FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I agree. Stunting, as popularly depicted, occurs when internal organs grow to excess and explode out of the animal in question's stomach. I do not believe that organs grow out of proportion relative to the fish. They will stop enlarging at a certain point. Growth factors in cells will inhibit growth as cell density reaches a maximum. However, premature inhibition results in deformities in organ structure, as certain areas of the fish continue to grow to suit functionality. The same is true for the skeletal system. Bones, by all technical and mechanical definitions, can be considered as "organs", and they stunt is a similar fashion.

There are certain regions neccesitating growth with increased age and size, those being the spinal cord and all nervous related structures (which is why stunted fish are often seen with huge, deformed heads and bent spines). These deformities, will, however, result in a shorter lifespan, generally as a result of organ failure in attempting to cope with malformed bodies, not low oxygen (suffocation is nearly impossible in conventional, household tanks) or "bad water quality" as you put it.

Likewise, I'd like to add that indeed, there is nothing wrong with keeping a fish in a smaller tank for growing out purposes. However, how can you determine when it's time to upgrade to a new tank? This, I assume, is the most pivotal of factors surrounding this practice.

Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 19-Dec-2005 10:40

Cup,

Nice to read some sensible writting. I find it refreshing. I read your post carefully and agree with you on every point you mentioned.

Maybe I was not clear but when I said " lack of O2, bad water quality which leads to disease ", I meant that as a whole, a combination of factors that will kill the fish.

Lastly, I saw EXACTLY what you described in your post on the poor goldfish that belongs to my neighbour. 9 years in a 1 gal. glass bowl took it's toll on the poor soul. Twisted spine, deformed body, disproportions between head and body, fins vs body... name it, it's there.

Cheers !

Sponge

Not sure what was said in any other thread about this. I don't know if anyone got out of hand replying to whatever you originally said. I will say, however, that if you know a certain species of fish is going to need a certain sized tank at some point, why not just buy that size tank to begin with and let the fish grow into it? That may be the reason behind certain people, using your CL example, saying they need a 125 to begin with. If you're going to give them a 125 in the end anyway, why not start them off there? It's cheaper in the long run. Will a 2" CL grow faster in a 125 as opposed to a 20? Again, i don't know, I don't have proof, but it would seem to make sense that the more room they have the faster they'll grow. I don't know if it's any healthier for the fish to grow as fast as they possibly can, and that I suppose is the question.

I agree that Cup raises another pivitol question:

how can you determine when it's time to upgrade to a new tank?

My opinion, as already stated, is just plan ahead and take care of their eventual needs now. If we had confirmed data on how fast certain species grow this question would be a lot easier to answer.

And please note what I'm saying here isn't a commentary on stunting. I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with you on the subject, I'm just saying, if some people use a little common sense they can get around the issue entirely. There are a lot of reasons for not putting too much fish mass in tanks, stunting being one of the highest ones. Bad water quality and massive algae issues are some of the others. A little common sense would go a long way here.

Last edited by NowherMan6 at 19-Dec-2005 11:49

---

Back in the saddle!

Nice article...I agree with your oscar in a 10 gallon thing, as I had one in a 10 gallon before I knew anything about fish and stuff...I was asking my dad about everything, which I later found out was an unreliable source of information. I had him in there for probably over a year, and then I found the site, and started to "learn" and quickly got rid of him, and gave him to a friend that had a 55 they just set up. I think that towards the end of my time w/ him he was just starting to show the early stages of HTH

But all is well now, I have learned much from this site

Nowherman : Yep, common sense is the way to go. And it's true that the important question is "when to switch to a larger tank". Again, common sense goes along way. When you keep a fish, any real aquarist will look at their fish a few times a week and watch them act. How they feed, swim, their habits. If you see that your fish is growing and growing and this "usual behavior" is somewhat different... say, it doesn't seem to swim as fast as usual or as often, when he turns around, it looks akward and troublesome... Time to get a new tank for this baby ! In my opinion, if one can not tell, just by observing your fish that he requires a larger tank, that person maybe chose the wrong hobby.

As for your comment about buying the "full size fish tank" in the first place... well, that's a bit on the extreme side. Mind you, if you have the place and the cash, be my guess. And yes, a fish in a bigger tank will grow more rapidly, it's a known fact. Given all that, I do not think that it should prevent anyone from getting CLs for example solely because they don't have the final size tank or even if they don't plan on getting it. Like I said in the other thread, when comes the time, you are faced with 2 choices : Sell the fish or buy a bigger tank. By the way, CLs are VERY SLOW growers and live for about 50 years.


