning is just fun. I so rarely can afford to be "in the market" for anything, that I just savor being in the "buying" position. Why rush?
> 
> -Ryan


So true. I love learning about everything about a fish, and that is most of the fun. It is also the fish keeper's responsability to give fish their proper needs. A fish is a living thing that will feel pain and suffer if not taken care of. I hate people who see fish as a living thing that doesn't matter. A lot of people buy what they want w/ out thinking about the needs of the fish, which is mostly begginers. I was like that when I started, and have learned from my mistakes. Sometimes when you try and help others by passing this info on, they get mad. 
I also think it is irresponsible to allow CA cichlids to fight. CA's can establish pecking orders, but a lot of the time they don't. A lot of Africans do this, but they have addapted to living in close quarters in the wild. I watch the behavior closely, and if I look for signs for the "killing aggression". I think 95% of CA cichlid keeprs have had one cichlid kill another. I have been lucky so far, and have had no deaths in the 10 years of fish keeping. I did have to give up a killer texas, because of the extreme aggression. I couldn't keep her w/ any of my other cichlids, and she almost killed a larger oscar and a larger male convict. She was one of my favorite fish too, but it was the responsible thing to do. I still miss her.
CA cichlids need more space then other cichlids, so I think people should always stay away from the min tank size. Plus a bigger tank is healthier for the fish, and healthy fish always look better.


----------



## George Walker

Hey guys and girls. This is a great forum for talk and information. But I will say that most of us have lost fish because of our learning experience. But to say that one tank is better than that, or I would only put a fish in with that, is ludicrus. It is about your tank not about what fishguy says (sorry fishguy). I like you, but you are not god when it comes to fish keeping. Some of us can't keep 1800 ga. and be the keepers of the cichlid world. No disrespect but I would like some positive feedback. Especially about breeding pairs of Firemouth's

Thanks. G


----------



## SinisterKisses

WTH...pretty sure this thread ISN'T about personal attacks. And no, not everyone can afford 1800gal tanks, but if you can't afford a proper-sized tank for your fish, then you should not be keeping that fish. I've seen too many people say "my RD is fine in a 30gal tank, it's better than the 10gal it was in at the pet store" which is a huge load of bull.


----------



## eraserhead

SinisterKisses said:


> WTH...pretty sure this thread ISN'T about personal attacks. And no, not everyone can afford 1800gal tanks, but if you can't afford a proper-sized tank for your fish, then you should not be keeping that fish. I've seen too many people say "my RD is fine in a 30gal tank, it's better than the 10gal it was in at the pet store" which is a huge load of bull.


.. But there are realistic set ups, and there are take-a-second-mortgage-on-the-house-you-can-barely-afford setups. If the fish can carry on and be happy in a 55 gallon tank or whatnot, then why complain? Putting a Flowerhorn in a 30gal is one thing, where the fish can't even turn around, but come on, you don't need a frickin 200gal tank for a pair of Oscars. Fish are prettiest and most fun to watch when they are happy, and thats my motivation for keeping them happy- because they are most fun to watch. Hence, I keep and care for my fish to maximize MY enjoyment, not theirs. I've got a bunch of wild-caught CAs in a 175gal tank in my living room, and they are perfectly happy and awesome to watch. Sure, some would say I need a 400gal tank for this, but they can suck it. The fish are fine


----------



## SinisterKisses

No, but you do need a 6ft. tank for a pair of Oscars as adults. Could be a 120gal for all I care. And a 55gal tank is NOT a realistic set up for an adult male RD.


----------



## Toby_H

George, if you don't like advice given to you by The Fish Guy I suggest you talk to him about why he gave the advice he gave. He is a very rational, well experienced fish keeper than really knows his stuff and generally takes his time to explain himself. My guess is a little openmindedness and communication could help the two of you much better understand one another 



eraserhead said:


> Fish are prettiest and most fun to watch when they are happy, and thats my motivation for keeping them happy- because they are most fun to watch.


Great point Eraserhead. Also properly stocking, filtering, etc a tank makes maintenance on it a TON easier.

User experience is an invaluable tool in any industry/hobby. I've kept a lot of fish in a lot of situations but will continue to want to try new things and I'm very grateful there are people here I can ask opinions of. It's not a game of who has done what for longer... it's a matter of sharing both the pains and the joys of our experience...

Sinister... I feel your opinion about the needs of a pair of Oscars are exagerated and your being quite rude about the way you are conveying that opinion. Isn't the point of this thread that we should not being doing just that?


----------



## dwarfpike

I think part of the problem is that we choose such individualistic, intelligent fish.

Fish Person A may have a bonded male/female oscar pair that lives quite happily in a 5' 100 gallon aquarium and Fish Person B may have two males that can't stand each other and neatly divide a 6' 180 gallon tank in half.

Fish Person B will say you NEED a 6' tank for two oscars based on experience. Fish Person A will obviously disagree. Which is right? They both are of course. It all depends on not only the species, but the individuals of said species.

This of course makes newbies suspicious of the advice they are given, and generally will take the side of Person A becuase they want a similiar, smaller setup. Person B suddenly becomes overly conserverative.

A more practical example:



> As for a pair of convicts in a 20 long, I either recommend against or have a divider handy. This comes from experience of losing female convicts to the males in that exact size tank. Obviously I'm not going to recommend it to others, especially newer aquarists if I am losing fish in the same setup.


After that I do note that others haven't had issues with a 20 long for a pair of convicts, but I have lost females. So of course I won't recommend it. And these weren't even full sized adults, were were talking a 2.5" male and 2" females here.

Again, part of it is how the info is delivered of course. Explaining the why and how you are recommending such can be tedious, and several times I tend to assume the person would know what I'm typing, but I do it anyways. Sometimes it comes across condesending becuase it sounds like I think the Poster posing the questions knows zero about the fish in question ... but I rather add the explaination and reasoning just in case. Even though I often feel like answering in a bad way. :lol:


----------



## tankmates

=D>


----------



## SinisterKisses

Toby_H said:


> Sinister... I feel your opinion about the needs of a pair of Oscars are exagerated and your being quite rude about the way you are conveying that opinion. Isn't the point of this thread that we should not being doing just that?


You're as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. I do not feel keeping a pair of adult Oscars in a 6ft. tank is exaggerated at all. I feel it is a bare minimum. But I like my fish to have space. So obviously when I'm recommending a tank size for a pair of Oscars, I'm going to give that opinion. As for being "quite rude" - I'm doing no such thing. You're interpreting it that way. The joy of the written word over the internet is there's no tone to relay actual feeling.


----------



## chrispyweld

I agree with eraserhead about fish that are happy being more fun to watch. Definitely true.

However as for the "Second mortgage" comments I agree with what SK is saying it doesn't matter if it's a 12" Oscar or a 3 foot RTC, if you cant give it a proper home don't get it. There has to be some common sense used. This post was started because of the way people communicate on this thread and the EXTREMES that were starting to be told as minimums. There is a huge difference between a pair of Con's in a 20L (what I would consider the minimum because it has worked for some and I don't think anything smaller would work) and a pair of Con's needing a 55G which I thought was EXTREME.

