FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Not hard to keep, but you have to be able to afford & house a 500+ gallon tank eventually.

I was getting some neons at the fish store yesterday for my 55 gallon and saw a pretty funny looking fish. It was an arowana apparently and looked pretty cool. Are these fish hard to keep, what are they like?

just curious
Andrew

toirtis - the vancouver aquarium still has those 2 silvers that are 4' long (haven't been there recently, so i'm not sure if they got any more... and an interesting sidenote from a friend that worked there for 5 years is that some of the arowana were confiscated from drug dealers in the vancouver area!) also, i know a guy that works at one of the lfs in my area that had two that were a little under 4', and the mcdonalds restaurant in kelowna, bc had a 4' one for something like 15 years in the lobby - people used to feed him french fries!!! then again - i suppose you could say that most don't ever reach this size because most people don't have a tank big enough to support a 4' fish so they are stunted young, and other people dont' put a heavy enough lid on the tank so the fish jump out and die early. perhaps this is why you have never seen a 4' fish, acidrain

Well all I can say, is you better call all the ichthyologists, and all the book companies, and lets not forget Guennis book of world records, because they all say different.

Maybe you could take some pics of those four that are that big, while you are measuring them again.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

I have never seen one at 4 foot, even in all the public aquariums I have been too. So, if they are quite common at 4 foot, as you stated, please refference me to them so that I might see them.

Nothing I know of online, but at least three at the National Zoological Park are, as were two in the Vancouver Aquarium 3 years ago, and I have personally measured 4 in my city in the past 2 years that were 47"-51".

Good to know this kinda stuff, I saw the poor thing in a 10 gallon tank. Could be deceiving to a novice at the fish keeping hobby. Thanks alot for all the info. Seems like it would be a cool fish if my tank was 3 times bigger.

The largest Silver ever recorded was 47" from snout to the tail's base.

And here is the Black Arowana; http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?id=8117

As stated earlier, even smaller. Personally, I like these better, as the blue of the fins is much more attractive. But, it is much harder to keep more than one of these together.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

They get only to just under 3 feet in the aquarium, and just over 3 feet long in the wild. The black arowana is usually slimmer. And the Aussie ones are usually stockier. The dragons, and crossbacks are extremely expensive even as fry, and a CITES permit is required to leagally keep them in the US.

The silvers get to a lot longer than 3' in captivity....4' is quite common.

You need a federal zoological permit to import/keep Asians legally in the US...you need a CITES I export and import permit set on top of that to bring them into the US.

Arowana's are easy to care for, and only moderately aggressive, but they grow to 36" on average (47" tops). So, unless you can afford a 300g tank and a lot of live crickets, an arowana isn't for you.


watch the language please.

Last edited by jason_r_s at 22-Nov-2004 20:28

Iv had australian arrowanas before which are nice and stay much smaller than silvers. I think silvers are garbage anyways

They are relatively easy to keep, as long as you have at least a 150 gal tank, can afford to feed them, and do keep a tight cover on the tank, as they will jump when scared. If cared for properly, they will live over 15 years in the aquariua.

They get only to just under 3 feet in the aquarium, and just over 3 feet long in the wild. The black arowana is usually slimmer. And the Aussie ones are usually stockier. The dragons, and crossbacks are extremely expensive even as fry, and a CITES permit is required to leagally keep them in the US.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

they are kinda hard to take care of.

You will need at least a 120 gallon tank to house one.

they're really easy to care for - forgiving of most water conditions as long as they're not extremely bad. they're peaceful when they're young, but become pretty aggressive i've heard when they get larger. plus they get up to 4' (or some will say 6') at full size, and they grow extremely fast (like 2" per month). they're jumpers and are so strong i've heard of people putting stainless steel plates on top of the tank and weighting those down so the fish can't get out. other than that they're great! i got mine in august when it was about 4" long or so and it's now about 12" long. and it eats like a horse too - forget the cost of the tank - it takes a fortune to feed the little sucker!!!

As for the crossbacks, there are a bunch here in the US for sale. You don't need to import them here. If you have the money upfront, I will gladly hook you up with one. I came very close to buying a breeding colony of crossbacks. Just a little too steep for me though. The red dragons are all over here in the US as well, and for the right money up front, I can probably hook you up with one as well. The CITES permits are not hard to come by, when the fish are already in the country.

Now back to the silver; As for the size, mine that lived 12 years in a 330 gal tank, was fed every other day on goldfish and nightcrawlers (I never use feeder goldies any more, too many diseases coming in on them), and was a whooping 38 inches when she died. My last one died at 8 years old, and was fed a strict diet of red worms, night crawlers, and plankton, lived in a 150 gal tank with a clown knife, and a red tailed cat, that were all the same age, and she was 36 inches when she died.

Now if you are talking total over all length, then yes, they can reach 45 or so inches. But, measurements of fish should not include the tail. And, it is/would be extremely rare in the aquarium, and not very common at all.

I have never seen one at 4 foot, even in all the public aquariums I have been too. So, if they are quite common at 4 foot, as you stated, please refference me to them so that I might see them.

Even the most complete scientific fish refference (http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?id=6234) states them at a maximum size of only 120 cm TL (not quite 4 feet), this is including the tail, and again it is their maximum size. And, the 4-5 refference books I just checked all have their max size listed of different sizes, but all are under 4 feet!



_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

"Actually a law like that would send the hobby down the drain."
Dude, it is a law. They passed it in spring of 2004.
And I dont think it will send the hobby down the drain. 80% of aquarium fish are domestically bred.
All it would do is limit the wild caught fish.
With our world wide fish population dwindling away, if we dont do something now, there will be no more time. Our oceans will be completely empty in 50 years or less if we dont do something now.
For example: Red Tail Black Sharks are domestically bred. This was important for importers when they discovered that there are no longer RTBS or Rainbow sharks left in the wild. They were caught to extinction because of the aquarium trade. Dwarf Gourami are another example, because only males are harvested, these fish are endanger of become extinct. Domestically, they give these fish hormones during egg development so that 92% of fry born are male. Sounds like a definite problem. Same thing with Boesmani Rainbowfish, they are on the endangered species list because the aquarium trade mostly only harvests males, there are not enough males left in the wild to sustain the species.


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

wait, arowana can't be the highest price fish, I heard of koi's pricing in the $200,000

It may be the law there, but it is not here yet. I import fish directly from several countrys. And I know shippers that ship to Canada. How they get around the law you mention, I am not sure, but they do it regularly.

_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

Dude, it is a law. They passed it in spring of 2004.

You are misinformed. I do a lot of work surrounding Canadian legislation that impact pet owners and the pet trade (including helping write some of it), and you can bet that if such a law existed, I would be quite familiar with it.

wait, arowana can't be the highest price fish, I heard of koi's pricing in the $200,000

Trojan_man are u sure ?

Althought in this hobby it can really just depend on how much u find a fish worth for u, but US $200,000 for a single fish is really abit TOO much don't u think ?

i know koi can live to a very LONG age, say around 60 year ? can't remember,should be around this age....

From what i know...top 3 most expensive single fish,
1st is arrowana ,
2nd is ray fish,
than is discus

Not sure about SW fish, i just know overall SW fishes uncheap, at least $6 for a nemo ? while FW fish can be cheap till 0.30 cent...