# I was lied to by my LFS, now I'm stuck.



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

I've tried many different fish combos for my 29 gallon aquarium. It went from being planted with a community (didn't like it), to housing 3 juvinile Blood parrots (can't upgrade so I gave them back), and now to 2 angelfish. I found these angels at my LFS that is family owned so I figured I would get good advice. The woman there bred these angelfish herself and told me I could keep 2 in a 29 gallon tank for the rest of their lives. I feel like I was given misinformation about that. These angels are about the size of my hand and they already looked cramped to me, not to mention all the poop they produce. I'm worried that once they get bigger they will either 1) die from bad water quality due to over stocking or 2) fight with eachother untill one or both die from stress. I called the pet store and she refused to take them back claiming that my tank could be contaminated and regardless would not give me a refund. I feel like I was lied to just to make a sale. So what should I do? Sell them to someone with a bigger tank on here? They are wonderfull fish that I'm pretty attached to. They get along fabulously, but I know this may not always be this way as they get bigger. I was just planning on putting my betta in the 29 as he would be very happy with all the space and maintance would be a breeze.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

They won't get bigger than your hand and the key to good water quality is water change. I don't see a problem.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

I've found them to usually grow to the tanks size..
And if they are getting along now 


> These angels are about the size of my hand


they should be fine...


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

​


mistergreen said:


> They won't get bigger than your hand and the key to good water quality is water change. I don't see a problem.


Thanks mistergreen. I can't find myself getting rid of them. I just worry as my fish are just as loved as my other pets. I'll keep up my 50% weekly water changes.


----------



## MtAnimals (May 17, 2015)

if it's just the 2 angels,they'll even breed in a tank that size,plus they are pretty much done growing.They must not be 2 males,or they'd probably be fighting.I used to breed pairs of angels in 29's.You could always add a BN pleco,thought then you'd want to put in a fresh piece of boiled zucchini every day.

you could always go to a larger tank if you like.Do your weekly water changes and they'll be fine.

edit: lol,I see several of us posted at the same time.


----------



## longgonedaddy (Dec 9, 2012)

Angels dont need much swimming space. As long as you keep up on water quality, they'll be fine. And don't worry so much about e aggression. If they're male/female, chances are they'll pair up and start spawning for you. If F/F, they may pair and attempt to spawn. Keep an eye if one lays eggs without pairing with the other, there may be some aggression. If you have tall structure-plants, wood, etc- the other one will be able to get out of sight. If M/M you may get lucky, and the dominant one won't be too aggressive, and they will live together fine. With no females to fight over, aggression would likely be limited. Of course, they are cichlids, and everything I just said can be turned upside down by the individuals' personalities. 

For what it's worth, I had two simultaneous spawnings with two pairs, in a 65 with medium planting. Plus, there were two singles in the tank. I bought six waiting for them to pair, and they did before I had a chance to get them out. A lot of territorialism, but no damaging violence.

And if push comes to shove, and you want to move them, let me know.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Of course they'll live, etc, but to me they need more space and aesthetically it doesn't have any appeal to have a large fish in a small aquarium, but everyone is different in that regard. I posted this pic in the other thread about Angels. This is one Angel in a 46G. Your tank is 6" shorter in length and 3" in height. Once the tank has some plants and/or hardscape there is considerably less room. If your simply breeding Angels without anything else in the tank it's a slightly different story.


----------



## thedood (May 30, 2015)

I would use that as an excuse to get a bigger tank lol:wink2:


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

I was about to say breeders use about 10gal per fish as a minimum, but, I see someone suggested this already.
I'd get the deepest tank I could for them though. Being ambush predators, they hang around more than swim around, although that changes at feeding time.

Don't overfeed your angels, they don't poop that much, they do leave a big poop pile when they attend a nest though, as they are staying in one place.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

At least to me they look cramped. I kept my decor to a minimum that way they would have as muchroom as possible yet the tank would still be pleasing to look at (don't mind the cloudy water, I just did a w/c)

Bump:


thedood said:


> I would use that as an excuse to get a bigger tank lol:wink2:


As much as I would love to get a bigger tank I have no space for it. Once I geT settled into my own place I plan on a 75 cichlid setup 

Bump:


longgonedaddy said:


> Angels dont need much swimming space. As long as you keep up on water quality, they'll be fine. And don't worry so much about e aggression. If they're male/female, chances are they'll pair up and start spawning for you. If F/F, they may pair and attempt to spawn. Keep an eye if one lays eggs without pairing with the other, there may be some aggression. If you have tall structure-plants, wood, etc- the other one will be able to get out of sight. If M/M you may get lucky, and the dominant one won't be too aggressive, and they will live together fine. With no females to fight over, aggression would likely be limited. Of course, they are cichlids, and everything I just said can be turned upside down by the individuals' personalities.
> 
> For what it's worth, I had two simultaneous spawnings with two pairs, in a 65 with medium planting. Plus, there were two singles in the tank. I bought six waiting for them to pair, and they did before I had a chance to get them out. A lot of territorialism, but no damaging violence.
> 
> And if push comes to shove, and you want to move them, let me know.


I see your also from the lehigh valley. I live in Bath. If I were even to sell these guys what should I ask for them? I payed $15 a piece. I even debated about taking then to a fish store but I will feel bad if they sit in a tiny tank and go to someone who won't give them the care they need. I really don't care about the money, I just want them to be as happy and healthy as possible.


----------



## Termato (Apr 12, 2012)

The picture of the tank and fish look fine. They don't look too big. I keep a breeding pair of angels in a 20G high tank barebottom and they love it in there. As long as they are male / female mated pair pairing up, you'll be fine. Otherwise you may see a little aggression.

I'd only suggest that you add more real fast growing plants since it's a planted tank. This will help your water quality. Aside from that just keep up on the water changes and they'll grow to be beautiful and start breeding. 29G for a pair of angels is perfectly fine. If your water is getting bad, then you need to step up on water changes. 60% weekly is usually plenty. Feeding once a day. Also, plants.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

Termato said:


> The picture of the tank and fish look fine. They don't look too big. I keep a breeding pair of angels in a 20G high tank barebottom and they love it in there. As long as they are male / female mated pair pairing up, you'll be fine. Otherwise you may see a little aggression.
> 
> I'd only suggest that you add more real fast growing plants since it's a planted tank. This will help your water quality. Aside from that just keep up on the water changes and they'll grow to be beautiful and start breeding. 29G for a pair of angels is perfectly fine. If your water is getting bad, then you need to step up on water changes. 60% weekly is usually plenty. Feeding once a day. Also, plants.


I had plants in this tank as well as a few others for quite some time. I had all low tech plants and after monums of battling brown diatom algae and the plants not looking as nice as I wanted them too and dumping money into ferts that did nothing I gave up and tore out the plants. The only "planted" tank I have is a 5.5 gallon betta setup with about 30 marimo, some wisteria and brazilian moneywort that I have floating.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

My angels love eating elodea (oxygen plant). I always try to have some floating for them.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

Thank you for the tips guys! I glad I have this forum as a resource. No more listening to my lfs. I'll keep them since they get along so well and add some floating plants for cover and a snack.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

jeffkrol said:


> I've found them to usually grow to the tanks size...


When I worked in a pet store in FL years ago, we had a kid around 10 yrs old bring in an angel he had grown from a small juvinile in a 10 gallon tank. The fish had grown so large that its fins touched the top of the water and the gravel at the same time. We made a big deal of commending him on obviously taking such good care of his tank as to be able to grow the fish to that size in such a small aquarium, and gave him store credit for it, which he used toward more appropriately sized fish.