George, personal attacks are part of the issue I had when I started this thread please refrain from them here.

TFG is not one of the "noobs" regurgitating knowledge from others, he has plenty of his own. He has always been respectful that I am aware of even when others didn't show him the same respect. 
You should discuss any problems you have with him in PM's. That's how I tell people off around here. I think of it like a beating, it's a sacred thing between two men meant to happen in a nice, quiet, private place, once it's a public event it's all about posturing and strutting and the initial reasons become secondary and then it's pointless. 
I don't think he or anyone else have ever referred to him as "The Fish God". That's just crazy. 
He's more like the Pope.

Dwarfpike I think you hit the nail on the head. It's all about how you say what you say. If you give your opinion, state it as such, and then say why you feel the way you do based on personal experience someone would have to try to get offended by this. But SK is right it's hard to interpret the written word some times as the inflection of the words is lost or inproperly assumed.

And there are people here that get very offended when they don't get the answer they are looking for. Or will ask the same question over and over waiting for someone to tell them what they want to hear, you gotta let those people walk their own path you only have so much influence over the internet.


----------



## terd ferguson

Honestly guys, I have a 16" Oscar and I think he's still growing. I find it hard to imagine this fish and another the same size in anything less than a 6'x2' tank. Given the proper care, Oscars get HUGE. I wouldn't want to see a FULL GROWN oscar in a 75g or 100g, let alone two. And not because of aggression, but simply footprint. He wouldn't be able to turn around without touching glass.

I'm not known for being conservative in stocking. But my personal view is proper tank size is a must. Grow out tanks are one thing and perfectly acceptable. But tank size for life should mean for a fully grown "rogue status" fish. Maybe a "small tank guy" reasons most fish won't reach their maximum size. Why would someone count on a fish not reaching it's true potential in order to justify a smaller tank? If someone were to ask me what's the minimum tank size for a pair of Oscars for life, I would say 6'x2' is the _bare_ minimum. _Maybe_ a 5'x2' if it was 30" tall. I might would cram four Oscars in a 6'x2', but they'd all at least be able to turn around comfortably.

Yes, I stock a large number of fishes personally. But the tank is more than large enough for any of them were they to reach their true maximum potential "rogue fish status" size. This is called forethought. In other words, and in my opinion, minimum tank size is not necessarily related to the number of fishes. It has more to do with the potential size of the largest fish in the tank.

The real bottom line is that the person who argues a larger minimum tank size and lighter stocking aren't wrong. How could they be? We are talking about keeping fishes in tiny glass boxes. Bigger can only be better. Can you get away with a smaller tank and/or heavier stocking? Maybe. Again, we're talking about keeping fishes in tiny glass boxes. What's a few inches in the grand scheme of things? Both sides can be correct. *Just treat people with respect when you give advice or get advice after asking for it, even if you disagree. At the end of the day, we're ALL sharing the same love for keeping fishes.*


----------



## earth intruder

Dwarfpike, I think that was a great post. =D>

And I just wanted to add, even though we ultimately keep these fish for our own enjoyment and entertainment, we need to keep in mind that we owe it to them to provide an optimal captive environment. If you can't feasibly provide that environment, you shouldn't get that particular fish. There are lots of fish out there to choose from!


----------



## Toby_H

I disagree Sinâ€¦ when you start your posts out with â€œWTHâ€


----------



## eraserhead

Toby_H said:


> I have a few 5+ year old Oscars that are in the 12~13â€


----------



## SinisterKisses

Toby_H said:


> I disagree Sinâ€¦ when you start your posts out with â€œWTHâ€


----------



## mthigpen_02

Being that I mostly keep Africans with only one CA tank I don't post much on this forum. But from my limited views of American tanks I do think the recommended tank sizes are over exaggerated on here. 3 of the restaurants I have been going to for years have 2 to 3 Oscars and 2 to 3 Koi in either 90 gallon or 100 gallon tanks. I personally have a JD, Firemouth, Jewel, and a breeding pair Convicts in a 55. Would I recommend my list to someone, no but it does work for me. I was giving very good advice about stocking list from a moderator. Stay away from giving them because people don't want to hear they are wrong and if it doesn't work they have you to blame. My convict pair works because the dig a pit under the same piece of wood every time and I moved it to the very corner. That to me is a great example of why some list will work for some and be complete failure for others.


----------



## Toby_H

SinisterKisses said:


> The "WTH" was deliberate, since the poster felt the need to very clearly and openly attack TFG.


So you were deliberately rude... glad we cleared that up :?

I agree it was less than ideal for the poster to "attack" (criticize) TFG, but you can feed into the problem and attack him in return, like you did... or you can explain that his base opinion is not accurate and offer an approach to mend the misunderstanding, like I did. (feel free to go back and see how I addressed the same â€œattackâ€


----------



## earth intruder

eraserhead said:


> Toby_H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I always thought oscars were ugly as #%$& when they got older.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I think it's a cute ugliness. :lol:


----------



## StillaZilla

My RD lived for 13 years in a 50 gallon tank. He was about 12 1/2 inches long when he finally passed on. He was a great wet pet, fed out of my hand, and chased my dog when he walked by the tank.


----------



## SinisterKisses

I don't recall rudely exaggerating anything, but to each their own. You clearly have an issue with me, which doesn't bother me in the least, but let it go. I'm so very sorry I can't be as perfect as you seem to think everyone should be...I have emotions and react to them  It's a human thing.


----------



## Toby_H

Sin,

I donâ€™t â€œknowâ€™ you as a person and therefore do not have an opinion of you as a person. I am familiar with you as a long time member/poster on this site and I do have an opinion of you in that regard. But as you pointed out, everyone has their own opinions and thatâ€™s fine. No need to clog up this exchange with opinions.

This post was made and I agree it was out of lineâ€¦



George Walker said:


> Hey guys and girls. This is a great forum for talk and information. But I will say that most of us have lost fish because of our learning experience. But to say that one tank is better than that, or I would only put a fish in with that, is ludicrus. It is about your tank not about what fishguy says (sorry fishguy). I like you, but you are not god when it comes to fish keeping. Some of us can't keep 1800 ga. and be the keepers of the cichlid world. No disrespect but I would like some positive feedback. Especially about breeding pairs of Firemouth's
> 
> Thanks. G


But responding to rudeness with rudeness is fueling the problem, not seeking a solutionâ€¦ I believe that your post simply fueled the mood of rudeness and was thus counterproductiveâ€¦



SinisterKisses said:


> WTH...pretty sure this thread ISN'T about personal attacks. And no, not everyone can afford 1800gal tanks, but if you can't afford a proper-sized tank for your fish, then you should not be keeping that fish. I've seen too many people say "my RD is fine in a 30gal tank, it's better than the 10gal it was in at the pet store" which is a huge load of bull.


