The Puffer Forum

Everybody vote! We'll blow their smaller tank theory out of the water!!!
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... ost5706443

There's no option to vote. Where do you vote?

Are you registered there? If you are, try refreshing the page.

Erm.. I can't find a place to vote too. Not that I would.. it seriously would be like hitting myself on the head.

Did you refresh the page?

Do you see the poll? Did you refresh the page?

done

Wow, that's funny. I spent ages last night reading "The hypocrite thread mbu". It made for very sad reading that they think such a huge fish can be kept in a 180 to 400 gallon tank quite happily. I definitely think this is one of those fish that shouldn't be for aquariums, realistically I don't think there's many people that would be able to house such a beast properly.
Just put my vote in

Donna_G wrote:Wow, that's funny. I spent ages last night reading "The hypocrite thread mbu". It made for very sad reading that they think such a huge fish can be kept in a 180 to 400 gallon tank quite happily. I definitely think this is one of those fish that shouldn't be for aquariums, realistically I don't think there's many people that would be able to house such a beast properly.

+1 I read that same thread and can't believe a few or the arguments some of them had for keeping a fully mature mbu in a small tank.


ex:

"Obviously, the bigger the better but as long as the adult fish can turn around without running into the sides and swim 2X or perhaps 3X its length from one end to the the other, that should be fine. Water quality, diet, and tankmate selection are a lot more critical, IMO, than tank size for one of these guys"

Wow. Had a read of both threads. I can sort of see the logic about 1000G being a bit overkill going by water quality standards, (amongst other things) but at the same time, 180G being far too small when it comes to swimming room! Docile fish or not, they still need space! Honestly, I think it's one of those qs that just can't be answered. People's opinions differ so drastically, and there's as yet no hard science out there to put the q to rest once and for all. I don't know if there ever will be if I'm honest. Who would ever want to do controlled tests on Mbu tanks? What we need is a uni student with lots of money and fishkeeping as a hobby to come along...

Theoretically, if I was ever to keep an Mbu, (which I highly bloody doubt!!) I'd reckon on starting by looking at an 8x3x2, or thereabouts, and watching the fish's behaviour from there to judge upgrading or not. I'm theorising 3 width because of turning space, and using the behaviour to judge if 4 width is better with less length perhaps. Height might turn out not to be as important too. Or of course there's always the possibility that the end result is tits to the whole experiment, lets build a swimming pool!!! lol

(This is why I'm not, nor do I reckon I'll ever be, considering keeping an Mbu!!)

I try to stay out of mbu threads there. I just love how the poll is turning out there though!

I mostly stop in there to bring folks over here. i have to PM them though, I'm not allowed to link my forum on there. None of the articles, either.

Some of their members used to be members here did they not? They refused to listen to our reasons for large tanks and just started insulting us. If they refused to listen then it's their hard luck as they will not get close to the enjoyment we have with our puffers in our "pointless, boring and ridiculous" tanks. They are fish keepers not hobbyists, they will not be in the hobby long as all their fish will die young.

I would not join MFK under any circumstances. The official site philosophy supports horrible tank sizing practices.

I can only assume that anyone who even considers their their sizes along MFK lines has seen an adult T. mbu. I would never subject one to even a 4x4x10 foot tank myself since I have kept one. I now know that I could not support one through its life cycle properly. If I cannot keep a fish well and properly, I will not keep it at all.

Everyone here knows how I feel already. The folks there would not even listen. It gives me the cols shudders to see so-called hobbyists tanking about housing fish in tank where they cannot turn around without fin damage and cannot move multiple body lengths - even disregarding the bow waves they throw when trying to swim in shallow water. Pitiful and deplorable.

RTR wrote:I would not join MFK under any circumstances. The official site philosophy supports horrible tank sizing practices.

I can only assume that anyone who even considers their their sizes along MFK lines has seen an adult T. mbu. I would never subject one to even a 4x4x10 foot tank myself since I have kept one. I now know that I could not support one through its life cycle properly. If I cannot keep a fish well and properly, I will not keep it at all.

Everyone here knows how I feel already. The folks there would not even listen. It gives me the cols shudders to see so-called hobbyists tanking about housing fish in tank where they cannot turn around without fin damage and cannot move multiple body lengths - even disregarding the bow waves they throw when trying to swim in shallow water. Pitiful and deplorable.

There isn't a nice way to put this but after reading through the mbu thread they don't like you very much RTR cause I saw some bashing on you. But that's okay cause more of your expert knowledge for us.

I don't really get why they don't like you so much, because even if they don't agree with your opinions you've been in this hobby for so long there should be at least respect for your knowledge.

They are just disrespectful, they do not care to know the facts behind the practices we choose to follow as caring fish keepers. They wish to keep monster fish without the monster tanks, I find this idiotic. If I could have a tank the size of a small swimming pool I would consider a mbu.