How Small Is Too Small? How Big Is Big Enough?

eaglesaquarium

Life, Liberty & Pursuit of the perfect fish tank
Retired Moderator ⚒️
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
12,902
Reaction score
373
Location
US
In an effort not to hijack the 3 gallon tank thread, I thought it would be best to continue this discussion in a separate thread. I know this can be a controversial topic, but at the same time, I think it is an important one and one that needs to be discussed. Both sides of this argument have valid points, and I think that a meeting of the minds can be had if all parties agree to keep it civil. (I promise.) :flowers:


It just seemed like you were saying it doesnt matter what size the tank is, as long as it looks happy to the owner then its fine, i just didnt agree with what i interpreted it as.

I was not saying that at all. I was merely posing the thought that just because someone has "success" keeping a fish alive in a small tank, doesn't mean they "should" keep a fish in a small tank, hence my quotation.

Even despite the fish being small enough and showing all the proper behavior it should along with the tank maintaining water quality across the board when proper maintenance is performed?

IMO if it works, then why not. My DP certainly can't measure gallonage.

No, I don't think it's right. This is just my opinion and I feel that only shrimp should be kept in nano tanks. I don't feel that just because a fish has good colour means it's ok to keep it in a small tank/container. I'm looking at this from an ethical point of view. I also don't agree with animals kept in a zoo either. Usually, the pens/cages, whatever you want to call them are too small for the animal. The people at the zoo will argue that the animal is fine because it's eating and breeding and the colours look okay. But how is this okay? It's just dead wrong in my opinion. I am however okay with wild life sanctuaries that provide ample outdoor space for animals. Yes, it's not the same as the room they have in nature but it's better than living in a cage. I feel that as a responsible fish owner it's up to me to provide a good home for my fish. Since the fish can't tell me what they like or don't like, I have to try my best to make it as great of a life as I can for it. To me this means clean, nutrient rich water and plenty of swimming space. When I look at my 140g fish tank, I think to myself, yup, if I was a fish, I'd love to live in there. Funny thing, that thought doesn't come to mind when I look at a Betta cup/jar/1g tank, etc. If I was a fish, I'd be saying "kill me, kill me".


Caprichoso,

Your argument seems a bit in need of refining.


First, you say that you disagree with animals being kept in zoos, yet many zoos (especially the biggest ones) have been striving over the past 30+ years to make their exhibits as true to their natural habitat as possible given the confines of the space available. Many of the animals have far larger and better kept enclosures than ever before. Certainly there are still some smaller zoos who can't afford to do this all the time, but every effort is made by the keepers to make the animals lives as rich as possible.

This idea is direct contrast to the fact that you yourself are a fishkeeper. You can try to fool yourself into thinking that you are in some way different than the zookeepers, but you have the same limits that the zoos have. Your 140 gallon tank is no different than keeping a cheetah on 2 acres of land.


Next, you are placing your thoughts on to the fish. Fish and animals in captivity if properly kept have some great advantages over those in the wild. First, the limited chance at predation. Second, the promise of food. Third, the proper environment (most of the time). Captive animals generally outlive their wild counterparts by a 2 to 1 ratio, sometimes even higher! That's not an accident. Unlike a captive animal, the wild animal will always be competing with younger, fitter rivals for food, breeding, escape, etc. The captive animal can live its life in relative peace and reassurance that all of its needs will be met.


Finally, let me say that I am not attacking you personally. I generally find your posts to be well thought out and your advice is most welcomed. But, this thought seems a bit underdeveloped. I agree that there are limits to how small is too small, but the answer to it is not as black and white as I believe you are trying to make it. We can only measure certain things in this hobby. Unfortunately, one of the things that we cannot measure is happiness or contentment of our fish. We look for signs, like coloration, breeding, activity, and the chemicals in the water that we can measure to indicate our fishes well being. I am not going to be keeping a betta in a little cup (in fact I refuse to be a patron of a store that sells them that way), but to say that 3 gallons isn't enough for a betta might be too far in the opposite direction. Bettas are not big swimmers. The same is true of ADFs. They don't need a lot of swimming space (unlike a bala shark or even a danio). These animals generally hang out in one spot or another most of the time. And if they are giving off breeding behaviors and all the other signs indicate a healthy environment, then I believe it is fine. Would bigger be better? I don't know. Too much current (for the betta) or too deep of water (for the ADF) would also be a problem.
 