I did see Georges post when it was made and I did respond to it in a way that I felt was productiveâ€¦



Toby_H said:


> George, if you don't like advice given to you by The Fish Guy I suggest you talk to him about why he gave the advice he gave. He is a very rational, well experienced fish keeper than really knows his stuff and generally takes his time to explain himself. My guess is a little openmindedness and communication could help the two of you much better understand one another


This post was made in what seemed to me to be attempting to balance the exchange between you and Georgeâ€¦



eraserhead said:


> SinisterKisses said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTH...pretty sure this thread ISN'T about personal attacks. And no, not everyone can afford 1800gal tanks, but if you can't afford a proper-sized tank for your fish, then you should not be keeping that fish. I've seen too many people say "my RD is fine in a 30gal tank, it's better than the 10gal it was in at the pet store" which is a huge load of bull.
> 
> 
> 
> .. But there are realistic set ups, and there are take-a-second-mortgage-on-the-house-you-can-barely-afford setups. If the fish can carry on and be happy in a 55 gallon tank or whatnot, then why complain? Putting a Flowerhorn in a 30gal is one thing, where the fish can't even turn around, but come on, you don't need a frickin 200gal tank for a pair of Oscars. Fish are prettiest and most fun to watch when they are happy, and thats my motivation for keeping them happy- because they are most fun to watch. Hence, I keep and care for my fish to maximize MY enjoyment, not theirs. I've got a bunch of wild-caught CAs in a 175gal tank in my living room, and they are perfectly happy and awesome to watch. Sure, some would say I need a 400gal tank for this, but they can suck it. The fish are fine
Click to expand...

Here is your counterâ€¦



SinisterKisses said:


> No, but you do need a 6ft. tank for a pair of Oscars as adults. Could be a 120gal for all I care. And a 55gal tank is NOT a realistic set up for an adult male RD.


Starting your response with the word â€œNoâ€


----------



## illy-d

It's ironic that this thread has deteriorated into what it is.

Toby - your finger wagging at SK can be considered equally as offensive/rude as starting a thread with 'WTH'.

In fact when I read SK's post the first time I picked up an 'exasperated' type of vibe - not an angry or rude vibe.


----------



## chrispyweld

illy-d said:


> It's ironic that this thread has deteriorated into what it is.


Yes but inevitable.


----------



## Markm0723

Chrispyweld,

This was a noble attempt when you started it. Points to you for that. :thumb:

Mark


----------



## chrispyweld

Thanks.

I think there was a lot of good info discussed here though. We'll see if any of it is applied in the future. I hope so.


----------



## Joels fish

Yeah this thread really went down hill.


----------



## chrispyweld

Page five is usually a killer :lol: :lol: :lol:

People state what they think for four and a half pages and then the "responses" to others posts start.


----------



## illy-d

I think some responsibility has to be borne by the reader as well. Somebody mentioned earlier that the written word can be interpretted incorrectly because there is no body language or tone with which to temper what is being said... Perhaps we all need to tread lighter and have thicker skin all at once??? Heck, I know I'm guilty of coming off as glib or prickish and also reacting a bit snappy to a comment that may have been delivered in a benign manner.


----------



## phishes

terd ferguson said:


> Honestly guys, I have a 16" Oscar and I think he's still growing. I find it hard to imagine this fish and another the same size in anything less than a 6'x2' tank. Given the proper care, Oscars get HUGE. I wouldn't want to see a FULL GROWN oscar in a 75g or 100g, let alone two. And not because of aggression, but simply footprint. He wouldn't be able to turn around without touching glass.
> 
> I'm not known for being conservative in stocking. But my personal view is proper tank size is a must. Grow out tanks are one thing and perfectly acceptable. But tank size for life should mean for a fully grown "rogue status" fish. Maybe a "small tank guy" reasons most fish won't reach their maximum size. Why would someone count on a fish not reaching it's true potential in order to justify a smaller tank? If someone were to ask me what's the minimum tank size for a pair of Oscars for life, I would say 6'x2' is the _bare_ minimum. _Maybe_ a 5'x2' if it was 30" tall. I might would cram four Oscars in a 6'x2', but they'd all at least be able to turn around comfortably.
> 
> Yes, I stock a large number of fishes personally. But the tank is more than large enough for any of them were they to reach their true maximum potential "rogue fish status" size. This is called forethought. In other words, and in my opinion, minimum tank size is not necessarily related to the number of fishes. It has more to do with the potential size of the largest fish in the tank.
> 
> The real bottom line is that the person who argues a larger minimum tank size and lighter stocking aren't wrong. How could they be? We are talking about keeping fishes in tiny glass boxes. Bigger can only be better. Can you get away with a smaller tank and/or heavier stocking? Maybe. Again, we're talking about keeping fishes in tiny glass boxes. What's a few inches in the grand scheme of things? Both sides can be correct. *Just treat people with respect when you give advice or get advice after asking for it, even if you disagree. At the end of the day, we're ALL sharing the same love for keeping fishes.*


I agree w/ this 100%. I have a 13'' oscar in a 72g bowfront, and it seems cramped. I can't imagine keeping an adult oscar in a 55g like a lot of people do. Bigger is always better, and more enjoyable at the same time. It also seems like a lot of oscars kept in a 55g never live that long, because of disease. I can see why so many people get mad when others keep large fish in tiny spaces, because it is cruel. My point is don't buy what you can't afford. Needless to say, people should be nice about things no matter what.


----------



## josmoloco

> It also seems like a lot of oscars kept in a 55g never live that long, because of disease.


That is becase the majority of peple don't care for their fish properly. They don't change the water enough (or at all) and way over- feed with parasite ridden food. In reality a 12 inch oscar only needs to be fed a couple of times per week . Thre is a nice vid on youtube that shows a very healthy oscar in a 45 gallon.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvbdZcOk ... annel_page. I AM A FIRM BELIEVER THAT AN OSCAR AND A BOTTOM CLEANING CATFISH (NOT A PLEC) CAN BE HOUSED IN A 55 G INDEFINATLY.

On the topic of filtration, I believe that some people have gone way over the top. Enough filtration is when the ammonia =0ppm and the nitrite = 0ppm and there is enough surface agitation for oxygen. The other day I was looking through the tanks section of the forum and saw a nice 55g with a rena xp3. The setup was beautiful wth good water params and healthy fish etc.... But some dude was freaking out and commented that the owner needed "at least another xp3 " for adequate filtration. Although I don't belive that one can"over filter" , there reaches a point where the extra filtration is not beneficial in any way other than a water circulator.


