Fish size as compared to environment. Long.

[stingray4540]

I don't want this post to turn into a medium for arguing so please don't reply unless you have some first hand experience or knowlege to back up your answer. I know all of you have opinions, but I'm not interested in those.
Now to my question. I do a lot of fishing and used to know a lot about pond stocking. In the wild; lakes, rivers, ponds; fish grow to the size that there environment alows them. Example, bass in a lake or pond that is heavilly populated with other bass and fish do not grow as large as bass in a pond that was lightly stocked. More room and less compitition. But, I can't say that they are not happy because they aren't all 10-15 lbs. Why would this not hold true when it comes to aquariums? Even saying that if an Oscar is not in an aquarium that alows him to grow to 12" he is not happy is kind of hypocritical, because in the wild they can get even bigger, So they must not be happy unless they are in the wild. I use Oscars only as an example, I'm refering to most fish in general.
I also saw an example of this in an aquarium. My father in law has an aquarium, I guess to be about 15-20 gal., that he always kept regular fancy goldfish in. I'm not sure of the exact species, but he always got the same kind from the same store. He always kept about 4 or 5 by themselves and they grew to a max. of 2-3 in. and when one or two died of old age or whatever he'd replace it. Well, one time he let it get down to one fish and only got one more for some reason, then the old one died and there was only the one new fish left. By this time he got sick of keeping fish and decided to just keep this one until it died. In its life span it got to be like a good 6in and fat. So were all the previous fish unhappy, because they were to crowded to get that big? They didn't seem to be unhappy.
So if someone could explane to me who decided what was a "happy" size for a fish to get in captivity and that anything less was "unhappy", while the same fish in the wild gets a lot bigger. Obviously, this does not mean putting a 6" fish in a 10 gal aquarium. But just because it can reach a large size, is it unhappy because it is bought small and raised in a small or more populated tank that does not allow it to grow to its "maximum" size?
And I don't want to hear any crap about comparing me living in a mansion or a prison cell. Any fish that is kept in an aquarium is kept in a prison, It's only a matter of how large a cell they get. I live in a reeeeaally small one bedroom apartment, but I'm full grown and happy, even though I'd rather be in a mansion.

[TKOS]

I would guess if the fish can attain a reasonably full life span that would considered "happy". A few years for gildfish is no where near full. When kept in ponds they live to be 20 plus years. Many fish can easily live well over 10 years or more if given appropriate living conditions, which doesn't always mean the largest tank possible but also the cleanest water possible.

The goldfish you spoke of probably got bigger and lived longer as it had less "friends" fouling the water and distributing competing hormones.

My cory catfish live in a 10 gallon aquarium at the moment and have for the last 4 years. They have breed many times, twice successfully. It isn't the biggest aquarium (and they have a nice new 29 gallon setup for them), but the water is changes each week and it is heavily planted. I would guess they are happy. Will they be happier in the big tank? Maybe.

[willy:-)]

Wow confusing post. I don't think there really is a factual "answer" here but you were probably correct when you said they can't be truely happy unless in the wild. That is where they are supposed to be. When it gets to the extent their life is shortened then they probably aren't happy. Imagine how small a space you would have to live in to stunt your growth and shorten your life. So when a fish that is suposed to live 30years, like your father in laws, and only lives a few years you have to wonder why. Its like a human living to be only ten years old because of space shortage. Its cruel at that extent, not like a prison cell, your life is full there, but more like a human living in a dog crate or closet, but one small enough so that you literally cannot grow. Sure you could live in a dog crate when you were born if fed etc. But you have to grow,you can't stay 20 inches long forever :huh: . So I guess if you can provide a full life for a fish then he will be generally happy. Of course other factors, like tankmates, help decide happiness, but if your fish only lives 3/30 iths of its lifespan(thats an example-goldfish) then it may be happy for a short time but not generally as it should be. Sorry this was so long and an opinion, but I think it is very general and should be accurate for most cases.

Edit: sorry saw that your not interested in opions, but i have a similar experiance to your father in laws- when i was growing up we had two goldfish in a 29 gallon with tropical fish, it was obvious neither of the fish types were happy, but back then i couldn' t understand that, but now that i realize neither the trops or the goldies could even swim. i realize that was cruel of my parents and the goldies would have been much happier elseware. I think if you could be the fish for a week or two you might be able to realize what really makes it happy, maybe it really dosen't care if it lives 1 year or twenty as long as it has a good life, long or short.

