Spent a whole year in a 75 gallon at the LFS in Virginia Beach. They finally upgraded to a 180 thank god. Animal cruelty? Abuse? Who keeps big fish in small tanks. ? How small is too small. ? I'm guilty of keeping a blue hippo in a 75 but he's only 3 inches and already have a 120 waiting for him.
Big fish in small tanks.
- Thread starter glagunda
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Spent a whole year in a 75 gallon at the LFS in Virginia Beach. They finally upgraded to a 180 thank god. Animal cruelty? Abuse? Who keeps big fish in small tanks. ? How small is too small. ? I'm guilty of keeping a blue hippo in a 75 but he's only 3 inches and already have a 120 waiting for him.
I think this is irresponsible, especially for a fish store. I'm glad to know it's in a more appropriately sized tank. I am a strong advocate for people knowing maximum sizes for fish before acquiring them. If the max size is inappropriate for what you can currently offer in terms of space, then just don't do it. Of course, this is simply my opinion. This is a heated topic so I'm sure you'll get a lot of differing opinions. 
This is very complicated matter, and one that is close to my heart. The industry just does not care, greedy humans. 98% of the fish collected for the trade die within the 1st year, most never make it to home aquarium. There will never be enough large tanks to house the number of large fish that are collected, most will die. Because of this I support people with good intentions of getting larger tanks or have resources to rehome the fish when it gets too large. This is also why I resent the self righteous hypocrites that serve as the "tang police". Maybe keeping a juvi blue tang in a 75 while planning a larger tank gives that fish a chance for a good life; otherwise there' a 98% chance he will be dead in less than a year.
Totally agree. The blue hippo I have was recently bought off Craigslist. Original owner kept her in a 55. My current build will be a 120. Hopefully that will give her ample amount of room to swim and forage.
Rybren
Valuable Member
I don't disagree that the percentages are likely high, but where did you get those statistics? Those are very specific numbers for something that would be very difficult to ascertain.
Just curious
I've found these statistics from many sources as well as documentaries, you can easily do a google search to find some of the same appalling numbers. I've visited wholesalers in L.A. and seen buckets of dead fish, and being around town for 25 years I see the numbers of dead fish scooped out at the several lfs I visit. That's just one U.S. city
Rybren
Valuable Member
I've seen and read most of the articles. That 98% number is an estimate made by the WWF and is based on conversations with collectors in one specific area - the Philippines - and was made back in the days when cyanide was the capture method of choice. All of the articles that I've read reference the WWF estimate. I have yet to find a single reference to any sort of even semi-scientific study on the numbers.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't dispute the fact that the mortality rate is likely high, but when we throw around numbers that have no basis in fact we are doing the hobby a disservice.
The WWF has an agenda and it is to their advantage to claim high mortality rates.
The Ornamental Fish Trade Association also has an agenda and they claim that although Marine Ornamental fish only account for 0.001 % of all of the fish caught around the world (how'd they come up with that number?) it produces revenue of $590,000 per tonne of fish captured. According to them, this number is 372 times greater than the revenue generated by food fish (again, how'd they come up with these numbers?) Their claim is that because the fish are such a valuable resource and provides employment for a large number of people along the entire supply chain, it is in everyone's best interest to do everything in their power to keep mortality rates as low as possible. I note that they avoid making mention of any specific mortality rate.
All this is to say that I do believe that mortality rates are high, the industry is moving in the right direction by trying to totally eliminate cyanide capture, they are doing more and more to try and ensure a higher survival rate, and captive breeding programs are making great strides.
Oh yeah, this also shows that I'm bored on a Sunday evening
As I mentioned earlier, I don't dispute the fact that the mortality rate is likely high, but when we throw around numbers that have no basis in fact we are doing the hobby a disservice.
The WWF has an agenda and it is to their advantage to claim high mortality rates.
The Ornamental Fish Trade Association also has an agenda and they claim that although Marine Ornamental fish only account for 0.001 % of all of the fish caught around the world (how'd they come up with that number?) it produces revenue of $590,000 per tonne of fish captured. According to them, this number is 372 times greater than the revenue generated by food fish (again, how'd they come up with these numbers?) Their claim is that because the fish are such a valuable resource and provides employment for a large number of people along the entire supply chain, it is in everyone's best interest to do everything in their power to keep mortality rates as low as possible. I note that they avoid making mention of any specific mortality rate.
All this is to say that I do believe that mortality rates are high, the industry is moving in the right direction by trying to totally eliminate cyanide capture, they are doing more and more to try and ensure a higher survival rate, and captive breeding programs are making great strides.
Oh yeah, this also shows that I'm bored on a Sunday evening