----------



## josmoloco

What do you think of these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXyZK3zv ... re=related


----------



## josmoloco

or this 




or ny thoughts on this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLe52Fwy ... re=related


----------



## terd ferguson

josmoloco said:


> It also seems like a lot of oscars kept in a 55g never live that long, because of disease.
> 
> 
> 
> That is becase the majority of peple don't care for their fish properly. They don't change the water enough (or at all) and way over- feed with parasite ridden food. In reality a 12 inch oscar only needs to be fed a couple of times per week . Thre is a nice vid on youtube that shows a very healthy oscar in a 45 gallon.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvbdZcOk ... annel_page. I AM A FIRM BELIEVER THAT AN OSCAR AND A BOTTOM CLEANING CATFISH (NOT A PLEC) CAN BE HOUSED IN A 55 G INDEFINATLY.
> 
> On the topic of filtration, I believe that some people have gone way over the top. Enough filtration is when the ammonia =0ppm and the nitrite = 0ppm and there is enough surface agitation for oxygen. The other day I was looking through the tanks section of the forum and saw a nice 55g with a rena xp3. The setup was beautiful wth good water params and healthy fish etc.... But some dude was freaking out and commented that the owner needed "at least another xp3 " for adequate filtration. Although I don't belive that one can"over filter" , there reaches a point where the extra filtration is not beneficial in any way other than a water circulator.
Click to expand...

It's not the size of your filtration as much as it is the size of the bacteria colony in your filtration. The size of the colony is regulated by the amount of food available to them (fish poop and pee from feeding). You're right when you say adequate means 0 ammonia and 0 nitrites. Very few filtration systems are used to their maximum biological capacity. Let's use your example of the 55g with the xp3. If he were to add another xp3, he would simply be splitting his colony of bio bacteria in half between the two filters. I mean, as long as nothing else changes, there is not more "food" (ammonia, nitrites) to sustain a larger colony. Simply adding another filter is not going to add more bacteria unless there is more food for them.

So I think you're right, it can get a little crazy with the filtration suggestions. However, the benefits from moving water aren't bad either. Though the cost to benefit ration is low for unneeded filters just to move water. A good powerhead or two will do the same thing for much less money.


----------



## terd ferguson

I'll add some more information specific to my case about filtration. You guys can see my sig line to see my stock. You've probably checked out my thread as well. You all know I have a lot of big fishes in a big tank. Most would recommend a sump be 1/3 of the tank size to be adequate. Well, I am running a 50g wet/dry on a 360g tank. It's less than 1/2 the size that's typically recommended. But my ammonia and nitrites are always 0.

Now with that said, nitrates can be high sometimes. When I say high, I mean 20 or above on water change day. Water changes are once a week and are at least 50%, often more. Since filtration isn't really a concern with mine working as well as it does, my attention is turned to nitrate reduction. I have been able to accomplish a lot by adding some mangroves to my sump. These are like a miracle cure for nitrates. I have also seen some great results from an algea screen (search that term on MFK for a great thread on desinging and building your own, it's super easy).

I say the above to explain why I'm in the planning stages of building a larger sump. The larger size isn't necessarily needed for added biological filtration capacity. But, with a larger sump, I can add more mangroves redcuing nitrates to next to nothing even after a week of heavy feeding 3 times a day of A LOT of BIG fishes. I'm not saying this should be a substitute for water changes, but reducing nitrates has a lot of benefits.


----------



## eraserhead

josmoloco said:


> It also seems like a lot of oscars kept in a 55g never live that long, because of disease.
> 
> 
> 
> That is becase the majority of peple don't care for their fish properly. They don't change the water enough (or at all) and way over- feed with parasite ridden food.
Click to expand...

Good point man, I know people that would keep a couple Oscars in a 55, and feed them all sorts of nasty feeder fish just because they thought it was cool. I don't feed feeder fish, if I do live food at all it is usually ghost shrimpies!

Feeder fish are the filthiest creatures ever (next to blackworms)


----------



## eraserhead

And for the record SK, I actually kept a RD in a 55gal for over a year, and he was the happiest fish you've ever seen. He was in there all by himself. It was when I put him in a 175gal that he got to fighting, which led to his end.  Somebody pulled his jaw out into a locked position while we were out of town on vacation, which became infected.


----------



## dwarfpike

And even worse, tubiflex worms ...

Everyone has a differant view of happy fish appearantly. Personally, I think a fish having to make a 3 point turn every time in his tank is not a happy fish. Hence why I would never suggest a RD or Oscar in a 55. It has nothing to do with the mess, you can do daily water changes if you are ambitious enough to overcome that. But trying to watch a large fish have to 3-5 pt turn in a tank is just brutal.


----------



## SinisterKisses

I never said they couldn't live in a 55gal tank, I said I think it's cruel. As dwarfpike keeps saying, a fish having to make "three point turns" to be able to move around a tank is horrible. No, the fish doesn't necessarily NEED a 6ft, 150gal plus tank, but the poor thing should at least be able to comfortably turn around. Which is why I always promote at 75gal tank as the MINIMUM for an adult male RD/Midas. At last that provides them with a wider tank.

And for the record, eraserhead, the difference in your fish's happiness clearly was NOT due to the tank size, but due to being kept solo in one tank and then thrown in to a tank with other fish which were clearly capable of doing damage to him. If you had taken him out of the 55gal tank and put him into the 175gal tank by himself like he was used to, rather than into a tank with tank mates that clearly could kill him, THEN you would have seen a happy fish. I keep Talon - my 13" adult male - in a 120gal tank _by himself_. There is no way I would ever, ever put him into anything smaller, as even in the 120gal, he looks a little cramped.


----------



## josmoloco

> Very few filtration systems are used to their maximum biological capacity. Let's use your example of the 55g with the xp3. If he were to add another xp3, he would simply be splitting his colony of bio bacteria in half between the two filters. I mean, as long as nothing else changes, there is not more "food" (ammonia, nitrites) to sustain a larger colony. Simply adding another filter is not going to add more bacteria unless there is more food for them.


Exctly what I was thinking!

Last year I set up my 125g with a fluval 404 and a aquaclear 110 . This filtration was excellent in many peoples opinions, now it's hardly good enough for a 55g! I am currently running a fluval 404, 204 and an xp3 all loaded with custom bio media and no carbon. It works perfect. When I look at some of the other recomendations I hear statements such as put 2 fx5s on your 125 gallon and just think to myself "why?"

There are also people who say they have to change the water on their oscer tank every 3 days to keep it clean even with 10x per hour filtration. This just emphasises my point on over feeding.


----------



## terd ferguson

josmoloco said:


> Very few filtration systems are used to their maximum biological capacity. Let's use your example of the 55g with the xp3. If he were to add another xp3, he would simply be splitting his colony of bio bacteria in half between the two filters. I mean, as long as nothing else changes, there is not more "food" (ammonia, nitrites) to sustain a larger colony. Simply adding another filter is not going to add more bacteria unless there is more food for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Exctly what I was thinking!
> 
> Last year I set up my 125g with a fluval 404 and a aquaclear 110 . This filtration was excellent in many peoples opinions, now it's hardly good enough for a 55g! I am currently running a fluval 404, 204 and an xp3 all loaded with custom bio media and no carbon. It works perfect. When I look at some of the other recomendations I hear statements such as put 2 fx5s on your 125 gallon and just think to myself "why?"
> 
> There are also people who say they have to change the water on their oscer tank every 3 days to keep it clean even with 10x per hour filtration. This just emphasises my point on over feeding.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. I think some people confuse _clarity_ problems with water parameter problems. Oscars are termendously messy eaters. Uneaten food can cause terrible clarity problems as it breaks down. Not only will the food itself cloud the water, but it can spur the growth of floating algea. The filter may be working fine to keep the ammonia and nitrates in check. But someone who desn't examine the situation carefully will think their filter just isn't doing it's job. They then go on to recommend overkill filtration to others. Then those who don't know any better just regurgitate this information as gospel. In this instance, a UV Sterilizer would be money better spent than another unneeded filter.