[Roan Art]

. . .I live in a reeeeaally small one bedroom apartment, but I'm full grown and happy, even though I'd rather be in a mansion.Just a small point: Nicely written and debate worthy, but that is a bad analogy. you didn't grow up from a baby in that small one bedroom apartment, did you? It wouldn't matter if you did anyhow.

Let's use another example.

Equate it to a person who, from the time they were able to crawl, lives in a 3x3' closet. They are never allowed out of the closet, except when the closet is being cleaned, and they are just put into another closet. It's ony cleaned occasionally, because your "parents" don't realize that you are sitting in your own filth. You are given basic food. Worst case, bread and water.

You're one of the lucky ones: you grow up. You manage to ward off diseases that could kill you and grow to adolescence. You may look fine physically, maybe. Who's to say?

You make it into your 20s. And then, because of lack of excercise, proper dietary needs, etc.,. etc.,. You die.

But that's okay! You lived a full life. You made it into your 20s. Doesn't matter that you could have lived to be 60 or 70 or 80. Your life was good. Wasn't it? Your "parents" thought so. You lived until you were 20! Good enough for them.

Is that good enough for you?

Hrm.
Roan

[sumthin fishy]

Well, for one thing I doubt the goldfish lived a full life. They can easily live to be 20-30 years old, some types of koi have been known to hit 70+ years.

"Happy" is a human term thrown arround, perhaps, a bit too loosely. Fish don't have the complex emotional capacity we do, as I'm sure you know. But it is used to help us understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy.

To say something will only live x years in the wild, that means it should live the same x years in captivity, is just plain irresponsible. A dog may live a healthy life 12 years in your home, but only last 6 years in the wild. When we take something into our care, we should strive to provide the BEST possible care to it. If you can't afford/bear to provide that, you shouldn't take it into your care.
Commonly people who post this type of question do not pay attention to the answers, so I hope you are in the minority of folks who actually want to know. There are more knowledgable people here than I, on the subject of stunted growth and the overall effects of improperly keeping fish, I'll let them have a chance to elaborate.

[jennypenny]

I’m sorry, but I think the human/ fish comparisons are a bit of a jump. I think all animals should be treated with a certain amount of respect, and that any pet (which people keep for fun) should be housed in a healthy and some what stimulating environment. Different environments can be good for different fish. A clean tank that allows for movement and enough nutrients for a fish to grow to a healthy adult size, but that doesn't let a fish become huge, might be seen as a trade off for a wildlife including; predators, illness, parasites, harsh climate change, variable water quality, and water availability. Sorry for the run-on sentence, but I’m just trying to say there are trade offs between the wild and a tank.

In a pond there might be a huge fish, but typically it is just one huge fish. The lucky one that eats everything else before it can get that big.

The best experience I have is through my parent’s goldfish. In the summer the fish live in an outdoor pond. There they grow and breed, and after a net was added to keep out blue herons, they were probably as “happy” as a community of goldfish could get. (Occasional they still loose a young fish to raccoons) However, the pond is right on the boarder of being deep enough not to completely freeze. So, in the fall my parents catch the fish making sure to find as many babies as they can and bring them in. The smallest babies are put in a small tank and the rest are put in a moderately sized hexagonal tank (I don’t remember the exact size). Frankly the tank could not hold one more fish. There is plenty of room for the fish to move and a few hiding places, but it’s fully and maybe over stocked. My parents are very good at keeping the tank clean and doing water changes. Every winter at least a couple of the babies die. The adult have always seemed healthy. It may not be the best set up, but if left out I’m sure that many would die over winter. In the spring everyone goes back outside. This is a lot of work for my parents, but I think it meets minimum standers for the fish, the oldest of which are many years olds.

Sorry this answer is way to long I’ll stop now.

[Roan Art]

. . .winter. In the spring everyone goes back outside. This is a lot of work for my parents, but I think it meets minimum standers for the fish, the oldest of which are many years olds.. .

Good gosh, Jenny! Your parents are doing what's BEST for those fish over a short period of time. Now, if they kept the fish in those tanks PERMANENTLY, that's different.

Your parents sound like responsible fish keepers to me.

Roan

[daveedka]

There are two seperate issues being discussed here As I see it. An adequate but not large living space is one thing. My Oscar tank is an example. it is large enough to allow good conditions and space to grow and thrive. Not a luxury mansion by any stretch. That same Oscar in a 30g will not live a full life, stunting will occur due to some defeciency in the environment. The oscars lifespan will be shortened even if he doesn't succomb to disease.