As for fish growing only to the size of the tank they're in, I remember reading somewhere that they secrete a hormone into the water that inhibits growth at higher concentrations, which I surmise keeps them from excessive overcrowding when confined to seasonal pools in their natural environments. This kid must have really stayed on top of his water changes!

Olskule


----------



## DW Sites (Mar 4, 2016)

I don't know how true it is, but I have been told by a friend if you have Angels in a high current tank, they will not grow as big as they burn a lot off trying to swim. I guess I will see as I have two angels in a 70 gallon community tank. They about the size of a Half dollar now.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Olskule said:


> ...The fish had grown so large that its fins touched the top of the water and the gravel at the same time. We made a big deal of commending him on obviously taking such good care of his tank as to be able to grow the fish to that size in such a small aquarium..


That's my point. I could live in a 10 by 10 room if I'm feed and my other needs are taken care of, but it doesn't mean it's right. OP right now you Angels are fine, but as they grow they will look even more cramped and in the wrong environment.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

houseofcards said:


> That's my point. I could live in a 10 by 10 room if I'm feed and my other needs are taken care of, but it doesn't mean it's right. OP right now you Angels are fine, but as they grow they will look even more cramped and in the wrong environment.


I'm getting a lot of mixed views on this. I like the size of my 29. But I constantly worry that I will come home to a dead angel or if I miss a w/c (because life happens!) they will suffer since I'm pushing the bioload.
My gut feeling is telling me that it is too small for these guys (or it WILL become to small). An upgrade is not an option right now. Even if by some chance I could get a bigger tank I want Parrot cichlids. I think it may just be best to give them a better home with someone who has a larger tank, like 50+ gallons. I could make a really awesome betta tank out of the 29 and only have to do biweekly w/c.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

You could just leave them for now and when they look too cramped make some arrangements for them. You seem to have a good eye for this.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

houseofcards said:


> You could just leave them for now and when they look too cramped make some arrangements for them. You seem to have a good eye for this.


Thanks! I really don't want to add more tanks at the moment and I'd rather stick to what I have since some big life events will be happening in the next year or two as I graduate college, get a place, career, etc. I'll just made an really cool betta tank, easy and low maintance. Thanks for all the help. I can sell them on here can't I?


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

Nazasaki, it sounds like you are more stressed about the size of your tank than your angels will EVER be. Angelfish come from very still, vegetated environments where they mostly just "hang out" among the plants and wait for something tasty to come by. Look at the way they are "built", with very short, deep bodies. Almost all freshwater fish with that type of body layout are naturally more sluggish, calm-water species that don't need a lot of open water for fast swimming (think discus, native sunfish, etc.), and usually prefer an abundance of plants, reeds or roots to relax and hide in. Fish that prefer a lot of open space for swimming are always long-bodied and more sleekly built (think zebra danios, trout, etc.) and come from more turbulent environments, such as fast-moving streams. Of course, there are many variations between these two extremes, and each degree of variation suits that fish's preferred microenvironment within its habitat (such as in calmer waters with vegetation close to the bank of a fast moving stream or in the swifter water in the middle of the stream) and its feeding habits (ambush hunter, stalker, opportunistic grabber, grazer, etc.) as well as its need to escape predators, so the environment preferred by a fish and its feeding habits can usually be judged by its shape (and its color pattern - see those dark bars on the natural variety of angels? Think plants and shadows, camouflage). The bottom line is, the tank really is large enough for two angelfish, and, in fact, your angels were probably more comfortable with the tall plants in the tank than they are now that you've taken the plants out to "give them more room".

However, some people prefer a lightly stocked aquarium where fish have all the room in the world and some prefer a busy, bustling aquarium where fish dodge each other like pedestrians on a New York sidewalk; each is fine as long as the fish themselves are not stressed. Of course, if you, yourself, are not comfortable seeing your angels in that size of a tank, then you are not enjoying your aquarium, which is what a hobby is supposed to be about, and you should make other arrangements.

Olskule


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I haven't studied them in their natural environment, but something tells me they move more than 30" left to right. LOL


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> I haven't studied them in their natural environment, but something tells me they move more than 30" left to right. LOL


If that is the criteria you have in mind, then maybe you should ditch the idea of keeping any aquarium at all and build a backyard pond! But then, even that would be smaller than any long-term natural environment that has fish in it. Have you considered a crayfish pond, maybe? (LOL)

Olskule


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Well the post above was tongue in cheek but there are minimums for these fish. I already told OP that I think it's fine for now and he/she will use own judgement when they get bigger. Excuse the cut and paste but here's two full size Angels in a 46G. Should I add a 3rd one since it's a 46G and we have another 6" left to right.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

I mean if you think about it putting any living creature in a glass box is unnatural. Most fish we see in the hobby don't come from the wild but I think it is in our best interest to give them the best life possible. Betta fish come to mind....they are sold in a cup, even liveaquaria states that the can live in one gallon if water. That is like being confined to my bedroom for life. Is it big? Well certainly. But I would much rather have the freedom to move about my whole house. I don't see these animals as decorations, they are companions to me. Hence why I think my angels look cramped and deserve better. And it does stress me out to think of them as they get larger just floating in the tank only able to move 30" in one direction or another. It makes me happy to think that my little king betta can explore a large area of 29 gallons. I even ordered a large 3 foot floating plant (it's artificial) just for him so he has surface cover. Call me crazy but I think we really underestimate the actual space requirements of aquarium fish. Or any confined pet for that matter.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

If they get this big you will have a problem...


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

jeffkrol said:


> If they get this big you will have a problem...


I don't think it's a matter of "if". I belive they will! Just from the few weeks of having them their apatite has increased and their fins started to grow back where they were torn. I've decided to give them away to someone who can better accommodate their adult size. Thanks for the picture. Stunning!


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

(WARNING! Long essay below!)