----------



## josmoloco

I have never had alae problems and don't know why so many people have green water, And yes I do tend to feed a little on the heavy side for growth reasons in my juvies.


----------



## gage

sory SK, i have to kind of agree with Toby in this one, even if you do not intend what you say to be rude, it most certainly seems that way, and obviously not just to Toby, as *** noticed it to... more then once. if it isnt intentional perhaps try and watch your wording a little more.

i do agree that something such as an oscar does not belong in a 55... however... we *cannot* expect someone to just ditch a fish they purchased, seems a little un-ethical, and like i mentioned before, im sure getting snarky with people will do just the opposite of getting them to listen to you, being rude is completely and utterly useless, and i dont understand why a lot of people on here have such a hard time "politely" explaining why some things work and some don't.



> The joy of the written word over the internet is there's no tone to relay actual feeling.


to me, this is the problem, SK, when you start any sentence telling someone "No" it comes off as rude because we can't here your tone of voice for interpretation.


----------



## chrispyweld

I think the "NO" in question was meant "No [you don't need 200g] but...] I don't think it was a "No [your absolutely wrong in your fish keeping philosophy] but.."

That's how I read it anyway, in context to the post before it regarding an Oscar pair.


----------



## illy-d

I think some of you people are way too thin skinned. What you read as offensive or rude I don't... I think many of us, myself included post here in a very casual sense - the same manner we would speak to our friends and colleagues - which may be less formal then say if you were talking to your new Girlfriends parents for the first time or to your grandparents... I'm on a few other forums for other hobbies of mine which are much more snipey and testy - people there are downright mean so you just ignore them or dismiss everything they say... End of the day if you can't take criticism or engage in a discussion without getting hot under the collar maybe you should consider staying away from public forums.

Going back to the filtration - I think a lot of the beneficial bacteria grows outside of our filters on decor, substrate, anything with current running by it to bring it a source of food (ammonia & nitrites)...

I have an XP3 on my 75g which I presume is giving me about 4x turn over per hour - for now I'm going with that. If I experience flow, clarity, or gas exchange problems I have an AC300 that I can add - but for now I'm happy with this. My stock list is pretty light with there being only 2 Nics and about 20 - 23 Ameca Splendens of all sizes...


----------



## con-man-dan

wow this thread took off since i last looked at it lol. a lot of personal prefference goes into fish keeping...from what fish you keep, what you think will work, what others think, to type/brand of food even down to superflous things like sub color and deco. but, there are some things that really should be taken into account when the opinions are based on experience. one thing i wish i saw more of, was a lot more of you guys joining the chats at night. easier to get a better idea of someones personality when in a real time situation. plus its just fun in there (not to mention the serious lack of sa/ca keepers, tisk tisk!)

i am sure i have come off like a fish snob, but hey, i am and i will happily admit that. i usually reread everything i type before posting, using that preview button can sometimes solve a problem (perceived or intended) before it starts. there have also been MANY posts i was about to make then just deleted because it would fall on deaf ears.

i still say research before, find what you think is an appropriate tank, then buy a bigger one lol i always stress searching used classifieds, i picked up some stupid cheap deals and see so many other ones, that there is no excuse to not have a bigger tank. if your space doesnt fit a bigger tank well, there are hundreds of cichlids, probably something you can find you will like. i hate the buying a fish now with good intentions of a bigger tank later. life happens, bigger tank does not factor in.

i will also mention, as the standard for bigger "mins" are showing up more, i see less and less people that follow this advice having outbreaks of disease and massive die off. not a coincedence


----------



## SinisterKisses

chrispyweld said:


> I think the "NO" in question was meant "No [you don't need 200g] but...] I don't think it was a "No [your absolutely wrong in your fish keeping philosophy] but.."
> 
> That's how I read it anyway, in context to the post before it regarding an Oscar pair.


This is EXACTLY how it was meant. Not, "no, you're wrong", simply "no, you don't need a 200gal tank...". If you decided to take it in a way that was rude, that's your issue. Toughen up a little bit and perhaps don't just assume everything is posted in an offensive way. I am not going to go out of my way to make sure everything I write is so incredibly PC and that there's not chance in any way someone could possibly misinterpret it. I will not coddle people because they can't handle a bit of advise they don't like or can't seem to toughen up a bit.


----------



## madzarembski

Hi

This thread and a few others like it on C-F is one of the primary reasons I rarely post around here anymore. I don't even look at the stocking posts for fear of giving an opinion that might not meet "standards". There is just an attitude that exists here that doesn't exist at some other sites. I believe there was even a pet peeve thread a couple of months back that really rubbed me wrong. Call me sensitive and I'm sure someone is going too, but I like discussing fish without feeling like I've been chastised. PS I apoloigize if the post has spelling errors. I know that bugs some of you as well.

madzarembski


----------



## Rivulatus

I couldnÂ´t agree more with chrispyweld.
It seems to me that some people try to show how good they are keeping fish by the size of their thanks! To me thatÂ´s mostly show-off. Their "mega gallon tanks" really donÂ´t have nothing to do with keeping fish confortably, they only scare new hobbists away making them feel bad about trying and learning fish keeping and waste tons of water in their water changes.
Of course no one should buy an animal without learning about them first, but letÂ´s be reasonable about the amount of water we really need to keep our pets...
Carlos


----------



## tankmates

These are fish we are talking about. I have been raising fish for a very long time. I have had success raising and breeding many rare cichlids. I definitely use smaller tanks than would be considered acceptable by many people on this site. I will continue to breed these fish and supply the hobby with high quality strains.

I have never given any of my fish names. Everyone is different, but I think giving fish human qualities creates problems.


----------



## SinisterKisses

tankmates said:


> These are fish we are talking about.


Don't fish deserve the same respect and care that any other living creature would? I realize not everyone thinks of them the same way, but my fish are on the same pedestal as my dogs and cats. For me, providing something more than minimal tank space is a must. I can't afford (and don't have room for) 400gal tanks at the moment either (though there are plans for in the future! ), but if I can't provide a tank of at least a comfortable size for my fish, then I don't buy the fish until I CAN provide for it. For me, one of my biggest pet peeves is people who have this "my RD is fine in a 30gal tank forever, it's bigger than the tank it had at the pet store" attitudes. If you live in a 500sq. ft apartment, I certainly hope you aren't running out and buying a Bull Mastiff or something, it's just not appropriate.