Back to your original example of farm ponds and Bass. when a farm pond becomes "stunted from overpopulation " It is the effect of not enough food and therefore extremely limited growth. The stunted fish live far less years than fish in a pond that isn't overstocked. Remember that big bass will eat little bass so for the entire population to be small the big bass have to be dieing off. The combination of more available food and longer lifespans is what allows fish to get bigger in lightly stocked ponds. Longer life spans being the key factor.
As mentioned the goldfish your father kept did not come close to a full life span of a healthy goldfish. Many folks in this hobby are able to keep fish longer than typical wild lifespans, additionally many folks are able to raise fish to a larger size than they would achieve in the wild. When we set aside the moral and ethical debate, the question becomes one of personal entertainment. and the Goldfish could have provided a lot more entertainment had they grown full size and lived fiull lifespans. Stunting compresses internal organs and decreases overall health. The analogy of the 20 year old in the 3 foot closet is about as close as it gets to accurate. A person could be raised in that closet, But even if they recieved proper care, nutrition and a clean environment they would not live a full life. It would be far more difficult to provide them with a clean environment in a room that small, so a bigger
"tank" would make much more sense.

Happy is a different story. What makes a fish happy or unhappy is hard to say. I personally don't believe fish necessarly have emotions, but do feel a responsibility to house them adequately and properly if I plan to use them for my entertainment. In the example of an Oscar in a 55g, the tank is not big enough for the fish to turn around in easily this negates the use of that size tank for Oscars as far as I'm concerned. many folks would argue that point, but most who argue have never actually kept an Oscar for 10+ years. Their Oscars usually die far sooner than that.

[stingray4540]

Ok, I hear everybody and it seems that groing up in a 3' by 3' closet seems to be the best example, which I totally understand. But, how would it be any better to upgraid me to a 5' by 5' closet. Would I be able to turn around better? Yes. Would I live a longer or more healthy life? Maybe, but not as long or healthy as I would should I live in the "wild" (a house with the ability to come and go) The upgraid from a 3by3 to a 5by5 is what I think people are saying about keeping an Oscar in a 70 gal (5by5) as compared to a 55gal(3by3). It just doesn't make sense. Everybody wants to say that keeping a fish in a "too small tank" is like a human in a dog cage or closet, but just because you keep a fish in a 70 gallon doesn't mean that all of a sudden I'm in a house as compared to a closet. Does it? I don't mean to upset anyone I just genuinely don't get it. How is moving a fish from a [B]River to a 70 gal tank ok, but not a 55 gal tank?
As a side note, Roan, even if it doesn't matter, I grew up in a 2 bedroom house with 3 brothers, a sister, and two parents, Oh and someone renting out our garage. So, actually I'm in better living conditions now, cause I only live with my wife. Ha Ha. :joke: I guess its like moving from a crowded 70 gal. to my own 55 gal. ?or something like that???

[jennypenny]

I still think the analogy is a bit much fish do not have the same needs as people. However, if your talking about a river system and a tank, I think a lot of it does have to do with crowding (fish can spread out in a lake or pond and If the populate explodes fish will die off), not to mention the dangers of the wild. At any rate this is a big gray area. I don’t think you'll find a concert answer. If a fish looks (and is) healthy and does not die at a terrible young age, it is likely living in an okay environment. If you are not sure the environment is good enough I would lean on the side of upgrading (weather that means a bigger tank, new tank mates, different food, or whatever). Plus I think the stimulation of the outdoors is a trade off with the care and safety (hopefully) of a tank.

[RTR]

Whatever the fish, they are likely to live longer and healthier in well-maintained tank in captivity than in the wild. Neons are largely annual fish in the wild. In captivity, in the best conditions they can make ten years. Rift lake Cichlids in captivity are not uncommonly larger than in the wild, and though I have no figures on them, I would bet there are few in the wild in their teens, while teenager in captivity are fairly common. But not all of the common hobby definitions of "well-maintained" are that in reality. That last point is the one that we debate here and even argue about routinely.

Remember that fish never stop growing, the rate just slows markedly. This is quite different from land vertebrates.

[stingray4540]

Thanks everyone.

[Roan Art]

Stingray:

This link may be of interest:

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11885

Lots of logic in there, which is what I think you were looking for.

Roan

[stingray4540]

Thanks roan. That thread is almost identical to mine, if not a little old. You guessed me right, I tend to be a little to logical sometimes, and logic is what I was looking for.

[FisheyLisa]

I think it is completely logical. Fish don't have the cerebral capacity to emote. They can't BE happy.