It all boils down to the universal conflict between the concepts of freedom and safety. There cannot exist an abundance of both; one must always be sacrificed to gain more of the other. As pet owners and keepers of any fish, it is, of course, our responsibility to provide the best care and environment possible. Does this mean we should not keep fish confined in a glass box, but make sure, instead, that their own native habitat is protected and only go there to observe them? Well, as individuals, there's little we can do on the grand scale, so let's look at other species that Man has taken a liking to and "domesticated" to varying degrees. Wild or feral pigs do pretty well on their own, but they seem to be the exception. The wild horse is nearly extinct in its natural form and habitat, yet as a species, it lives nearly everywhere in the world as the domesticated horse. The closest genetic match to the wild "jungle fowl" of southeastern Asia is found in America (South Carolina, I think), where they roam free in a town where some of the original species was once imported for study. Another example, where the fate of the wild ancestor race is not so dark, is the wolf and the domestic dog. While the dog is virtually identical to the wolf on a genetic level, it differs in behavior and circumstance. Although the wolf is free to roam vast distances in its environment, it has a much more precarious and uncertain life and, thus, a generally shorter lifespan. The dog, having given up the freedom to roam and live in a "natural" state as its own master, has, in exchange, gained a generally easier lifestyle, as well as a guaranteed steady food supply and a much longer likely lifespan. The same principle can be applied to human culture. In America, our founding fathers chose, from experience, to provide that the citizens of the new nation should always have the power to overthrow the government if that government became intolerable and tyrannical, so to ensure that the government would always be subservient to the people (and not visa-versa), they provided the Second Amendment to protect the freedoms of the individual to own firearms (which is being challenged in many cases in an attempt to provide more safety). This right, of course, puts a heavy responsibility on the individual as a price for that freedom. What does this have to do with keeping fish in a glass box? Simply that in their native habitats, many of the species of fish we keep come from environments that go through seasonal droughts, and many individuals become trapped in pools that eventually dry up completely. Thus, a large percentage of individuals die, often not even having lived a year. Now, since the fish we keep have no way to revolt, we are their all-powerful sovereign lords and masters, and as such we have the responsibility to provide the best care and environment for them that we possibly can. What the fish gains in return for sacrificing its freedom to swim in its native, natural environment (whether by getting caught in a collector's net or being spawned in a breeder's tank or pond), is a promise of a stable environment, protection from predators, a steady food source, a longer lifespan for the individual, and an assurance of the continuation of the species for those able to reproduce under human care (something that is an ongoing, challenging goal for many fishkeepers). So, while the pet fish does sacrifice certain aspects of life that the wild fish enjoys, it does gain some fairly important benefits in return. How much of a benefit it gains is entirely up to the individual fishkeeper; are you a tyrant or a benevolent god? Are you totally devoted to assisting in the survival of species by trying to breed species that are difficult or have never been bred in captivity (a very honorable Fish God), a responsible fishkeeper who provides for the needs and comfort of his/her wards, with the occasional honor of having them spawn for you, or somewhere down the scale to a responsible pet owner who provides well for the individual fish in his/her care? Or do you rank down at the very bottom, where you keep fish in a glass box because they enhance your décor, but only remember to feed them now and then, and only do maintainance when you happen to notice the other fish nibbling on a floater or the water looks yucky? I think most people on this forum rank at least close to the top, but we've all known people at the bottom.

So keeping your fish in a glass cage doesn't make you an evil tyrant of the fish universe, as long as you educate yourself on at least the basic needs of your fish and try to fulfill those needs, and use your best, heartfelt judgment in providing for your fish.

So go, grasshopper, set your angels free to a more spacious fate, and give your betta a vast universe compared to the stagnant, oxygen-depleted waters his ancestors were adapted to.

Olskule-san


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

I admire your dedication to writing all of that :wink2:
I posted another thread....my angels spawned last night/early this morning. Must be a sign from the fish gods that I have to keep them. So I set up a 10 gallon fry tank with a 40 gallon sponge filter, heater, and conditioned water. Any pointers on raising fry? I'm taking a trip to my LFS for some brine shrimp and some hikari first bites. I did quite of bit if research and think I have all I need to be successful.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

Yep, I saw your other post, and congratulations again, you are officially a worthy, responsible fishkeeper! I'm glad you chose to keep your angels because you were obviously very attached to them and concerned for their wellbeing; I'm sure they'll do just fine with you caring for them.  As for raising the littl'uns, I've never raised angelfish fry, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks online here willing to give you the benefit of their vast experience, plus the fact that you've already searched and found a lot of information on the subject tells me you'll do fine. And if you don't, for some odd reason, I know you will have done your best and you'll do better the next time. Don't get discouraged, raising angelfish fry is not always an easy task. Many years ago, my mother was very successful at raising bettas, but never could get the hang of breeding and raising angels. A woman she knew had the opposite problem - she could easily raise angels but had no luck with bettas, so they often traded fish with each other. Of course, that was waaay back in the early sixties, and a lot more is known and available to help in raising fish.

BTW, you've inspired me - I'm now thinking of having angels in my new South American biotope tank I'll be setting up soon!

Good luck!

Olskule


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I guess I should say Congrats to the OP, but the spawning has zero to do with whether that tank is suitable for Angels long term. Many people breed Angels in 20G if that's what your goal is. Other than that there's nothing attractive (for the fish or Aquarist) about keeping a big fish in a small space, but the OP has some time to decide what he/she wants to do.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Refrasing @Olskule-san:

The freedom to make decisions comes with responsibility for the consequences.

Information on Angels is widely available. "My LFS lied to me" is shifting the responsibility for experimenting with the stocking. "I love my pets" in one post and "I will sell them for $15" in another indictates continuing indecision.

"They spawned" and now I will keep them for sure. Now instead of 2 Angels in a 29 g you will have 40.

No disrespect, but that it is how this thread comes across to me. You created the situation, own it and address it. That's all part of the rite of passage.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

I think most people seriously underestimate how big natural fish habitats are and use that belief to justify giving fish less space than they need. Here is what a wild angelfish habitat looks like. And this is where bettas are adapted to live. That "shallow and stagnant puddle" is deeper than a 20g high aquarium. Note the massive amount of plants. I doubt you would find any ammonia or nitrate in that water. Can you say the same of your tank?

I think it's practically impossible for any average hobbyist to provide the space and water conditions fish actually need. Even at one inch per gallon, we are, in effect, keeping fish in battery cages. Even if we breed rare species, what good does it do for them if they are miserable? We keep fish because we like them. I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend we are doing them any kind of favor or "saving" them from the "horrors" of life in the wild.

As you can see by my siggy, I like to overstock my tanks. I don't have any illusions about how it's good for the fish or that the lack of stress of predators somehow balances it out. But even if I had only one guppy per 20g, it still wouldn't come close to their natural habitat. I wonder if any aquarist can claim that they aren't cruel to their fish. It's like falconry, butterfly catching, or dog showing* - environment-based suffering is an inherent and inalienable aspect of the hobby.


_*Meaning the intense show circuits where the dogs basically live in RVs all year or are kept in kennels to keep their grooming jobs from being messed up._


----------



## fietsenrex (Oct 8, 2014)

angels need about 13 gal each, best kept in a group of at least 5 to dissipate aggression, but they grow to 9-10 inches so I don't know how big your hand is...

fish don't "adapt" to their tank size, they just stop growing as the water quality gets worse as they grow (they pollute more).
if you want nice big full grown angels you need to feed them at least 2 times a day and in the beginning 5 times a day.
young angels need about 200% water change a week, not that strange with 5 times feeding per day..


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

If I bought a betta which would come in one of those small cups as I don't have any betta breeders around that I'm aware of and I left it to live in that cup, I wonder if that would be deemed ethical since bettas from the wild live in stagnant puddles? 

I'm willing to bet I'd be dragged over the proverbial coals many times over with lectures about how bettas need heat, filtration, ect... and leaving a betta in the tiny cup is cruel. 

Of course I would never do this even in the name of simply making a point, but I find it odd that people have such a issue with allowing a betta to live out his or her life in a 29 gallon with a few snails. 

I agree that angel fry are a lot of work and as they grow, they need space to fully develop, so OP has to decide if the work is worth it. Doing constant water changes for all the feeding is a must, then allowing them space to grow up is also more work as it means more tanks, ect... This is the polar opposite of keeping a low maintenance 29 with a betta in it. 

Loving a pet and giving one up in the name of quality of life isn't always a bad thing. Sans my fish, the majority of my pets came from similar situations. One of my birds was going to be sent off ' to the circus' because he doesn't talk. He doesn't talk because he was wild caught. I had nothing to do with that decision and the people that bought him then thought a African Grey would better suit them deserve to have a finger waved at them because they didn't do their research and I have my doubts the African Grey worked out if they did in fact buy one. 