Lookin : I hear ya mate. I have an Oscar in a 55gal and I know that in the next few months, it will become a monster and will have reached it's critical point. I'll be faced with the above mentionned choices. But until then, I will enjoy that lil' critter and give it the BEST CARE IN THE WORLD and spoil it rotten !!! I love that fish.... pig-fish I should say !

Thanks for the feed back folks !

Sponge

Edit note : Can't spell correctly... ] And please, don't tell me that there are still mispelled words... I know. I just don't know which ones !!! hahahaha ( English is not my first language )


Last edited by Sponge_Bob at 19-Dec-2005 12:14

Though I am in no way qualified or knowledgeable enough to know what happens to a fish during "stunting", I can bring up and perhaps address some ethical issues involved. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a person to purchase a large tank for their eventual large fish. I believe that once you take ownership of an animal, you are obliged to care for that animal throughout its natural lifespan. Though it is certainly possible to sell a fish once it outgrows a smaller tank and has nowhere else to go, it may lead to poor treatment for the critter. There are few people in any given area who have the tank space to house a large, say, wolf cichlid, and even fewer of those would be willing to accept one, and secondhand at that (Seriously, a used fish? Who would buy one?). It is the owner's responsibility to find a good home for their fish, and that is probably impossible in most cases. I can't tell you how many large cichlids and plecos my workplace (fish store) recieves each month from customers whose tanks they have outgrown. Most of the people who buy these fish from us don't have appropriate tanks (in my opinion) for long-term care of the creature.

With this being so, I think it is appropriate for a person to go ahead and buy a large tank for their fish that will need it. In the future when that tank would otherwise be required, there may be unexpected financial problems, family troubles, moves, etc. that would prevent the tank's purchase. I don't know where I will be five years down the road, which is why I would feel safer buying a tank today when I know I can afford it. This would circumvent the whole issue of stunting, if a person whose fish needed a large tank provided that tank, and nothing less. The fish has space to grow and thrive, and the owner has done all they can tankwise to provide for their charge.

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

Sir,

I read your post twice and it is with regret that I must say that if everything you said is true about the fish store you work for, I would never even put a toe in there. It may sound harsh but hear me out please. It's your responsability to advise your customers about what they are buying and what are the requirements short / long term. Anything short of that is NOT a pet store in my opinion but rather a fish Walmart.

Second hand fish ? What are you talking about ? What do you think you buy from singapour if not second hand fish by definition. I'm being cynical a bit because what you called "second hand" fish are sold by the thousands around the world each day. Who would want to buy one ? Me and I did so often enough with no problems, ethical or whatnot.

You are "humanizing" on fish my friend. They are fish, not a baby. That doesn't mean one should treat them like crapola, but let's not push the ethics beyond reason with a statement such as you HAVE to keep it for the rest of its life span. Say you wish to buy a goldfish and you are 50 years old. Sorry buddy ! By your standards, you can not buy that fish because they can live for up to 40 years and since your life expectancy is about 75 years, you are NO GO by 15 years !

I hope you can appreciate the absence of logic behind such an ethic theory. Oh, it sounds good and righteous. Problem is it's not sound, nor logical... and far from being ethical, even remotely. I have CLs at home and I am 40. I don't think I will make it to 90 years old. Now are you considering me unethical ? I certainly hope not. I sometimes sell my fish because I am tired of having them and I am seeking a new challenge / experience. Does that make me a punk aquarist with questionable ethics ? I don't think so my friend.

I'm sorry Sir but I disagree with your post and question your ethic policy as you stated. Maybe you might want to think it over. I know it makes me very uncomfortable and I find it unethical ( pun intented...couldn't resist ).

By the way, please don't take the above personnaly. We are just debating on ethics here and I have nothing against you. Matter of fact, I don't know you.. so.

Kind regards,

Sponge

Last edited by Sponge_Bob at 19-Dec-2005 14:26

read your post twice and it is with regret that I must say that if everything you said is true about the fish store you work for, I would never even put a toe in there

hope you can appreciate the absence of logic behind such an ethic theory. Oh, it sounds good and righteous. Problem is it's not sound, nor logical... and far from being ethical, even remotely

I'm sorry Sir but I disagree with your post and question your ethic policy as you stated. Maybe you might want to think it over. I know it makes me very uncomfortable and I find it unethical

Sponge,

You are well within your rights to question Books' ideas/ opinions, however you are way out of line to question his or anyone's ethics. No one in this thread has questioned yours , please have the same respect for others.