The issue of course is that everyone has a differing opinion of what a "comfortable" tank size for a fish is. Personally, I feel a 12" fish should really have a 5ft. tank at least, for their comfort. I realize not everyone thinks this is bare minimum, which is why I recommend at least a 75gal tank for a 12" fish - below my minimum standards, but realistically the smallest one should go for a fish of that size IMO.


----------



## josmoloco

Am I evil for housing 17 1-1.75 inch salousi in a 15 gallon? :wink: (not perminant)


----------



## PChap

Completely agree. I really do like the site, I think the mods do a pretty good job, however, I feel there are times when they need to be a little more forceful. Maybe that's not the best word for it, it just seems there is too much silliness that goes on, the last couple of pages of this thread for example.

I believe that CF needs to "re-market" itself in a way. We're supposed to be responsible fish-keepers, right? We should at least start by being responsible in our discussions. This is something that starts with the average poster, can't drop that one in a mod's lap. We also need to make a distinction between the aquarium and the fish in the aquarium. I've been going over this with a co-worker who quit the hobby because he couldn't understand why his discus in a 55g with his oscar kept dying. Too many people see an aquarium as a piece of furniture, and not the habitat for a living creature that it is. I believe we need to push this.

In defense of the "snobs" however...

I think a lot of the frustration comes from the kamikaze posters that show up, tell us about their new 30g with 2 oscars, and asks what else can they add to it. When told not to put anything else in there, and go get a tank 3-4x the size as the one they currently have, it just seems to go downhill. More often than not people just do not want to take good advice. They want someone to say it's ok add a JD to the mix, they'll hold fins and sing hippie songs from the 60's.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, common sense should dictate minimum size requirements. But common sense also means taking advice from knowledgeable people. Thats something that many posters here just aren't doing, and it is very exasperating for some of us. Not making excuses for it, just stating reasons behind it.

Ok, I'm done rambling, and I gotta get back to work.


----------



## tankmates

Fish, dogs, cats, etc. are all animals. As long as we provide a healthy environment for them, they will do well. Use common sense. I disagree with many of the "minimum" tank sizes that are preached by people that have one or two tanks and have been in the hobby for a couple years.


----------



## SinisterKisses

What about people who have 10 plus tanks and have been in the hobby for a decade or longer? Then it becomes plausible?


----------



## Joels fish

I dont think that's what he meant Sin. I think he's refering to people playing expert who haven't been in the hobby long enough to really know the finer points of what they're advising about.


----------



## tankmates

Success with fishkeeping makes suggestions plausible. I do not believe the "minimum" tank sizes that I have been seeing. The hobby would die out if the "minimums" were strictly followed. Many cichlids would become extinct, because most people could not have the monster tanks that are routinely touted.

We must be willing to listen and learn something new each day.


----------



## tankmates

Thank you Joels fish, that's exactly what I meant.


----------



## bernie comeau

IMO, many people on fish forums make far too big of a deal about a con in a 20 gal. or a JD in a 29 gal. Some of these very same people do no better for their cichlids ----cichlids that have the potential to get VERY large. It's certainly no different then keeping male RD/midas in a 4ft. 75, male BB in a 4 ft. 90, male buttii in 4-6 ft. 120-125, male dovii in 6 ft 180 gal. In fact the latter examples probably have much better chance of outgrowing their tanks.

Funny how people draw the lines based on the tank sizes they happen to own. On another fish forum, one person claimed an 8 ft. tank is WAY too small for a dovii. According to this person, a dovii requires AT least a 9 ft. tank ------ of course that's what this person just happens to keep his dovii in, a 9 ft. tank :lol:

Minimum tank sizes for fish are very fickle ---- they change with the times. What was an acceptable size 10, 20, or 30 years back, have changed from back then to now ----and the'll change again during that time span.


----------



## Joels fish

*tankmates*
I think your right about the minimum tanks size thing . There does come a point where a fish is too big for a given size tank, but it's a blurry line at best. my opinion is that so long as the tank is well maintained , water quality is maintained, the tank doesn't look like the interior of a sardine can, and the fish aren't tearing each other to shreds ,then who's to say it's wrong. I've kept many cichlids in tanks that many here would say were too small but they were healthy and thriving and reproducing like nuts. Was I wrong, no because I kept my tanks and water in tip top condition and the fish lived long healthy lives. Now while there is something to be said for providing our pets with as large a tank as realisticly possible ( bigger is always better with tanks) , we shouldn't snub those who are housing their cichlids in slightly less than ideal size tanks . Not to say it's OK to house a Dovii or Pbass in a 55g long term , but more than one pair of say Firemouths in a 55g long term can be easily do-able. In fact one pair of FMs would be a waste of tank IMO.


----------



## Feverdream

Opinions are funny things...

:fish:

We all like different fish, different substrates, different aquascaping... Heck, many of us even use different latin words for the same fish, but somehow... despite all of this, some folks are dead solid convinced that their personal quirks are somehow absolutes...

I hear "minimum" or "mandatory" or "can't", and I edge away from you. Now... if you'll say, "difficult", or "depends on the particular fish", or "I tried that once and it didn't work very well"... then you are halfway to becoming my friend.

I think the author's original point was that maybe we should come down from our ivory towers and use a bit of tact.


----------



## tankmates

Well said Feverdream. =D>


----------



## jgmeinho

One other small point..... who actually keeps fish until a ripe old age????

Most people I know in fish clubs... very dedicated.... spawn and move on.....
Get the breaders award points and move those puppies out for the next great craze...

Actually in my 15 plus years of fish keeping... I only have provided cradle to grave homes for just a few of my favorites. Most eventually get moved around, traded, spawned, let the next guy have them...

I know a large number of beginers who trade fish back to stores, friends, and then get something else.

Our hobby is not one for long term commitment. I know there are exceptions and I'm sure all you people offering suggestions about "fishes lifetime" really do keep them for their whole lives right? Come on.

I have about 5, 100 plus gallon tanks just for growouts... see what might pair off... or if Africans what is a male or female.... then move them. Sure if they stayed in those tanks for life their would be problems..... but who is to say they will not work out for a year, or longer.

Just a thought.


----------



## twohuskies

*Feverdream*

Excellent post, and IMO, precisely what the OP intended in starting this thread. Well done! :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## Willem Heijns

I have kept _Parachromis dovii _in a 600g tank for over eight years. My conclusion is: don't do it. This species is not fit for the aquarium hobby.


----------



## chrispyweld

Well Your WRONG!!!!!

No seriously this is about the perfect post. You state your opinion based on years of experience. No way to get upset even if you disagree... unless your trying or unreasonable.

I have never kept a Dovii but there are a bunch of fish that are regularly sold that shouldn't be.


----------



## terd ferguson

Willem Heijns said:


> I have kept _Parachromis dovii _in a 600g tank for over eight years. My conclusion is: don't do it. This species is not fit for the aquarium hobby.