Two of my adopted guinea pigs were impulse buys from their previous owners. Once the pigs were left to the parents to take care of, the pigs were sent back to the store. 

Going back to fish, I think the only one I have that is wild caught is possibly my amano shrimp. Considering the tank environment he came from, I think he's doing okay living a peaceful life with my white skirt tetras and zebra danios. He has clean water to live in, is fed will with plenty of plants to pick at whenever he / she deems fit. 

I find what has become a unintentional debate, interesting. Fish in the wild do not have Excel to save them from the algae that may act like a plague in their environment. Currently the state of Florida is struggling to deal with a SNAFU created by the Army Corps of Engineers. They took dirty water from one place and move it to another. The result? I really nasty bout of cyano bacteria that they don't know what to do with. Adding to the smelly slime is all the dead wildlife that are making their way to the shore. 

Good luck OP with whatever you decide to do.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

OVT said:


> Refrasing @Olskule-san:
> 
> The freedom to make decisions comes with responsibility for the consequences.
> 
> ...


I don't intent to come across as being rude in any way. But when I'm told I can do one thing but then told something entirely different by others is a little discouraging, espically in this hobby. When I'm told angels will be "fine" in a 29 gallon by a person who breeds them, sells them to me, and I come to find out that the more expirenced people in the hobby tell me otherwise (and there are still disagreements!) it's frustrating. The only thing I want for my pets is a good life, even if that means with or without me. I stated previously I wasnt interested in money, but at the same time I will not just put them online for "free" I would charge a price. It is likely if someone is willing to pay for them they will treat them well versus a free-be "big pretty fish" that could go into the wrong hands. But the above is irrelevant now since they spawned. I don't intent on housing the fry with the parents, hence the 20 long I have set up for the fry. So yes I did make the mistake of purchasing these fish without consulting you guys here first, but now I know to not put my trust into those out for a profit. So lesson learned. Now it's my responsibility to care for these animals, which I intend to do, as well as care for their offspring and find them homes. I'm lucky to have everyone in here to guide me in this hobby, as I know as newbies we all made mistakes. It's about learning from them


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

Smooch said:


> If I bought a betta which would come in one of those small cups as I don't have any betta breeders around that I'm aware of and I left it to live in that cup, I wonder if that would be deemed ethical since bettas from the wild live in stagnant puddles?
> 
> I'm willing to bet I'd be dragged over the proverbial coals many times over with lectures about how bettas need heat, filtration, ect... and leaving a betta in the tiny cup is cruel.
> 
> ...


I found this to be odd as well. On another forum that is specifically for Bettas I was praised by countless members, and even found a few members that had single bettas in 29s themselves. Yet on here I got mixed answers. I think because in this forum many like to stock evenly across all levels of the tank to make a tank look good. There are many MANY tanks on here I drool over! My tank was going to be more of a haven for my betta, not really concerned with looks. It would make me happy to see a happy fish rather than a pretty, decorated tank.

I have 3 rescued guinea pigs as well, so I understand entirely what you are saying  

As for the angels I plan on raising the fry and finding homes for them. In the process if I learn that I an unable to care for such a large number of fish then so be it, I'll make arrangements with someone who can. I'm dedicated to giveING the best possible life to me pets and that's what I intend to do.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

Nazasaki said:


> I found this to be odd as well. On another forum that is specifically for Bettas I was praised by countless members, and even found a few members that had single bettas in 29s themselves. Yet on here I got mixed answers. I think because in this forum many like to stock evenly across all levels of the tank to make a tank look good. There are many MANY tanks on here I drool over! My tank was going to be more of a haven for my betta, not really concerned with looks. It would make me happy to see a happy fish rather than a pretty, decorated tank.
> 
> I have 3 rescued guinea pigs as well, so I understand entirely what you are saying
> 
> As for the angels I plan on raising the fry and finding homes for them. In the process if I learn that I an unable to care for such a large number of fish then so be it, I'll make arrangements with someone who can. I'm dedicated to giveING the best possible life to me pets and that's what I intend to do.


I also understand your point of not giving away the angel fish for free. 

I got a 'free' animal from the newspaper once. It was a female German Shepard that came with 4 years worth of abuse and neglect. She survived heartworm treatment as she was never tested, developed cancer in her lower intestine which was operated on twice and we lost her to cancer of the mouth. 

All of my guinea pigs were adopted from Pet Co and I wasn't charged for them. However, as you stated in your previous post, they now charge a adoption fee for the very reason you pointed out.

I love my pigs and I miss our German Shepard every day, but my days of dealing with other peoples' 'problem' pets have come to a close. Fish are easier and don't come with all the baggage...


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

Smooch said:


> I also understand your point of not giving away the angel fish for free.
> 
> I got a 'free' animal from the newspaper once. It was a female German Shepard that came with 4 years worth of abuse and neglect. She survived heartworm treatment as she was never tested, developed cancer in her lower intestine which was operated on twice and we lost her to cancer of the mouth.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I don't consider myself as being a bad person in that aspect. One of my pigs was from Petco and I was not charged a fee at the time. I guess they realized that since I was going to be paying (and I did!) $400 and some change in vet bills and meds that it was only fair.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

It seems that this thread has become a philosophical and even slightly judgmental debate on the moral justification for keeping exotic fish and under what conditions they should be kept. I believe there is no single guideline or set of rules on the matter that would satisfy everyone, so we should each simply try to do the best we can to provide for what we determine are ALL of the needs of the animals we have personally chosen to be responsible for. There is a range of opinions on the matter, from the neglectful and even abusive dog owner whose opinion is, "It's MY dog and I can do whatever I want with it!", to extremist animal rights people who storm McDonald's and intentionally terrorize young children with horrifically inappropriate, fake "Happy Meals" to protest the eating of hamburgers due to the cruelty of the beef industry. Some even believe that plants have feelings. I'm sure the absolute, cosmic truth lies somewhere in between those extremes and I don't claim to know exactly what it is; anyone who claims to know, with 100% assurety, the absolute cosmic truth about anything is either insane or a liar. All we each can possibly "know" with absolute certainty is only what we personally believe is true, and make the effort to educate that belief while, at the same time, doing our best to follow the principles of our beliefs. In truth, few but the very rich and governmental entities can provide a near replica of a fish's natural environment, and even then only for smaller species; what we, as individuals, can provide for our fish is at best a close approximation of their environmental requirements so that they can live comfortably, possibly even more comfortably and longer than they would in their native environment, where they would undoubtedly be subjected to seasonal stresses and predation. Whether your personal philosophical beliefs put you in a position of being equal or subservient to all entities of man and nature or a more dominant position over the natural world with the responsibility of good stewardship, the keeping of other animals as pets is for your own pleasure and/or fulfillment, and therefore must be admitted to be, in essence, a selfish act, and any argument to that point is simply denial. However, that undeniable fact does not mean that the objects of our attentions are not deserving of our best efforts toward their wellbeing; I have said before that they trade their freedom, whether consciously, willingly or not, for what should be a promise of an easier life than they would have if left in their natural state. It is in that debt that we owe to them that we must each decide what is required in the fulfillment of that promise, and do our best to not delude ourselves into shorting the right of the pet to sufficient accommodation nor to fall victim to the tendency to anthropomorphicize the animal and its needs to the point of servitude. So, basically, you have to first come to terms with the fact that keeping pets is a selfish act in and of itself, and then decide to what extent you feel you must sacrifice of your own time, space and finances in order to give back to your pet a fair trade for its loss of freedom in return for the pleasure it gives you.