I know this wasnt for me, but i have something to say about one part of your post.


You say that because bettas only hang out in one part of the tank, they only need small tanks.

Would you say the same for someone who was in a wheelchair, or couldnt move very far, that they only needed a tiny room?

I know humans and fish are very different but im trying to get my point across that i dont think that just because something stays in one place it should be confined to that space.

However, I do agree with the whole zoo debate, they ar ekept in good conditions most of the time, and yes they do live longer in cpativity, and they have better chances of reproduction, hence why many species have been saved from extinction due to captive breeding programs.
 
1 Gallon is fine for a Betta, I know of many breeders that would agree with this also, if the water quality is good and the fish exhibits normal behaviour then I see no problems personally, stocking should be based on behaviour of the species, not its size, though that does play some part.
 
My argument doesn't need refining at all. It is my opinion. I'm not out to prove something scientifically. I did say this was an ethical thing for me. It's not something that really can be argued as it's my thoughts on an ethical standpoint. I think it's wrong for the reasons stated. You're trying to convince me of something that in my heart I feel is wrong. You won't change my mind, sorry. When I talked about zoo's, I said I'm against animals being in SMALL cages. I also said I'm fine with sanctuaries that give ample room for animals.Yes, animals need acres and acres of land but I feel better about some land rather than the animal living in a pen. It's not right, it's not okay. I think you may have missed that part. This is topic to which people have disagreed for years on and I'm sure will continue for years into the future. One thing I think should be said is MOST zoo's do not have ample room for the animals. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken. The ones that do are great but many more do not, sadly.
 
Most zoos are non-profit and all they make goes to conservation and education... You can't do anything about animals being in zoos, for some its the last stand. Its not uncommon to see an animal on the brink of extinction in the wild in a zoo. If the panda didn't have the massive public support it does it would of likely gone extinct already. There is a big difference in the impact a live animal has verse pictures. Species need public support to stay protected in the wild, where would that come from if zoos did not have these animals on display to help teach why they are important and should be protected. Most zoos go to great lengths to provide enrichment for their animals. I know the como zoo in the twin cities does not even charge for admissions, all they have at the gates is a donation box. Before you complain of the zoos complain of the lack of laws for proper care for privately owned exotic animals like tigers. This entire zoo thing though is entirely off the main topic IMO. The two are not really relevant IMO. Its no different then keeping indoor cats. They are caged indoors in a completely unnatural habitat. I let my cats go outside as they wish, yet it comes with dangers and I know them all too well. One of my cats is still alive after someone nailed him with a BB gun and he is still allowed outside.

Done properly I see nothing wrong. My DP lives in a ~1 gallon area of water that is part of my 5 gallon paludarium. It is heated, unfiltered and gets weekly WC ATM. Water is a little over 3" deep from the substrate. If your talking about swimming space which is not completely equivalent to gallonage he has quite a bit with the water being so shallow. As far as enrichment I think he has plenty of snails to hunt out of his plants. Its quite normal for me not the be able to find him in there.

P1200856.jpg


P1200859.jpg
 
Yes it was off topic which is why eaglesaquarium moved the thread. Once again, if you read what I wrote, you would see that I'm in agreement with a zoo/sanctuary if there is ample room for the animal. I don't agree with small cages. I don't agree with fish in small aquariums. Of coarse you're ok with it, you have your fish in tiny tank. So that explains why you're also ok with caged animals. I'm not sure what you mean by "done properly" but most zoo's don't do it properly. I'm not sure what zoo's you're aware of or have been to but not everyone does it like SeaWorld and is all concerned about raising money for the betterment of animals. The ones that do I applaud. My point is that most of them don't. Yes, some of them are getting better, that's great. It's all relevant IMO as it's a comparison of what I think is an acceptable environment for fish and animals. Once again, it is my opinion and how I feel ethically is not the same as you so let it rest at that. I can sleep at night with my ethics and if you can too then great, all is well in the universe.
 
I know this wasnt for me, but i have something to say about one part of your post.