My take on what he wrote is that, when some people grow an oscar out to 8 inches and realize they can't take care of it any longer, they sell it or give it to an LFS where they hope it'll be sold to someone who can better take care of it. I'm not an LFS worker but I imagine not many people come in looking for a beat-up, half-stunted oscar to compliment their large tank set-up. If someone does buy it there's a good chance they go right back into a similarly inappropriate set-up. His point is, as I saw it, that there's nothing wrong with suggusting that it's better for someone wishing to own clown loaches or large cichlids to buy a large tank for it from the get-go to avoid issues down the line. All he said was,

I think it is appropriate for a person to go ahead and buy a large tank for their fish that will need it

Didn't say, you have to, or you should, he just commented that in his opinion it's not an extreme idea to do so.

Please come down off the soapbox if you wish to further discuss...

---

Back in the saddle!

I and my coworkers tell the customers whatever they want to know about their fish. I would be more than happy to answer questions all day; that's what I'm paid for. However, a majority of them don't ask, and don't listen. People in my area especially enjoy keeping fish which they think are big and mean, and many cichlids fit that mold perfectly in their eyes. At least some of these people can admit error on their part by giving the fish back to us, hoping that they will go to a proper home. Many of the folks who bring us fish didn't even buy them from us in the first place. It is unfair to criticize my workplace because of the practices of our customers.

The "used fish" thing was a joke, I realize that my fish have come from someplace other than my tank.

About fish... Thoughts on this issue depend on the individual moral standards of a person. I believe that as fish are pets chosen to inhabit a home, they are the responsibility of their owner. You (not you specifically, but "you" as in everyone in general) want your fish, so care for them. The same goes for any dog, cat, bird, or reptile that enters your home. Just because fish are generally smaller and percieved to be less intelligent, does that mean they aren't entitled to excellent care? A cat would be allowed to roam my entire house, so I should expect to be able to give my fish plenty of room as well. Logic demands that I give the animals the best that I can give them within reason, and that's how I treat my fish. A seventy-five gallon tank would not provide them nearly what they could get in the wild, but it is large compared to most home tanks, and considering the extra benefits of living in an aquarium, a tank like that (for the right-sized fish) means that they could be very happy indeed.

"Say you wish to buy a goldfish and you are 50 years old. Sorry buddy ! By your standards, you can not buy that fish because they can live for up to 40 years and since your life expectancy is about 75 years, you are NO GO by 15 years !"

I would consider it very rare for a person to be able to keep a typical goldfish alive for that long, especially because most do not provide them proper housing. Given a very large pond, a goldfish can probably live without human care and feed from what nature provides them. The vast majority of goldfish keepers cannot or do not provide this however, and as some may say, fail to live up to their end of the bargain when buying these fish. I myself am not a fan of keeping goldfish and other large fish in captivity, as they just need such large enclosures.

Sure, fish can be sold off when folks get tired of them or just don't have the space any more. But I think it is their responsibility to ensure that they go to someone who actually will take care of them well, not just a pet store. You don't know where your critters are going from there.

Last edited by sirbooks at 24-Dec-2005 18:02

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

Seems that this is a "touchy" subject in here and I find that many false concepts are spreaded around.

First of all, fish do not die of stunting directly. It's a myth, an urban legend. The main cause of death will be a lack of oxygen, bad water quality which in turn will lead to disease and will eventually kill the fish. For example, you can keep an oscar in 10 gal tank for quite a while, provided that you make daily water changes, clean the tank several times a week, provide adequate surface agitation to bring in O2 and let CO2 escape. The fish will not stop growing... it will simply outgrow the tank and it will be clear that you need to change to a larger tank.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that one should do this or implying that the fish will be "happy". I'm simply saying that stunting, by itself, will not kill a fish. It's the impact of the biological overload and the poor water quality that comes with it that will eventually kill. Mind you, if you keep the water clean and oxygenated, the fish will continue to grow for a while. Beyond a certain point, if the owner is not intelligent enough to realise that the fish needs more space, stunt will occur and deformities may afflict the poor fish. I've seen it with my own eyes. A neighbour of mine has been keeping a goldfish in a 1gal bowl for 9 years !!! Needless to say that I was outraged at this kind of treatment. I have a tank of goldies, it's a 60 gal tank. His fish is about 2 inches long and disformed. It looks miserable but it lives... well, survives is a more accurate word.

In another thread in here, we were discussing clown loaches and their needs. Stunting was brought into the discussion and all hell broke loose because I dared to say that CLs are very slow growers and they do not require a 125 gal to start with. I also said that with a life span of 50 years, chances are that the owner will get rid of those fish eventually, well before they reach their full size. By getting rid of them, I mean to sell them back to the LFS or other aquarists. On the other hand, if they want to keep them, they WILL have no choice but to buy a big tank to accomodate their growing CLs. Well, people argued with me, saying that it will stunt the fish and the fish will die etc... Facing this misinformation, I posted again that it would not and that CLs can be kept with no harm to them in a 46 gal for a pretty long while.

My posts got edited, deleted and whatnot. Well, funny to find that the information that I gave CAN BE FOUND ON THIS WEB SITE AND FORUM !!! Just goes to show you that this stunting theory is taken to extremes by some and it's unfortunately misunderstood. The information that I found in here was sound and logical. Not emotional and taken to extremes. Funny to see that my posts got deleted / edited while pretty much saying the same thing. Unfortunately for me, I've only found this information this morning, hence this thread about it.

I've never said that stunting doesn't exist and that it is a good thing. I've said that it will not kill a fish which is true as I explained above. Like in nature, I believe in moderation ( not too much in moderators though... (joke) ) and common sense. If a person is stupid enough to believe that they can keep a 10 inch long whatever fish in a 10 gal tank, they should be institutionized ASAP. Even a kid will see that the poor fish needs more space. But on the other hand, saying to a potential owner of whatever fish that they have to plan 5 - 10 - 20 years ahead to accomodate the full size of the specimen is simply non-sense. Furthermore, I think it is plain insulting the intelligence of the future owner to do such a warning and making it so dramatic as it was made in the thread I mentionned above.

On the same subject, I believe that people that come in here for advice is enough to send a clear message to people that are willing to help and supply information that this individual is at least interested in finding information. So one must assume that they are not dealing with mentally deprived people and treat them accordingly. A lil note that the fish will eventually outgrow the tank they plan on is more than enough. The way some people take this "stunting" thing to extremes is simply discouraging people from starting this wonderful hobby.

Finally, to illustrate my thoughts on this, I go back to the CL example. This site states that you may start with as little as a 20 gal tank ! I have a reference book that says you should at least give them a 48 gal tank. You know what ? I see no problems with what this site recommends and I find it sound and logical.

Flame lightly please...

Sponge

Nowherman : He brought the ethics on the table and since he posted his views, they are up for debate. That doesn't mean that I despise Sir or hate him. Like I said, I have NOTHING against him. But I do not agree with his ethics as he posted them. I gave my reasons and also told him not to take it personally. I specifically stated that we are ONLY debating ethics here, nothing else. I kindly invite you to read my post again and see what I meant and why I disagree with him on that topic. I have no personal issues with Sir and I don't think he does either. Just to show you, and you may check with him if you don't believe me, he is the one that censured / deleted part of one of my posts and told me not to insult people to get my point accross. I reposted that he was right. I was out of line. So believe me, I am very comfortable with myself and with what I wrote. I did not attack him personnally. I simply said that I disagreed with his post and views on ethics. By the way, I do not own a soap box. C'mon, lighten up bro. Don't take this so seriously. No one will die here. The worst that could happen is that we agree to disagree. No harm done.

Sir : I know your job is not easy. I know that people don't listen. You are right on both counts. But I still disagree with your initial post. Sorry, but I find it to be unsound. I will therefor respect your point of view and end this discussion about ethics with you. Don't want this to get to a point where you or me would get irritated with it.

Lastly, sure, I agree that there is nothing wrong with buying a full size aquarium to start with... I think I already said that though.

Kind regards to both,

Sponge

Yep Cup, Sir confirmed it.

Sorry Sir, I missed it. Silly me.

By the way, I do not own a soap box. C'mon, lighten up bro

I am light. I'm light as a freakin' feather. I just don't take kindly to [perceived] personal attacks, that's all. No harm.

---

Back in the saddle!

smell that? is something burning? nope...just a flame war.

srriously though...i gladly accept "used fish" from when friends can no longer care for their fish, or they have out grown their tank.

when i go to a LFS, i dont ask if the fish was a return,ect, i look at what condition they are in. I ask questions as best I can about the specimen i am about to buy.

no offence sirbrooks, but because of pet store owners and clerks like you, i quit going to the privately owned pet store by my house, because they wouldnt tell you the truth most of the time. they would tell you what you wanted to hear...or they wouldnt tell you anything at all. i had to ask to get anything out of them, and still, there was alot of things i found out from books that i asked them about later, and sure enough, they knew full well, but just failed to mention it.

i understand, a fish store sells fish. you arent paid to ask questions about their tank,ect. but if you are going to say that i should have to keep a fish for its full lifespan, then it is your "ethical" obligation to tell me that the common pleco i am about to buy doesnt stay 2".

i have a bristlenose pleco i bought and have arranged a home for with a friend when she reaches her full size. she will leave my 29 gallon and go to her new home in a 55 gallon at a friends house. so, by your "ethical" standards, i am a bad person because i bought a fish and will give it a good home till it grows to an adult and provide it with another home later?

well, then i am a bad person. according to other posters up here, i have no right to question your ethics, and i wont question them, but i will state i dis agree with them whole heartedly.

stunting is horrible. its as bad as the goldfish in a bowl, the beta in a vase thing. will the fish survive? maybe...will it be happy and healthy? heck no. watch what a beta dos when you move it from its little 6" cup to a 2 gallon or larger tank. it comes alive!

keeping a fish that has the potential to grow in a small tank till it reaches adulthood is not a crime. keeping a full grown common pleco in a ten gallon? um...thats just wrong. ok, thats my 2 cents.

"i understand, a fish store sells fish. you arent paid to ask questions about their tank,ect. but if you are going to say that i should have to keep a fish for its full lifespan, then it is your "ethical" obligation to tell me that the common pleco i am about to buy doesnt stay 2"."

I do ask questions, and I do inform people about their purchases. Like I said earlier, people don't always listen, and I am lied to as well. I have done what I can to help the fish, but I can't very well go to their house to check up.

"i have a bristlenose pleco i bought and have arranged a home for with a friend when she reaches her full size. she will leave my 29 gallon and go to her new home in a 55 gallon at a friends house. so, by your "ethical" standards, i am a bad person because i bought a fish and will give it a good home till it grows to an adult and provide it with another home later?"

No, I haven't said anything like that. In my second post, I state: "But I think it is their responsibility to ensure that they go to someone who actually will take care of them well, not just a pet store."
Giving a fish to someone with a bigger tank who you know will take care of it is perfectly fine by me. It is like moving a fish from one of your own thirty gallon tanks to a seventy gallon tank. It gives the fish more space, but does not compromise water quality.

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

"smell that? is something burning? nope...just a flame war."

I laughed.

Just wanted to paste some links to actual information
about stunting.
Let me ask you this, would you keep a german sheperd for its whole life in a 4 foot by 4 foot room?
Would you keep a great dane in said room?
Would you keep a Horse in an apartment?
A Pig in a shoebox?
Would you expect these animals to thrive in these environments and reach their potential and be healthy?
I sure hope not. Why would you do it to an oscar?
Stunting fish is abuse and is cruel. I wouldnt do it to my dog, my cat, my fish, or any other creature.
Why on earth are you people saying its a myth and that its ok to do so? There is much information about stunting of fish out there, including scientific studies. Sure, stunting occurs in the wild, but not on the level we humans do it to aquarium fish. (eg. People who keep goldfish in 10g tank tsk tsk).I really hope a biologist will step in an offer some scientific data for us.
I know there a couple here.

From http://kingsoftheaquarium.com/faq.htm -
"Q: You tell me that I should buy a large tank for certain fish, but don't they just grow to the size of the tank?

A: This is the worst of all misconceptions of fishkeeping! Keeping a fish in a smaller tank will slow it's growth down, called stunting, but it won't stop it. Stunting a fish's growth may sound good, but there are many side effects. The fish will be more aggressive, be more susceptible to disease, and may experience certain growth deformities. Worst of all, it's life span will be severely shortened. "


Some Links:
[link=http://www.bestfish.com/tips/020598.html]http://www.bestfish.com/tips/020598.html" style="COLOR: #FFC0FF[/link]
[link=http://www.wetwebmedia.com/FWSubWebIndex/grwchemfaqs.htm]http://www.wetwebmedia.com/FWSubWebIndex/grwchemfaqs.htm" style="COLOR: #FFC0FF[/link]
[link=http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/homeandgarden/3342004.htm]http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/homeandgarden/3342004.htm" style="COLOR: #FFC0FF[/link]
[link=http://fins.actwin.com/nanf/month.200110/msg00115.html]http://fins.actwin.com/nanf/month.200110/msg00115.html" style="COLOR: #FFC0FF[/link]

Come Play Yahtzee With Me!
http://games.atari.com
Http://www.myleague.com/yahtgames

I don't think anyone here said it was okay for fish to be kept in unsuitably small aquaria, and it was agreed that stunting is quite real and causes organ deformity while also compromising long term well being.