Olskule


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Olskule said:


> ...So, basically, you have to first come to terms with the fact that keeping pets is a selfish act in and of itself, and then decide to what extent you feel you must sacrifice of your own time, space and finances in order to give back to your pet a fair trade for its loss of freedom in return for the pleasure it gives you.
> Olskule


I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean Neons in a 4 Ft tank are a far cry from Angels in a 2 ft tank. Adopting a dog can be an unselfish act as it prevents you from doing things you want to do sometimes because you have the dog to care for.

We live in a world where Animal rights are actually getting stronger. Look what's happened to Sea World, Cage Free Chicken's, etc. I believe in Germany there is actually a minimum aquarium size that a LFS can sell. Plenty of issues of course, but things are changing.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

I don't consider adopting a pet selfish. In the case of my German Shepard, I paid for all of her medical bills that was in the thousands of dollars and gave her a good life. She was 48 pounds and was being fed chicken bones and hot dogs when we picked her up. Her healthy weight for her size was 70 pounds which took us a few months to get her there. I had people at pet stores accuse me of being her abuser and starving her to death. 

During her intestinal resection ( this was the 'cure' for her intestinal cancer) my vet found evidence of my dog's abuse on her rib cage and in other places. It was so bad that my vet asked me if the dog had been hit by a car. To this day, I do not know if she ever was, I do know however that she was beaten as a puppy because her first owner wanted to make her a 'guard dog'. The puppy he was beating on was taken away from him. She was then bounced to two other owners that didn't beat her, but they certainly do anything right by her either. 

If my taking in animal that would have died without intervention defines selfish behavior, I'll live with that.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I also can't buy into the nonsense that having pets is in any way a selfish act. I'm in my 60's and have had several dogs over the course of my life...and loved and cared for every one of them as if they were my children, which they basically were! They were well fed, well cared for and received the best medical care. 
I will admit that there is a lot of ignorance and neglect in the fish keeping hobby. 
I guess I'm just old school. I've never had angels that got to be 9 or 10". I think with high quality food and pure water, a pair of angels could have a good life in a 29g tank...and if they got too large for that, there's always options.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> "...So, basically, you have to first come to terms with the fact that keeping pets is a selfish act in and of itself, and then decide to what extent you feel you must sacrifice of your own time, space and finances in order to give back to your pet a fair trade for its loss of freedom in return for the pleasure it gives you.
> -Olskule"
> 
> I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean Neons in a 4 Ft tank are a far cry from Angels in a 2 ft tank. Adopting a dog can be an unselfish act as it prevents you from doing things you want to do sometimes because you have the dog to care for...


Performing any "unselfish act", be it rescuing an animal in need or merely helping an old lady cross the street, is something that gives (most) people a good feeling about themselves (which is a good thing and I'm not denigrating that), but the bottom line is that you think a good person would do that, and you (again, most people) want to see yourself as a good person, so you perform that "unselfish act" and you are rewarded with that "warm, fuzzy feeling". There's nothing wrong with that; it's the way humans are hardwired, unless you are a psychopath (who are incapable of empathy). Just don't kid yourself that you don't get rewarded for doing something selfless--even if no one will ever know what you did, you know and it makes you feel good about yourself, and that is your reward. (And often the further you go out of your way to help someone [or animal], the better you feel for doing it, right?)



Smooch said:


> I don't consider adopting a pet selfish. In the case of my German Shepard, I paid for all of her medical bills that was in the thousands of dollars and gave her a good life...
> 
> ...If my taking in animal that would have died without intervention defines selfish behavior, I'll live with that.


Smooch, you have my admiration for the lengths you went to to rescue your dog and give her a good life, but my admiration probably doesn't mean much to you when compared to what you felt for being able to provide such a drastic and positive change in the life of such an abused animal. And I'm sure your German Shepherd likely rewarded you with a lot of affection on top of that, which is as it should be, but all of that trouble and expense was worth it to you because you are a good person and the reward for those selfless acts of kindness is the feelings you get by doing them and the affection you received from the dog. So you got more than you gave, and you knew you would feel that way before you did it, so that's why you did it. Had you not done what you did, you would have felt badly about yourself because you believe only a bad, heartless person would behave in that way, and you were avoiding those negative feelings about yourself--so, when you really boil it down, it really was a "selfish act", but only because you are a good person. For "bad" people, such as those who abused the dog in the first place, the selfishness is much easier to see, but their actions still end up being what makes them feel "good", which in those cases likely equates to feeling more powerful or masculine.



AbbeysDad said:


> I also can't buy into the nonsense that having pets is in any way a selfish act. I'm in my 60's and have had several dogs over the course of my life...and loved and cared for every one of them as if they were my children, which they basically were! They were well fed, well cared for and received the best medical care...
> 
> ...I guess I'm just old school. I've never had angels that got to be 9 or 10". I think with high quality food and pure water, a pair of angels could have a good life in a 29g tank...and if they got too large for that, there's always options.


AbbeysDad, you may call it "nonsense" if you want to, but the bottom line is that you keep pets (especially dogs, cats and other mammals/species we can relate to due to similarity of behaviors we share) because having them around is rewarding to you in some way. I have never known anyone to keep a pet that didn't satisfy some inward need of their own, and satisfying your own needs can be called nothing but a selfish act, no matter how much it benefits the other party. For instance, my mother did not like cats at all; she preferred dogs because they are obedient and she could control them. Before her close friend died, she asked my mother to take her cat, "Baby", after she passed away, which my mother agreed to do (probably just to give her friend some comfort). Of course, she and the cat, which was admittedly temperamental, did not get along at all, but my mother kept the cat for as long as she could bear it because doing so fulfilled her sense of duty to her friend, to whom she had given her word. (She and "Baby" never reached an understanding, so I ended up with the cat, "rescuing" it from my mother's demanding, overbearing nature. I knew how the poor thing felt! LOL)

So the type of pet owner you are pretty much says what kind of person you are, and if you think about different pet owners you have known, both good and bad, you can see the correlation. But it still comes down to the fact that having a pet simply serves some need within yourself, and satisfying one's own needs can only be defined as a selfish act.

Olskule


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Olskule, I'm glad your selfish act saved that cat from your mother.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

AbbeysDad said:


> Olskule, I'm glad your selfish act saved that cat from your mother.


Yeah, I get a kick out of cats with "cattitude", especially when they may maul anyone brave enough to try to pet them, but let me pet them anytime. Truth is, I can usually just read cats and tell how far they'll let you go in petting them. She was a trip.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

> a pet simply serves some need within yourself, and satisfying one's own needs can only be defined as a selfish act.


I prefer to think of it as a mutually beneficial act. "Kept" animals can live orders of magnitude longer and in better health than their "wild" brethren.
given a choice, most "kept' pets will not voluntarily leave their host and "nests" for their freedom.
For example most cats that is let go outside (let's ignore that "morality play" for awhile) will return thus exhibiting a freedom of choice as it were.
Would you say they were being "selfish" by returning home thus burdening me w/ the cost of food and shelter for them?
You can say that is just survival instinct but that is no different than you or I going to work..


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

"It's is complicated" but very facinating.

For me, @Olskule nails the behavior in its naked raw primal base - whatever the wrapping, I expect every living organism to act to its own benefit first. I still come across cases that can only be deemed "selfless" at the first glance but still boil down to "self-serving" after further thought.

