To Rehome or not? ( that is the question)

[KrisReef]

I suspect a LOT of threads seeking tank size and housing requirements are repackaged “validation” request of conscience. Even without the above formula guidelines, common sense should tell you a 60gal tank can’t accommodate the growth curve of a 2” fish that will eventually reach 10”, not for long anyway.

If the initial question of the thread author is “how long can I keep this fish in this tank”, then that seems to be a more useful question

In the 70’s zoos housed big cats in cages; I saw a black jaguar who’s cheek hairs were worn off from pacing back and forth along the cage bars…
The animal was “healthy” by any observation but was it in a biologically optimal situation?

Again, Is this two totally different arguments: should we strive for habitat/housing optimization (per Jay Hemdals guidelines) or is it a moral animal welfare issue and simply housing a animal in quarters too small is just patently wrong ?

The San Diego Zoo and Governor of Ca were taking a victory lap having negotiated the return of the Giant pandas to their “New Habitat” here in San Diego yesterday.

I think “Zoo” and “Habitat” definitions are mutually exclusive concepts that only a political party can assemble and announce to the world that they have negotiated the union of the two.

 

[UMALUM]

Funny I looked up pansy the other day on Merriam - Webster and this popped up.

 

[jimeah]

Nothing wrong with generating future business. The oscar can live in the 10 until the person becomes attached to the fish and then they will come back and eventually get a 55 gallon and hundreds of feeders on the path to getting the Oscar up to size.

I don’t know how fast an Oscar will grow, but at the very least a small warning about adult size and needing a larger tank, and therefore upselling a larger tank and at the same time earning trust as a supplier would be better surely?
If that was me and I found out later that the Oscar was gonna outgrow what I had just been sold, I wouldn’t return to that store, so the store loses all future and ongoing purchases. Just seems poor business sense in the long run to just rely on unsuspecting noobs…

If BRSTV are right about the fact most (90%) people don’t stay in the hobby for more than a year or two, just think about all the money left on the table if 50 percent continued for 5 or more years.

I expect that not being able to trust vendors is a big factor in people abandoning the hobby.

Just a little card in the display saying:

Hi, I am a …. I come from…. I need a tank this big ….. because I will be this big as an adult….
I like to eat …. and I am … with corals.

You get the idea, when I first tried fish keeping, about 15 years ago, the first question after saying I would like that fish please, the response used to be, how bigs ya tank? But that doesn’t happen anymore…

 

[Doctorgori]

lol ….yeah even the most staunchest lefties gotta laugh …
I give that pic a short shelf life however

 

[fish farmer]

I suspect a LOT of threads seeking tank size and housing requirements are repackaged “validation” request of conscience. Even without the above formula guidelines, common sense should tell you a 60gal tank can’t accommodate the growth curve of a 2” fish that will eventually reach 10”, not for long anyway.

If the initial question of the thread author is “how long can I keep this fish in this tank”, then that seems to be a more useful question

In the 70’s zoos housed big cats in cages; I saw a black jaguar who’s cheek hairs were worn off from pacing back and forth along the cage bars…
The animal was “healthy” by any observation but was it in a biologically optimal situation?

Again, Is this two totally different arguments: should we strive for habitat/housing optimization (per Jay Hemdals guidelines) or is it a moral animal welfare issue and simply housing a animal in quarters too small is just patently wrong ?

You bring up an interesting thought regarding "healthy" observation and biologically optimum situations.

I work in the salmonid culture field, adult trout broodstock. My main job is to provide disease free quality eggs to state and federal fish hatcheries. I would say most of my fish on station live in less than optimal conditions, optimal in my eyes would be adequate space, adequate clean parasite free water, shaded rearing space.

Some of the trout strains tend to be more domesticated and tolerate, perhaps even prefer crowded conditions. The more wild type do better with less dense conditions, different feeding techniques, covered raceways.

Throughout their lives I'm able to monitor growth rates, move them to larger rearing containers and take lethal samples of populations for health monitoring of various common diseases. I can also visually see internal heath conditions regarding fat stores.

These are metrics that the reef hobby lacks, but still use visual cues to assess health. I hear my fish is "fat and happy"....really? I'm overweight based on what my doctor would say, but I consider myself "heathy", but I know I could use more exercise and less beer.

Here's another thought, regarding my captive trout brood stock, I have fish that are considered pelagic species (steelhead). The adults are a schooling species, ocean types would be subjected to tides, currents and storms. Freshwater types, not so much, but still have IMO a superior fitness than my cramped captive parents.

Does the same hold true for a schooling species such as a tang? Does the captive environment whether it is a 150 tank or a 500 tank actually push enough flow for proper exercise like a wild fish and does it matter as long as they appear heathy?

 

[UMALUM]

Agreed, but when the topic comes up I develop a sta sta stutter and simply can't help myself.