You say that because bettas only hang out in one part of the tank, they only need small tanks.

Would you say the same for someone who was in a wheelchair, or couldnt move very far, that they only needed a tiny room?

I know humans and fish are very different but im trying to get my point across that i dont think that just because something stays in one place it should be confined to that space.

However, I do agree with the whole zoo debate, they ar ekept in good conditions most of the time, and yes they do live longer in cpativity, and they have better chances of reproduction, hence why many species have been saved from extinction due to captive breeding programs.


My grandfather spent the last three years of his life confined to a hospital bed. (Of course, the was miserable, as he used to be a boxer and thought a 50 mile road march was fun.)


My argument is that if the animal can display it's natural behavior in the space provided and the conditions remain favorable, that it probably has sufficient space. There is no way to know for sure if it is enough space. We can't interview the fish to ask them. The only thing we can do is observe. It's similar to the argument regarding how many of schooling species do you need? You need enough for the fish to display their natural behavior. How many is that? :dunno:


My argument doesn't need refining at all. It is my opinion. I'm not out to prove something scientifically. I did say this was an ethical thing for me. It's not something that really can be argued as it's my thoughts on an ethical standpoint. I think it's wrong for the reasons stated. You're trying to convince me of something that in my heart I feel is wrong. You won't change my mind, sorry. When I talked about zoo's, I said I'm against animals being in SMALL cages. I also said I'm fine with sanctuaries that give ample room for animals.Yes, animals need acres and acres of land but I feel better about some land rather than the animal living in a pen. It's not right, it's not okay. I think you may have missed that part. This is topic to which people have disagreed for years on and I'm sure will continue for years into the future. One thing I think should be said is MOST zoo's do not have ample room for the animals. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken. The ones that do are great but many more do not, sadly.


I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I wanted to point out the inconsistency of saying that you are against zoos who keep animals in confined spaces, while you are keeping fish an equally confined space. I am not trying to convert any one to another way of thinking just trying to offer a better spot for this conversation than in the other thread. Obviously you are free to your opinions. I just thought it might be something that you want to rethink a little bit based on the reasons I stated. If not, that's fine. :good: You're still a good guy in my book, and have offered me with many good pieces of advice, and I hope I can count on them again in the future. :look:



I think the question that still exists is: How big is big enough? And How small is too small?
 
Both my grandparents were confined to beds and chairs in their later years, in care homes, so i know how it feels to bear the brunt of the frustration of the bedbound.


And you do make a valid point there's no denying it, but there's also no denying that this debate is all about opinions, obviously some people think 1 gallon is enough, whilst others think only ten gallons is enough, its all a matter of opinion really isnt it?
 
No, putting an Oscar in my tank would make it comparable to a caged zoo animal. I keep small fish in my tank. I'm fine with your comment on it, I don't agree with you but that's the great thing about opinions; they are personal. Yup, you can always count on me for advice, opinions and the like anytime :good:

Ciao
 
I can respect that. I thought you had larger species in your 140 gallon tank. You are far more consistent than I thought. My apologies. Most folks get a 140 gallon tank so that they can keep larger specimens, like Oscars. :lol:



So, the question still lingers: How big is big enough?


I've got a 56 gallon, and the biggest fish I will have grows to 3 inches.
 
So, the question still lingers: How big is big enough?


I've got a 56 gallon, and the biggest fish I will have grows to 3 inches.

Clearly depends on the species and individuals opinion. A butterfly fish reaches 4" should have at least a 20 gallon long IMO. A boesemani rainbowfish might reach 4", but I would keep an adult in at least a 4 foot tank personally. I have my two adult caecilians in my 55 gallon and they are 2 feet long each. Given their natural activity levels I see that as fine too.

I don't see physical confinement as the same as environmental confinement.
 
[quote name='Mikaila31' timestamp='1307048790' post='3023052'

I don't see physical confinement as the same as environmental confinement.
[/quote]


Really? How?
the individual is still confined to a certain amount of space, whether it is voluntary or involuntary.
 
it's good to see things kept civil guys :good:


Remember not to humanise thing to much.
 
There's no point getting angry about opinions though really is there :)
 

Most reactions

Back
Top