@jeffkrol - another word would be "symbiosis" and I have 0 moral or any other ssues with it. The key to such an arrangement is it being a two-way street, with both parties gaining specific benefits. Whether one party gains more then it gives depend on the perspective and, more likely, is not possible to measure.

We can gain more understanding from human interactions with other higher live forms as both sides have and do exibit some form of "free will". Even in the cases where an abused animal is devoted to its owner or an abused partner keeps coming back, we can still understand the underlining reasons for such behaviour.

It is in our interactions with "lower" lifeforms where our understanding or perception on cost/benefit gets all messed up - the fish cannot change owners out of its own free will and the plants cannot move to another tank. All we are left with is our own interpretation on whether they are "happy" or not, based on secondary indicators. We have not yet found ways for clear communications and we cannot expect our "charges" to fill out Customer Satisfaction survey.

As interesting this subject is to me personally, it is way off from the original OP.

And as I have commented on the OP before, that subject boils down to Personal Responsibility, at least for me. I am guilty of making wrong decision and I have 0 right to throw the first stone. My lesson to myself here is the re-inforcment that I am fully responsible for the choice I make. I alone, no one else. Good advise, bad advise, no advise - my action, my personal responsibility.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

jeffkrol said:


> > a pet simply serves some need within yourself, and satisfying one's own needs can only be defined as a selfish act.
> 
> 
> I prefer to think of it as a mutually beneficial act. "Kept" animals can live orders of magnitude longer and in better health than their "wild" brethren.
> ...


Yes, the keeping of pets is usually mutually beneficial, but that doesn't negate the fact that the motivation is, deep down, self-serving, and on both sides. When your pets return to "burden" you with the cost of food and their upkeep, their motivation is strictly to serve their own needs. As for your willingness to be "burdened" by their upkeep, they are fulfilling some need you have that makes it worthwhile to you. Of course, if we are talking about dogs and cats or other animals that exhibit a similar behavioral model as ourselves, then the motivation is more complex than on the simply basic level of physical needs, but includes inherent behavioral needs such as social structure or companionship. This is why your dog or cat, which you feed regularly, look to you for interaction, such as petting or playing, while the birds which you feed regularly in your bird feeder keep their distance from you or fly away if you approach. Of course, feral cats or dogs which you may feed regularly will probably run away from you at first, too, but are much more likely to become accustomed to you and eventually may even come to look to you for more involved interaction. Also, some species of birds, such as parrots, for the most part, are capable of having similar owner/pet relationships as dogs or cats, but most birds, pet parrots included, will fly away if given the opportunity, and provisions must be made to keep them incapable of flight if allowed out of containment. (Falcons would be an exception, but must be strictly trained and taught from a very early age that their owner is the source of all food, even if the bird makes the kill.)

You may be correct in calling the willful return by your pets "survival instinct", not only because of the food you provide, but also due to the instinctive social constructs that have evolved to better ensure survival of the species and individual through group cooperation/socialization. Whether it can be favorably compared to a person going to work every day, from the standpoint of being a conscious choice in order to receive a reward, I think it is more instinctive in the case of the animals than the decision to go to work for a certain number of hours in exchange for a certain amount of benefit (money). However, if you stop providing food to your dog or cat, but still gave them the attention and social interaction, while your neighbor down the road began feeding them, but neglected to pet them (yet didn't behave negatively toward them, just fed them and otherwise ignored them), how do you think the animals would react? The dog, naturally being a more socially oriented animal, may stay at the neighbor's but visit you often for the social interaction that is a hardwired behavioral need within dogs/wolves, but the cat, being of a naturally more solitary, independent nature, would likely begin to stay at your neighbor's place and just "hang around", as cats generally do when they aren't hunting or playing with something. Each one is satisfying its own wants and needs according to its behavioral instinct, either with or without you.

Olskule


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

OVT, you are exactly right, and you bring this back around to the original point of the relationship between the justification for keeping captive animals and the responsibility we have toward those animals (and plants) we keep, which have no choice in how they are kept. My summation is that we are justified, but morally obligated to provide the best care we can afford to give our wards (in time, effort and finances) in exchange for the pleasure they provide us by sacrificing their freedom, and if we do not, we are guilty of neglect.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

Not much difference in the justification between having kid and pets... i have 1 of the first, and a brazillion fish.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Hehe, survival of the species comes before all else. Having pets makes it more bearable ☺


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

Just acting as devil's advocate, and not a reflection of my own stance. But we, as in you and me, have no interest in the continuation of the species. We will not be here, so in theory we should be totally indifferent.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

Birds- More specifically larger domestic birds that people keep a pets have a tendency to become bonded to their owners, hence the macaw that is bonded to it's owner will not fly away if left to make it's own decision. This is not to say that small birds cannot become bonded to a human, but dealing with such behavior is mostly talked about with larger birds.

Having a pet bird bonded to it's human is not a good idea as birds that are bonded to people view other humans as threat to 'it's mate'. This is especially dangerous in households that have small children. So how does a domestic bird get to this point? Inappropriate touching by a human. Birds enjoy a good massage under their wings, down their back, ect... Humans do this because the bird likes it, however, many bird owners fail to educate themselves and understand that this type of behavior is deemed sexual behavior among birds. The only way to prevent this bonding is to keep touching appropriate, or all touching and petting is reserved for the head and neck only. Obviously if the bird is wounded, broke a blood feather which can lead to bleeding to death or has some other medical issue that needs attention, then it is appropriate to deal with the problem at hand. However, for the normal day to day stuff, no massages beyond the neck.

My point: It is not true that all domestic birds will simply fly away if given a choice. Birds are far more complicated than people give them credit for and this doesn't just apply to pet birds that are kept in the house. Domestic geese can also display this type of behavior. People that keep them think they're cute when they are little ( they are cute, but that's beside the point) so they give them lots love and attention, then the goose or geese grow up. If you've ever been in a situation where you've had a angry goose or geese coming at you, it can be a a scary situation as they won't back off. That same angry goose or geese that are in the company of their favorite human will behave much differently. All the hissing, the low head, wing display, ect... all goes away. A dear friend of mine that was 100 pounds with rocks in her pockets used to have a goose that was bonded to her. She could not sit on her front steps without a full grown goose sitting in her lap with it's neck wrapped around hers. 

We have a problem in my area with people failing to understand that keeping their distance from a pair swans is for their safety. People see them, think they are pretty which they are and for whatever reason said stupid people decide that they are going to impose themselves on the swan's space which more often than not leads to stupid humans being bit. Swans are not small and they can put the hurt on a person. Why do swans do this aside from the fact that many are wild? Because they are bonded and are protecting their mate. If they have babies around that need to protect becomes stronger. 

My birds are not bonded to me, but they do like my company except for when it's breeding season. At those times, they'd rather bite my face off than look at me.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

Olskule said:


> It seems that this thread has become a philosophical and even slightly judgmental debate on the moral justification for keeping exotic fish and under what conditions they should be kept. I believe there is no single guideline or set of rules on the matter that would satisfy everyone, so we should each simply try to do the best we can to provide for what we determine are ALL of the needs of the animals we have personally chosen to be responsible for. There is a range of opinions on the matter, from the neglectful and even abusive dog owner whose opinion is, "It's MY dog and I can do whatever I want with it!", to extremist animal rights people who storm McDonald's and intentionally terrorize young children with horrifically inappropriate, fake "Happy Meals" to protest the eating of hamburgers due to the cruelty of the beef industry. Some even believe that plants have feelings.
> 
> I'm sure the absolute, cosmic truth lies somewhere in between those extremes and I don't claim to know exactly what it is; anyone who claims to know, with 100% assurety, the absolute cosmic truth about anything is either insane or a liar. All we each can possibly "know" with absolute certainty is only what we personally believe is true, and make the effort to educate that belief while, at the same time, doing our best to follow the principles of our beliefs.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you said this. The politics in your first post threw me off, but now I see you and I are actually pretty close to agreement here: While the environment we provide for our fish will never be ideal, we should still strive to make it as good as possible in accordance with our best understanding of our fish's needs and the limits of our resources.

I'm sorry if my post came across as judgmental. I was trying to simultaneously refute the idea that the OP's tank conditions were better than those normally found in the wild while defending the OP's right to choose to keep his fish as best as he can.

I've actually been going through a conflict of conscience regarding fishkeeping. I am a very empathetic person by nature, but I am struggling with a lot of depression and anxiety and the nihilism that comes with it. I am stuck between wanting my tanks to be stuffed with fish to appease my own desire for an active look and wanting to make sure my fish live comfortable lives that satisfy their environmental needs, which may mean lower stocking. And there is the continual struggle with the fact that having fish sometimes pulls me out of a depressed funk, and other times, being in a depressed funk makes it hard to care for the fish. 

Considering the research that has been done on the ability of fish to feel pain and their capacity for intelligence, I don't think we have the technology for the average hobbyist to fully satisfy their needs. I think a dog or a cat can be happy living with humans as a pet. I don't know if a fish can be happy in an aquarium. Can you really say that a 14" oscar, with the mental capacity to not only learn tricks but to recognize which human is its owner, is _happy_ in a 90g tank where it can only swim for three body lengths before needing to turn around? Is a betta, which normally has a territory of 6+ cubic feet in the wild _actually happy_ in a 10g? 

Obviously, a betta in a 10g is going to be _happier_ than one in a fishbowl, in the same way that a parrot free-flying in a living room is happier than in a cage. But I don't think you can say it's happier than it would be in the wild.

Now, when I say "happy" I'm not referring to the emotion, per se. Emotion in animals is impossible to measure. But I think merely keeping something alive is not a good measure of success, since life wants to keep living and the body will live through things the mind wishes it wouldn't. Perhaps an animal can't feel "happy", but it _can _feel comfort. Since the primary source of comfort is satisfaction of physical and mental needs, it stands to reason that to leave our fish's needs unsatisfied is a form of cruelty. That is why I wonder if cruelty is an inherent aspect of the hobby if most fish's needs are too great for the average hobbyist to satisfy.

However, I don't think conditions have to be ideal for fish to be comfortable. Just as fish that do best in water with no nitrate can still thrive in tanks with 20+ppm, I believe there must be a point where the environment, though not ideal, is "good enough" and the fish's needs are sufficiently satisfied. I have read accounts and seen myself how much livelier fish become after even a minor rescape. Simply moving a plant from one corner to another can stimulate lots of exploratory behaviors and even territorial disputes, which can be good in moderate amounts. Schooling fish love to line up in front of a powerhead or filter overflow. Slow moving fish like bettas seem to enjoy hanging out in one calm corner, only coming out for some fun every once in a while. Large solitary fish like oscars seem to enjoy learning tricks and eating different live foods. These things are well within the reach of the average hobbyist and I'm sure make a great impact a fish's quality of life.

So, maybe the average aquarist _can_ make their fish happy if they set up their tank with that end in mind. But since each species and individual is different, there's no simple rule of thumb that would allow you to look at a particular tank and say if it's good enough or not. You'd have to add fish and adjust everything based on their behavioral cues, which may be too subtle for the average human to discern. Really, I don't know.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

I don't know if fish are capable of being 'happy' as humans know it, but they certainly display behaviors depending on how they feel. Of course the species and over all personality of a fish can vary even between fish of the same species. 

I tend to look for behaviors that I would look for in another pet to tell where my fish are at in terms of whether they are feeling good or not. If they are bright, alert, eating well, exploring and doing things that would suggest that they are comfortable, I have little to no reason to think there is something wrong. 

I rarely play around with lighting over my tanks, but the tetras in my 29 are the first to let me know if the lights are too bright. Instead of sparring, looking for food to steal from the cories, ect.., they get quiet and will seek out anywhere there is lower light. Even with the pre-programmed cloudy day settings, there are ones the fish don't mind while they don't like the others due to brightness. 

I've read countless times that rams need to be kept in at least a pair to thrive and do well. I beg to differ. 

I have my males in the 29, and my female does not mind being by herself. It's her tank and pretty much anything on my desk is 'hers'. If I put something down in front of her tank, she will come to the front of the tank to see what it is. She may not like it, but any shyness she had when we got her has pretty much disappeared. If she were going to be that miserable without another ram around, I suspect she wouldn't have come full circle. She would be shy, moody, and pouting in a corner or in one of her hide-y holes. 

Will she be moved into a bigger tank with tank mates? It's highly likely as hubby and i are still discussing what to do to satisfy his MTS, but for now, the plant chewer gets to hang out, be nosy and be a cichlid. If at any point she reverts back to when I first got her, that will be grounds for concern.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Wow, serious thread highjacking going on here!

I have never had birds and to the best of my knowledge, I have never done any inappropriate touching with my pets!!! <lol>

But if we are to speak of the best care for our wards, here in the 'planted tank' is a place to explore. There seems to be a focus here on the appearance and rapid growth of plants. In the 'high tech' tank this means bright lights on for long durations, lots of chemical ferts, CO2 gas or toxic Excel.... I have to wonder if these conditions, although seemingly very good for the plants, are all that good for the well being of the fish??? Or maybe some of these are plant tanks and not fish tanks.

It goes without saying that generally speaking, there is a lot of ignorance and neglect in this hobby. People get into this hobby without understanding the nitrogen cycle. I still remember a time in my youth when no one ever knew or spoke of it at all. So they don't understand or appreciate tank cycling, proper filtration and bio-media's, let alone the importance of routine partial water changes. Heck, I've seen posts here from those that feel that since the tank is planted with a low bio-load, water top off for evaporation is all that is needed. So many begin with the best of intentions but fail to learn and/or perform the proper maintenance to provide the proper care for their fish...after all 'they're just fish' (they rationalize)!

I myself, as a more experienced hobbyist, went for a time longer than I care to admit in such neglect. I was doing 50% weekly water changes for some time but my fish appeared to be failing. In digging in deeper I came to realize that the nitrates in my well water were through the roof...no doubt the result of a 95 acre farmers field across the road!

Edit: I've gotten pretty creative in filtering nitrates from my well water for water changes, along with reclaiming water from my basement dehumidifier and hauling water from nitrate free sources...all a necessary PITA.


----------



## Olskule (Jan 28, 2010)

Smooch, I consider myself fairly familiar with bird care; though not having kept them as pets myself, I've worked in the pet trade for many years (which provided a better than average education on birds' needs) and once had a friend who kept several large birds (macaws, African Greys, etc.) which I was very familiar with (too "familiar"?), but I wasn't aware of their behaviors to the extent you obviously are, so thanks for enlightening me. I always gave birds the attention they seemed to want; I had no idea I was, as you indicate, actually "molesting" the bird by giving it a little scratch under its wing! I swear, I was just trying to be friendly! It WON'T happen again, I promise! 

AbbeysDad, I don't think this is "thread hijacking", because the OP's concern was for the needs and wellbeing of the OP's fish, and what size of tank was adequate for a pair of angelfish. This naturally extended itself to the discussion of of what we, as pet owners, are morally obligated to provide to "our" animals in the way of all of their needs and comfort, and at what point care becomes neglectful or even cruel. I think it has pretty much been hashed out thoroughly and everyone, including me, has had to seriously rethink their approach to pet care (and planted tanks?). Thanks to knowledgeable and experienced participants, I believe we all learned something we didn't know before. Thanks, everyone, for the stimulating and enlightening discussion on the philosophy of keeping pets!

Oleskule


----------



## Chris Noto (Aug 19, 2005)

Olskule said:


> As for fish growing only to the size of the tank they're in, I remember reading somewhere that they secrete a hormone into the water that inhibits growth at higher concentrations, which I surmise keeps them from excessive overcrowding when confined to seasonal pools in their natural environments.


No, sorry, whole lotta nope on the "hormone that inhibits growth" thing. This is a common, but mistaken theory. Fish will, unless starved or poisoned by accumulated toxins, outgrow a tank, if, by "outgrow" you mean that they will get too big to live a decent life in the space available. 

Your angels, though, will be fine in a 29 gallon tank, as long as they don't have too much other company in there. Maybe a few Corydoras catfish and half a dozen Neon Tetras? 

All the best!


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chris Noto said:


> ...
> 
> Your angels, though, will be fine in a 29 gallon tank, as long as they don't have too much other company in there. Maybe a few Corydoras catfish and half a dozen Neon Tetras?


Two full grown Angels in a 29 with plants, etc and other fish? That means I can easily fit 3 in a 46G? 










If I have some time I paste in 5 Corys and around 10 Neons for the 46G. It's not a matter of whether they'll live/breed/eat it's a matter of why would you want to? There's nothing appealing about a big fish in a small space unless you are temporary breeding them in a completely empty tank.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Olskule said:


> AbbeysDad, I don't think this is "thread hijacking", because the OP's concern was for the needs and wellbeing of the OP's fish, and what size of tank was adequate for a pair of angelfish....
> Oleskule


It's threadjacking when the subject strays off topic to dogs, cats, birds and KIDS...and the original question has still not been answered.
If a 29g is not suitable for a single pair of (Angel) fish, I wonder what is?


----------



## SpaceLord (Feb 29, 2016)

They lied and fish died!


----------



## Booter (Jul 3, 2016)

I know nothing about angels but what I do know is that you worry too much! Keep your water parameters tight, grow some plants to make the fish happy, then sit back grab a beer and enjoy. In the end, the whole point is to have some fun


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

SpaceLord said:


> They lied and fish died!


lol - NOT - Angel fish are fine and spawned!!!


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Part of the problem is when you see advertisements like this from major suppliers


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

Booter said:


> I know nothing about angels but what I do know is that you worry too much! Keep your water parameters tight, grow some plants to make the fish happy, then sit back grab a beer and enjoy. In the end, the whole point is to have some fun


I had the beer before this all even happened :wink2:

Bump: Holy hijacking guys! haha! This thread has been highly entertaining to me! Just a few updates.....Only a few eggs have died off (turned white). I still have plenty of eggs left and they appear to have something inside of them. Hopefully they will hatch tomorrow! Mom and Dad angel started doing their little dance and lip locking again today, so we will see what happens in the days to come!


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

Chris Noto said:


> No, sorry, whole lotta nope on the "hormone that inhibits growth" thing. This is a common, but mistaken theory. Fish will, unless starved or poisoned by accumulated toxins, outgrow a tank, if, by "outgrow" you mean that they will get too big to live a decent life in the space available.
> 
> Your angels, though, will be fine in a 29 gallon tank, as long as they don't have too much other company in there. Maybe a few Corydoras catfish and half a dozen Neon Tetras?
> 
> All the best!


Good suggestions but I'm not really a fan of community tanks. I like species only tanks. Well, the tank does have some nerite snails but I don't really count that to be a community tank :smile2:


----------



## SpaceLord (Feb 29, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> lol - NOT - Angel fish are fine and spawned!!!


OH, that is good to hear. I guess I should have read the post more carefully but I thought it was a good catch phrase like " If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

Lots of people based their decision on things that rhythm together rather then logic. :grin2:


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

Another update guys, eggs are hatching! I have about 3 wigglers so far. Been doing PWCs on the egg tank about 3x per day. Seems to be working out.


----------



## ichy (Apr 6, 2015)

Here is the bottom line, what works for one person may not work for another. One person can raise 12 angelfish(just making this up for a point) in a 10 gallon and the next person can't keep one alive. Both will tell their "facts" of the their situation and swear they are the gospel truth.

So your best line of defense is knowledge! Arm yourself with all the info you can and then believe about half of it...even on this forum!
Make an INFORMED decision on the best intel and live with it and learn from it! That's about all you can do!


----------



## longgonedaddy (Dec 9, 2012)

Nazasaki said:


> Another update guys, eggs are hatching! I have about 3 wigglers so far. Been doing PWCs on the egg tank about 3x per day. Seems to be working out.


Good to Hear! I think by now, you probably have a "carpet" of wigglers on whatever surface they laid the eggs. And that reminds me, I don't think anyone mentioned it, but be ready for the parents to move them around to another nest site.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

They are realy super fragile and lopsided up to the point where they can swim. And even then they swim like drunks because they don't really have fins yet. It is very funny watching them eat, and how effective they get to food even with the swimming penalty.


----------



## MtAnimals (May 17, 2015)

One thing I haven't see mentioned,it may have and I missed it,is the fact that angels are sensitive to being in a tank that's too small.If it is,you'll see things like stunted fins,short gill covers(though that can be caused by ammonia too).When you see an angel that's been grown in say a 10 gallon,you'll see the fins way too short.Your angels fins look great,and the fact they're spawning says something.

so,'scuse me if I went back to the original topic.

As for those who believe that keeping fish is cruel,most of these fish wouldn't even exist if not for our hobby,and couple of species that are pretty much extinct in their original habitat still exist because of aquarists.


----------



## Nazasaki (Sep 10, 2015)

MtAnimals said:


> One thing I haven't see mentioned,it may have and I missed it,is the fact that angels are sensitive to being in a tank that's too small.If it is,you'll see things like stunted fins,short gill covers(though that can be caused by ammonia too).When you see an angel that's been grown in say a 10 gallon,you'll see the fins way too short.Your angels fins look great,and the fact they're spawning says something.
> 
> so,'scuse me if I went back to the original topic.
> 
> As for those who believe that keeping fish is cruel,most of these fish wouldn't even exist if not for our hobby,and couple of species that are pretty much extinct in their original habitat still exist because of aquarists.


That was my thought as well. Theh need the right conditions to spawn. And when I first got them (about 3 weeks ago) they had damaged fins due to being housed with 50+ angels in a 150 gallon tank. Their fins have noticeably grown and their personalitis really came through. They must be happy, at least I think they are:smile2:


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

No, I disagree. They will sometimes spawn because conditions are horrible.
It is a strategy followed by everything from fungus to mammals sometimes.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

Baby angelfish, hatched a few hours ago.


----------