Specifically, why not? I'd love to hear your experience.


----------



## dogofwar

I keep many of my fish for several years...often their lifetimes.

I specifically don't participate in Breeder Award Programs (BAP) because it encourages just the kind of behavior that you describe: get a pair, breed 'em, sell 'em, move on. That appeals to some but not me (unless I get some fish that just don't appeal to me, for whatever reason).

The tone here...and on other sites...can get pretty preachy when it comes to tank sizes, stocking, etc. These things have changed over time. Back when I first got into fishkeeping (late '80s), a 55g was perfectly acceptable or large for a breeding pair of green terrors. Now it's treated like torture by some.

Many who have experience bristle at those who wag fingers about stocking...while those who are going to stock badly (despite advice to the contrary) won't listen. That leaves a small group who really want to know. And too often lost in the mix is reasonable advice for them.



jgmeinho said:


> One other small point..... who actually keeps fish until a ripe old age????
> 
> Most people I know in fish clubs... very dedicated.... spawn and move on.....
> Get the breaders award points and move those puppies out for the next great craze...
> 
> Actually in my 15 plus years of fish keeping... I only have provided cradle to grave homes for just a few of my favorites. Most eventually get moved around, traded, spawned, let the next guy have them...
> 
> I know a large number of beginers who trade fish back to stores, friends, and then get something else.
> 
> Our hobby is not one for long term commitment. I know there are exceptions and I'm sure all you people offering suggestions about "fishes lifetime" really do keep them for their whole lives right? Come on.
> 
> I have about 5, 100 plus gallon tanks just for growouts... see what might pair off... or if Africans what is a male or female.... then move them. Sure if they stayed in those tanks for life their would be problems..... but who is to say they will not work out for a year, or longer.
> 
> Just a thought.


----------



## eraserhead

SinisterKisses said:


> I never said they couldn't live in a 55gal tank, I said I think it's cruel. As dwarfpike keeps saying, a fish having to make "three point turns" to be able to move around a tank is horrible. No, the fish doesn't necessarily NEED a 6ft, 150gal plus tank, but the poor thing should at least be able to comfortably turn around. Which is why I always promote at 75gal tank as the MINIMUM for an adult male RD/Midas. At last that provides them with a wider tank.
> 
> And for the record, eraserhead, the difference in your fish's happiness clearly was NOT due to the tank size, but due to being kept solo in one tank and then thrown in to a tank with other fish which were clearly capable of doing damage to him. If you had taken him out of the 55gal tank and put him into the 175gal tank by himself like he was used to, rather than into a tank with tank mates that clearly could kill him, THEN you would have seen a happy fish.


Look, there's no need to get all holier-than-thou about this. I never told you how big or how mean this fish was, you just made assumptions about that. The fish was only 8 inches, it was female, and it was mean as ****. It was done growing (I had had it for several years), never made a 3 point turn in all of its history, and was NOT too big to hang in the 55 tank. When I put him in the 175, he quickly took control of the tank. He was the boss, not some poor little fishy in with a bunch of meanies. I was out of town, and when I came home, his jaw was messed up. Perhaps he took too big of a mouthful of gravel and it stuck open (which does happen with those guys). I don't know. But my stocking techniques are not faulty, and I have NEVER lost a fish due to aggression in that tank. If I was in town, I could have saved him, but I wasn't.

It happens, and it didnt have anything to do with my fish being in a 55 gallon tank. I'm not a newbie at all this, I know pretty well what I'm doing.



> I keep Talon - my 13" adult male - in a 120gal tank _by himself_. There is no way I would ever, ever put him into anything smaller, as even in the 120gal, he looks a little cramped.


Nice, can I bum about $1500? Med school doesn't tend to allow one to afford giant fish tanks to put one fish in. I'd do it if I had the money and the space, but I don't.


----------



## dwarfpike

eraserhead said:


> Look, there's no need to get all holier-than-thou about this.


How about taking your own advise then and practicing what you preach. :thumb:



eraserhead said:


> Nice, can I bum about $1500? Med school doesn't tend to allow one to afford giant fish tanks to put one fish in. I'd do it if I had the money and the space, but I don't.


Then don't keep fish that require a tank that expensive. Seems easy enough. Wait until you finish your school and can afford those medium sized tanks for the fish you like.


----------



## chrispyweld

eraserhead said:


> I was out of town, and when I came home, his jaw was messed up. Perhaps he took too big of a mouthful of gravel and it stuck open (which does happen with those guys). I don't know.


 But in an earlier post, the one the response was made to you said...


eraserhead said:


> It was when I put him in a 175gal that he got to fighting, which led to his end.  Somebody pulled his jaw out into a locked position while we were out of town on vacation, which became infected.


You said it was aggression which leads one to believe it was...aggression.



> It happens, and it didnt have anything to do with my fish being in a 55 gallon tank.


She said it had nothing to do with the tank size. She was commenting on how most cichlids when kept alone for some time will not accept tank mates afterward. Pretty common really. Re read her post it's pretty clear.

This is a different issue all together that is a problem too. People taking things out of context. We have seen it many times in this post alone (and usually when SK posts for some reason :? :-? ).

Not trying to get down on you Eraserhead others have done the same thing before including myself, it is just the most recent example.

When you write something you should expect people to respond to what you have written. Take the time to think about how you want to say what it is you are saying, and take the time to understand what someone else is saying before you respond. It's easy for misunderstandings to occur if these are disregarded.


----------



## Willem Heijns

I care about cichlids. That means that if I keep them in an aquarium I want them to be able to show their behaviour. Part of that behaviour is social interaction (I've seen that many times in the wild). Social interaction for _Parachromis dovii _means killing every other fish in the tank (even in a 600g and even its mate). That is my experience. So don't keep _Parachromis dovii_. Keeping it as a solitary fish is animal maltreatment in my opinion.

The argument of keeping fish until they breed and then moving them on is nonsense. It only means that the problems of keeping big fish are moved on to another hobbyist. Who probably doesn't even know.


----------



## SinisterKisses

eraserhead said:


> Nice, can I bum about $1500? Med school doesn't tend to allow one to afford giant fish tanks to put one fish in. I'd do it if I had the money and the space, but I don't.


Actually, his tank, brand new with tank, stand, hood and lights, was only about $800 CND when all said and done. And that was brand-new. Used, I could have gotten it for half that price.

The posts by dwarfpike and chrispyweld before me pretty much say everything else I have to say.


----------



## bgko

This post is like watching Jerry Springer, I can't believe I just read this whole thing. I just wanted to say I read a lot of what Sinister has wrote on other threads/postings and she has been polite and informative. That is what I look for on this site I don't care if someone gets a little worked up now and then about a topic, it's their experience and their right to react how they feel comfortable. I don't thing telling other posters how they should react and write their posts is any better. We are all different people with different opinions. Just please use common sense when making your decisions that's my opinion. Sinister is not profiting from you buying a bigger tank, she just has her experiences which do work for her. So let her post the way she wants to post, if you don't like they don't take her advice it's pretty simple.


----------



## earth intruder

> Nice, can I bum about $1500? Med school doesn't tend to allow one to afford giant fish tanks to put one fish in. I'd do it if I had the money and the space, but I don't.





> Then don't keep fish that require a tank that expensive. Seems easy enough. Wait until you finish your school and can afford those medium sized tanks for the fish you like.


I don't understand why this problem is so prevalent. It seems so simple, don't buy animals you can't afford to care for. There are so many awesome smaller fish, you can always choose something else until you can afford the big guys.

Personally, I'm a nursing student and can't afford anything bigger than a 75 gallon, at least for now. Frustrating, but that's how it goes. :?


----------



## LJ

> This post is like watching Jerry Springer


Haha, I agree. Valiant effort chrispyweld, but somebody stick a fork in this thing.


----------



## wolf13

earth intruder said:


> Then don't keep fish that require a tank that expensive. Seems easy enough. Wait until you finish your school and can afford those medium sized tanks for the fish you like.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why this problem is so prevalent. It seems so simple, don't buy animals you can't afford to care for. There are so many awesome smaller fish, you can always choose something else until you can afford the big guys.
> 
> Personally, I'm a nursing student and can't afford anything bigger than a 75 gallon, at least for now. Frustrating, but that's how it goes. :?
Click to expand...

part of it is that people do no, or incomplete research until after they make the purchase. Most fish purchases are probably impulse buys based off looks in a store tank with the sole source of knowledge a small tag and a salesman. Very few stores, and virtually no big chain stores have accurate information (if any) on their labels on the true size of a fish or anything close to a realistic minimum tank size (oscar in a 30g anyone? at least according to some store labels) and most sales people lack any knowledge or interest in the fish they are selling to give accurate information. Most causual keepers simply don't realize until its too late not to trust what a shop tells them. And in some cases, even when a good store takes precautions, the buyer simply ignores or flatout lies to buy a cool fish, either not knowing or not caring.


----------



## chrispyweld

Yeah it Thought it would die a few pages ago.


----------



## remarkosmoc

Chrispy, thanks for sparking up some great dialog!

I agree that the forum gets "preachy" from time to time. It is also sad when it gets downright rude.

The most valuable thing we can offer is our own experience. Most of us here are not professionals; but rather hobbyists helping one another out. As such we can really only testify to what we have seen work or not work. I like the idea others have stated that you should post you opinion as an opinion and supplement it with examples from your experience. I like responses that are something on the order of "I wouldn't keep that fish in a 55g, but others have; be aware that it is probably not optimal" instead of "75 is the minimum, don't put it in a 55 and if you don't like it you shouldn't have that species"

My involvement in the forum comes and goes. Sometimes I get frustrated at the preaching, and sometimes I just need a break from the all the same questions re-circulating again. I think that if you are going to post the most important thing you can do is ask yourself if you are posting from a general attitude of being helpful to another hobbyist or trying to get another hobbyist to drop his habits because you know better. If the answer is the latter, your time is better spent in front of your tanks admiring your accomplishments rather than in front of the computer screen.


----------



## eraserhead

> How about taking your own advise then and practicing what you preach. :thumb:
> 
> Then don't keep fish that require a tank that expensive. Seems easy enough. Wait until you finish your school and can afford those medium sized tanks for the fish you like.


That's cute, I didn't think I was getting all uppity in my posts. Maybe you could point out where I was being snooty? Nice smiley. 

Look, I stock my tanks how I want, and I haven't had any problems. I did assume that fighting cause it at first, but it may not have. End of story, no big deal. I wasn't there. Never really saw much fighting in there before I left.

I don't have any big fish in smaller tanks, just saying that it CAN be done, regardless of what you guys say. Plenty of people have plenty of positive experiences in situations like that.

I think that this post started because a poster would mention the size of his tank and the fish he was keeping in it, and people would get all bitchy about it. That's obviously still what's happening. I was trying to make the point that I have had success in the past with a RD in a 55 (like I said, he was adult and only 8 inches. Not all fish get 16"). And in true CF fashion, got jumped on about it. Obviously the concerns of the original poster of this thread were perfectly warranted.

People are going to stock their tanks how they want, regardless of your advice. And some of them may thrive, and you cannot deny that. It's all a matter of preference. As far as it being 'cruel', that is all subjective. Nobody needs to jump down anybody's throat about it. All I said was that I had done a RD in a 55 at one point and it worked out, after sk said you CANNOT do that. Well, I did, and so have thousands of other people.


----------



## eraserhead

> part of it is that people do no, or incomplete research until after they make the purchase. Most fish purchases are probably impulse buys based off looks in a store tank with the sole source of knowledge a small tag and a salesman. Very few stores, and virtually no big chain stores have accurate information (if any) on their labels on the true size of a fish or anything close to a realistic minimum tank size (oscar in a 30g anyone? at least according to some store labels) and most sales people lack any knowledge or interest in the fish they are selling to give accurate information. Most causual keepers simply don't realize until its too late not to trust what a shop tells them. And in some cases, even when a good store takes precautions, the buyer simply ignores or flatout lies to buy a cool fish, either not knowing or not caring.


Most pet stores certainly do not facilitate the research prior to buying a tank. They just want to sell you whatever they can and get you out. They have all these pretty fish in little bitty tanks, but don't tell you that the fish will get huge. That's part of what misleads people. I think that a lot of people come here with issues like that, and get the response 'well your tank's too small, you need to take the fish back'. But that is neither an acceptable nor helpful response to their issue. People are going to just ignore cr_ap advice like that. It's not bad advice to tell them that they could keep the fish until it starts getting cramped, and then upgrade the tank or trade out the fish. People don't feel like they're welcome when somebody just tells them that they should have done more research and now they need to get rid of their pretty fish.


----------



## eraserhead

> Sinister is not profiting from you buying a bigger tank, she just has her experiences which do work for her. So let her post the way she wants to post, if you don't like they don't take her advice it's pretty simple.


I agree, she is entitled to her opinion, but so are all of the rest of us. There's no need to tell somebody that they are flat out wrong, though, since this hobby is experimental in its nature. It's not like buying a piece of software that uses far more hard disk space than you have- it's not that black and white. We all have things that work for us, and others here might not agree with them. That's fine, but there is no need to get uppity and elitist about how others keep their tanks. That's only going to drive people away.

But it is correct that this thread has gone on too long and is redundant. I'm gonna stop now, please PM me with anything else.

Lates...


----------



## chrispyweld

:lol: PM sent.

can we lock this or something?

It's getting embarrassing.


----------



## Big Vine

Here is my take on the matter, for what it's worth...

People coming to this forum for advice (whether 'beginners' or 'advanced aquarists'), for the most part, are essentially walking into a room full of strangers. It is up to them to take the time to figure out for themselves which 'strangers' are advising them in their best interests, and which 'strangers' are misinformed/misguided in their advice.

And with that, I think I'll have the last word. 
BV


----------

