Clown Loaches...

3 loaches in a 125g tank? Wow how are those fish going to be able to turn around in such a little tank? They are going to die a painfull early death. :rolleyes:

I think youd be ok with 3 in a 125. Better to have a group of atleast 6, but yeah then 125 is going to be getting small once they start getting bigger. I cant say for sure wether it would affect em or not. 55g or 75g, ok yeah they would definatly be stunted after a couple years. I have six right now with the largest around 4". They will soon be going into a bigger tank, a 150. A bigger tank is always better (except for the pocket book) but I cant see myself needing bigger than the 150 unless I had a school of more than 6. Most of the times when I see folks with em in 200+ gallon tanks they have a dozen or more. More power to em, definately a nice setup.
 
number1sixerfan said:
Some people just have different opinions, but you should not force them on to other people. Just my 02.
Click to expand...
Some people think it's OK to keep a betta in a cup, or a dog on a chain all the time. Those people are wrong. It's not about opinion, it's about doing what's right for the animals that are completely dependent on you for their wellbeing.
 
Bogger is always better, and I would think that you really would need 280-300G to comfotably house a decent-sized school (8-12 fish) of full-sized (10"-14") clowns. Down at the shop, we have a few 12" clowns in a 280, and they sure appreciate and use what room they have.
 
[playing devils advocate]

I am sure those clowns love the 280G tank. But I am also almost positive any fish would. Infact, I bet your clown in that 280G would much rather be in a 400G, and if in a 400G would probably really like it better in an 800G. Better yet to let them live in the wild and never put em in an aquarium.

There was also a recent coment made by a poster (I wont mention names, but who is looked upon very highly by most) that in most cases stunting causes no inherent damage to the fish. For example a single clown loach in a 20g-long maxed out around 4" yet still lived over 30 years. We could assume perhaps it would have lived longer and gotten bigger in a larger tank, but as far as its happiness, well we really can't tell. Its safe to say that its tankmates at the orignal lfs didnt live as long. There is no black and white line for whats best, pretty much anything in an aquarium is a compromise.

[/playing devils advocate]
 
i have 6 cl in my 250 they love lining up along the front all 6 in one line from one side to the other laying on thier sides. They use as much room as you give them to play. They are a great fish
 
monkey_toes said:
Some people think it's OK to keep a betta in a cup, or a dog on a chain all the time. Those people are wrong. It's not about opinion, it's about doing what's right for the animals that are completely dependent on you for their wellbeing.
Click to expand...

Please re-read my argument. I am in no way condoning keeping plecos in 20g tanks or goldfish in bowls, etc. I am strictly talking about the people that know that those extremes are wrong under any circumstances. In a 125g tank, clowns would be able to turn around and move about. Sorry if you misunderstood my argument.
 
loaches r cool said:
[playing devils advocate]

I am sure those clowns love the 280G tank. But I am also almost positive any fish would. Infact, I bet your clown in that 280G would much rather be in a 400G, and if in a 400G would probably really like it better in an 800G. Better yet to let them live in the wild and never put em in an aquarium.
Click to expand...
You are correct in pointing out the notion that the bigger the aquarium the better off the clown loaches would be, however this does not take away from concept that there should be a minimum tank size based the needs of the fish being housed.

loaches r cool said:
There was also a recent coment made by a poster (I wont mention names, but who is looked upon very highly by most) that in most cases stunting causes no inherent damage to the fish. For example a single clown loach in a 20g-long maxed out around 4" yet still lived over 30 years. We could assume perhaps it would have lived longer and gotten bigger in a larger tank, but as far as its happiness, well we really can't tell. Its safe to say that its tankmates at the orignal lfs didnt live as long. There is no black and white line for whats best, pretty much anything in an aquarium is a compromise.

[/playing devils advocate]
Click to expand...
It is unlikely that a clown loach of that size reached adulthood. To many cutting a fish’s life short in this way is inherently damaging the fish. While 30 years is a long time it is believed by some that clown loaches may live longer than humans do. I agree that it is not a black and white issue at all, but it just seems unethical to me to purposefully stunt a fish.
 
I think number1sixerfan try to make a point is just common sense, as long as you can see the fish is healthy and have the space to swim freely then it's ok to keep them at the tank size that the owners have.

As you all can see in the video, the tank is probably too small for the two largest clowns but for those smaller one then that tank is ok (to me anyway)

When it comes to stunt the fish there are so many things that we haven't mentioned about: school size, water condition, food, lighting, cave size, tank mate ....ect....the list keeps on and on, so where do we draw a line about stunting a fish?? I think we can't do that 'cause we're not fish. We just "think" what are good for them without knowing 100% sure what the fish actually like. Eventually it just comes down to common sense and personal judgment about what we have at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom