Is anyone else as cheesed off as i am?

[superduperwesman]

Originally Posted by Myka

Proportions can't be judged when comparing a small fish to a very large fish. You can't even compare proportions when speaking of our tank reefs. A Panda Goby at 1" is quite happy in a 2 gallon tank (twice the size of it's length or 1/2" per gallon), but a 14" Sailfin Tang is NOT happy in a 28 gallon tank (twice the size of it's length or 1/2" per gallon). Proportions can only be used to compare very similar sized fish. In fact, a 14" Sailfin Tang wouldn't be particularly happy in a tank that is any smaller than 240g (some people would argue this), and that is over 17x the length of the fish and 0.05" per gallon.

By proportions I meant ideal swimming lengths compared to tank length.... which is not necessarily related to fish size or your 1/2" per gallon relation which is not at all what I meant by "proportions".

But you kind of made my point for me... how much swimming room do tangs ideally need and what size of tanks are they often crammed in? Looks like a lot of people have no problem putting them in a 4' tank from a recent thread

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=47168

but you say ideally some should be in 8' tanks.

So yeah Big Als tank isn't ideal and it would be nice if it was twice as long but at the end of the day they're just doing the same thing that 95% of other people in the hobby are doing.

I'm not saying it's the best thing in the world but it just part of the hobby. You want something but maybe you don't want to have a tank that big.... so you push the limits.

Meh

[Tom R]

I agree that Big Al's shark feeding frenzy is somewhat unnecessary.

There are a number of people out there that think our whole hobby falls into the same discussion. They believe that all of the creatures we put into our tanks belong in the wild. We are all on a slippery slope and to be highly critical of Big Al's is a bit hypocritical.

It is a shame that Big A's has decided to use sharks as a means to entice customers into their store. I for one think that a tank of that size with hundreds of smaller fish built more like an actual reef is more spectacular. Tangs, Triggers, Angels and Damsels etc small medium and large.

Tom R

[superduperwesman]

Originally Posted by Tom R

I agree that Big Al's shark feeding frenzy is somewhat unnecessary.

There are a number of people out there that think our whole hobby falls into the same discussion. They believe that all of the creatures we put into our tanks belong in the wild. We are all on a slippery slope and to be highly critical of Big Al's is a bit hypocritical.

It is a shame that Big A's has decided to use sharks as a means to entice customers into their store. I for one think that a tank of that size with hundreds of smaller fish built more like an actual reef is more spectacular. Tangs, Triggers, Angels and Damsels etc small medium and large.

Tom R

Yeah in a lot of ways it'd be way cooler right full of other fish.... prob cheaper just to grab 3 sharks??

[Samw]

Originally Posted by superduperwesman

By proportions I meant ideal swimming lengths compared to tank length.... which is not necessarily related to fish size or your 1/2" per gallon relation which is not at all what I meant by "proportions".

I think I know what you mean by proportion. If we start with a base that is a one inch fish in 2 gallons of water, the same fish at two inches would be 8 times bigger (8x more volume) because we are talking about 3D space so the fish would be twice as long and twice as wide and twice as deep. Therefore, the space must also be twice as long, twice as wide, and twice as deep or just 8x bigger. So to keep the same proportions as you are talking about, a 2 inch fish would need to be in a 16 gallon tank in order for the proportions to be the same as the environment of the 1" fish in 2 gallons of water.

I also don't like using inch of fish per gallon examples since that is a one dimensional calculation using only length of fish to determine volume (3 dimensional) of water needed.