They can be alive or dead, and the housing you provide determines how long they stay alive. Along the way, their bodies can get stressed and fall ill. How well you KEEP your tank healthy determines that.

Seems straight fwd to me. Don't get caught up in people's perfect little worlds (or tanks) ;)
There was a thread on here (I think unless it was myfishtank.net) and probably articles on the net about fish keeping in Japan. They have awfully cramped conditions to argue over.

[Onikun]

What if you kept a fish in a wind tunnel except you pumped water. Would it work for fish who are always swimming anyway? Some river fish always swim forward even when sleeping.

[willy:-)]

Unless you have been a fish, you can't say they can't be happy. Why then do they like certian foods or certain areas of the tank or like riding on the filter current? Maybe they can't but I don't think you could say for sure unless you are a fish, sometimes I wish I was one, I dunno why??? lol ;)

[Roan Art]

Thanks roan. That thread is almost identical to mine, if not a little old. You guessed me right, I tend to be a little to logical sometimes, and logic is what I was looking for.Nothing wrong with that :) There actually IS a lot of logic to what everyone said in this thread. It's very tempered with emotion, however, and you have to weed that out to get the facts.

The real problem is, in all honesty, in how your question is phrased. The term "happy" is not a logical application to fish. It's a human emotion. If you rephrase your question in terms that apply to fish, and only to fish, then you can cultivate the logical discussion you are seeking to have.

Why don't you start a NEW thread and make pointed, logical remarks, with no emotion on the part of the fish, and stress that the "rules" of that thread are that "emotions" (ie fish happiness, contentment, life fulfillment and so on) may not be entered into the discussion?

State up front that insofar as we know, fish have no emotions that are of the human equivillent and therefore those must not enter the discussion.

Ie: Is it necessary for a fish to be maintained in such a way so that it will attain it's maxium size for that fish?

None of that "full life" stuff, that's a human quality. No contentment. No happiness. Nada.

What do you think?

Roan

[stingray4540]

Sounds like you know more about what I'm looking for than I do. :) I think when I get some time I'll have to post a thread like that. Do you think I should do it in the newbie forum or the general freshwater forum for best results? I guess I should have left out "happy", But that seemed to be the most popular way of describing a healthy fully grown fish around here. Thanks again roan.

[Roan Art]

Sounds like you know more about what I'm looking for than I do. :) ROFL!


I think when I get some time I'll have to post a thread like that. Do you think I should do it in the newbie forum or the general freshwater forum for best results? I guess I should have left out "happy", But that seemed to be the most popular way of describing a healthy fully grown fish around here. Thanks again roan.
General, I would say. I think it would be an awesome thread if everyone left emotions out of it and look at it from a purely logical point of view.

People describe fish with emotions because people are emotional. We relate to things -- animate or inanimate -- by applying human characteristics to it. We want everything to be like us. It's just human nature. It's also very hard for a lot of people to shed off the human side and just be logical about something.

As much as I absolutely hate the phrase, I think the term "Quality of Life" is what we'd have to use to describe proper fish keeping.

Can't wait for your thread and I hope it goes well!

Roan

[stingray4540]

ROFL! ??? and what language is that in your sig?
Thanks again.

[sumthin fishy]

ROFL=Rolling On the Floor Laughing, sometimes paired with MAO=my rear end off
or PMP=peing my pants.

[Raskolnikov]

As I've stated in previous threads such as this, in the home aquarium it is not the size of the tank which becomes the limiting factor for growth, but the difficulty of maintaining good water quality as the amount of water decreases in relation to the fish mass. Consider this open system:
http://tinypic.com/fp2j6d.jpg
(photograph is from Flowing Water Fish Culture by Richard W. Soderberg)

So long as waste is removed immediately, DO concentrations are kept high enough for the species in question, and a sufficient diet is fed, spacial considerations don't really become a factor until the fish no longer grow due to an actual lack of space.

However, would you enjoy keeping fish like this? It would bring me no pleasure, and since my own enjoyment of the fishes that I keep is the ultimate goal in my fishkeeping, I provide my charges with enough water volume that I can observe their movements and interactions with the microenvironments in which I keep them. Tank volume also determines how often I need to change out the water in order to keep them healthy and growing, so I put my fishes in tanks that allow me to keep waste under control with a water change regement that I'm comfortable with (providing a considerable buffer, of course).

[Roan Art]

ROFL! ??? and what language is that in your sig?
Thanks again.It's Gaelic. Sort of a joke :)

Roan