[fishoholic]

The BA in Edmonton isn't to bad for buying a fish most of the time if you take the time to choose carefully. The mysis they sell for fairly cheep so we pick that up there, other things are kinda pricey but sometimes you can find some really good deals. I know many people show up there on boxing day

As for the shark tank, at 2000g I guess it's small for sharks, however it is cool to see. IMO it's not much different then keeping tangs in 90g or smaller tanks. I also know that one of the sharks in the shark tank in Edmonton was donated by my friend (before she realized how fast sharks grow) when it quickly (from an egg to about a foot long in about six months) outgrew her tank. Thankfully BA was willing to take it (her tank was a 90g) I'd like to think that at least it's better off in the 2000g tank. Obviously in the wild is the best place for sharks, but if they are going to be kept in a tank, then at least it's a fairly big one.

[Myka]

Originally Posted by Samw

I think I know what you mean by proportion. If we start with a base that is a one inch fish in 2 gallons of water, the same fish at two inches would be 8 times bigger (8x more volume) because we are talking about 3D space so the fish would be twice as long and twice as wide and twice as deep. Therefore, the space must also be twice as long, twice as wide, and twice as deep or just 8x bigger. So to keep the same proportions as you are talking about, a 2 inch fish would need to be in a 16 gallon tank in order for the proportions to be the same as the environment of the 1" fish in 2 gallons of water.

I also don't like using inch of fish per gallon examples since that is a one dimensional calculation using only length of fish to determine volume (3 dimensional) of water needed.

I used the inch of fish per gallon "rule" to show how horribly flawed it is. It irks the heck out of me when people use that "rule"...same as the ole watts per gallon. There are way too many factors to take into consideration.

A 14" Sailfin Tang sure needs a whole lot more space than a 14" Snowflake Eel. Heck, a 36" Snowflake Eel needs less space than a 14" Sailfin Tang.

I do agree that most people cram fish that are too big into their tanks which are too small.

[Samw]

Originally Posted by Myka

I used the inch of fish per gallon "rule" to show how horribly flawed it is. It irks the heck out of me when people use that "rule"...same as the ole watts per gallon. There are way too many factors to take into consideration.

A 14" Sailfin Tang sure needs a whole lot more space than a 14" Snowflake Eel. Heck, a 36" Snowflake Eel needs less space than a 14" Sailfin Tang.

I do agree that most people cram fish that are too big into their tanks which are too small.

Ok, that's fine. Just pointing out that superduperwesman was probably talking about 3D space and not 1D space when he mentioned proportions and the inch of fish per gallon rule is a rule where a 1D object is mapped into 3D space. So when he said proportion, he didn't mean that 1" fish in 2 gallons is the same proportion as 14" fish in 28 gallons.

[superduperwesman]

I'm just saying it's not ideal but the majority of fish tanks don't provide and ideal habitat for a lot of fish that people keep... myself included. Prob more of an issue b/c the sharks are bigger... if they die it seems a lot worse than a tang dying

[ShrimSkin]

Originally Posted by superduperwesman

I'm just saying it's not ideal but the majority of fish tanks don't provide and ideal habitat for a lot of fish that people keep... myself included. Prob more of an issue b/c the sharks are bigger... if they die it seems a lot worse than a tang dying

Why is it worse because they are bigger? This thread is hypocritical, as stated in another post many people think the same of us for keeping any fish. I understand why they chose sharks, and they are in business to make as much money as possible. A tank full of smaller fish may seem cooler to a more serious hobbyist but there is no way it would beat the WOW factor of sharks, your average customer would be much more drawn to sharks. Especially kids. Big Als is OK with me, sure they have problems, but who doesn't.

[superduperwesman]

Originally Posted by ShrimSkin

Why is it worse because they are bigger? This thread is hypocritical, as stated in another post many people think the same of us for keeping any fish. I understand why they chose sharks, and they are in business to make as much money as possible. A tank full of smaller fish may seem cooler to a more serious hobbyist but there is no way it would beat the WOW factor of sharks, your average customer would be much more drawn to sharks. Especially kids. Big Als is OK with me, sure they have problems, but who doesn't.

Prob just a mental thing?? The bigger something is the worse it seems. Some one stomps on a bug it's no big deal.... stomp on a cat and ur in trouble