FishProfiles.com Message Forums

While looking for some information on some specialised fishes, I found a page dedicated to what is termed "The Bad Fish List". The species on this list (which includes some invertebrates) are listed together with various reasons why they should be avoided by responsible individuals. Needless to say, the list of Butterfly Fishes on that list is fairly large!

The page is here

Basically, if a fish on their list is listed as a "Category A", then the inference is that it should be left in the ocean. Their categories are:

A - Leave in the ocean. NO arguments.
B - Should be left to public aquaria.
C - Need a reef aquarium environment to survive, and should never be kept in a fish only aquarium.
D - Bred in captivity, therefore do NOT buy wild caught ones!
E - Fish that are invariably caught using ecologically unsound methods (i.e., cyanide) and should be avoided to end the practice.
F - Either needs a species aquarium because of specialised requirements, or is large and aggressive and needs proper planning before acquiring.
G - Venomous, and in some cases lethal to humans!
H - Fishes that are rare/endangered in the wild, and should not be collected for this reason.

The list of species is somewhat controversial in some cases, and will prove to be a source of contention to those here who have successfully kept one or two of these themselves. However, I think we'll all agree that exercising enhanced responsibility with coral reef fishes is a good idea, so please, if you do have issues with the details of their list, bear in mind that the people who compiled this ARE trying to be responsible!

Read and enjoy ...


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

Fortunately, I saw only a few of them on there that I have ever seen for sale at the store where I work, and we have a pretty big saltwater section.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Heh, I was actually looking at this page the other day. I do disagree with a number of the fish on the list, but I think it serves as a decent base guideline about some of the problem species.

---

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

Well, if this is indeed the case, then my boss is screwed. Though, I've seen a number of these guys do just fine in our tanks.

I read all the way through the list, and identified the fish which I think should not be included. Of course, I am assuming that a prospective owner of any of these critters has a decent grasp of the marine hobby, has a healthy tank, and has done research on the specimen. This is obviously not the case a lot of the time.

I don't know or care much about butterflyfish in general, but I see a couple of familiar, hardy names. The copperband and raccoon butterflies are two of the tougher species, and are usually actually recommended to folks trying these fish for the first time. Copperbands are bought by many to consume the pest Aiptasia anemone and quite often thrive in their new home, especially if it is an established tank. Raccoons are tough as well, if what I've seen of them is any indication.

Flame and lemonpeel angels can be easy to keep if they're fed properly. Flame angelfish have actually been bred in captivity, and these captive-bred fish are hardier than their wild counterparts. Even still, aquarists can have these fish thrive in their tanks; whether reef or not.

I don't agree with the inclusion of the queen and undulate triggerfish. True, each can be a very nasty species which requires a tank for just the one fish, but they are quite easy to care for and do not belong on a list of animals which shouldn't be kept in aquariums.

The Amphiprion ephippium and Premnas biaculeatus clownfish are hardy, generally suitable for a community tank, and are available captive-bred. True, they may not be good choices to keep with other clownfish species, but it is a *general* rule that multiple clownfish species should not be housed in a single tank. They can get along just fine with a large number of other fish.

The two included damselfish species are singled out just because of the aggression factor. However, they're probably not as mean as some triggerfish, and are little worse than most other damsels. If you include two, why not all? In any case, I don't think aggression or territoriality alone rules out fish from being kept in a home aquarium.

I know that the lunare wrasse and "false cleaner wrasse" (Aspidontus taeniatus) are hardy and can be housed in an aquarium. True, the false cleaner uses other fish as a food source, but I understand that it will accept different food types and can thrive in a tank without other fish. The lunare wrasse is just aggressive; again, that doesn't stop it from being tank-suitable.

Mandarinfish and "scooter blennies" can be good aquarium candidates, if their potential tank has a large and replenishing copepod population. They may eat other foods, but rely heavily on these invertebrates. If they cannot be supplied, I do agree in that they should not be recommended.

I know that the sohal tang at least is fairly resistant to adverse water conditions; they are just potentially aggressive, especially to similar tangs. The other tangs may be somewhat fragile, but can all thrive in large enough tanks.

Mantis shrimp are very tough, can be beautiful, and are extremely cool. Though they can potentially injure an person's hand, kill tankmates, and shatter aquarium glass, they are great shrimp when kept alone in a tank. They're highly intelligent, and quite interesting. If proper precautions are taken, they can make great pets.

I doubt I hit everything that I disagree with, but I don't know enough about the rest of the bunch to have an opinion. Tear me apart if you want to, but just remember that these are just my thoughts. I feel that the person(s) who put this list together may have been a bit overzealous.

Last edited by sirbooks at 10-Dec-2005 17:01

---

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

"Though, I've seen a number of these guys do just fine in our tanks"

Same... All the ones that we sell on there are only o there for Food or Habitat reasons, both of which are easily taken care of if the fish is placed in a properly-sized, established reef tank. Perhaps a better name for the page would be "Bad Fish List for Fish-Only Tanks".

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

I couldn't even make it through that list.

I've cared for, and seen others care for SOOO many of those fish. And just because a fish is aggressive, doesn't mean we cant care for it. That list made me angry.

If anything, that list seems like a list of fish that aren't for beginners.

-Formerly known as the Ferretfish

Even to only use as a base line it seems if your a begginer you can only keep false and true percs....I really cant agree with alot of things put on that site. We all know lions can be deadly IF you have bad reaction to venom. We all KNOW maroons are the most anggro clowns and will pretty much kill any other clown. i coulod name so many more things in there,

Sorry im happy now i had my winge now

In response to the above, I did say that they were probably erring considerably on the side of caution on that site, not least because there have been instances of people choosing fishes from that list that we here at FP know can be kept successfully, but have chosen unwisely with the predictable unhappy results. One has to give them some credit for wishing to avoid such heartache (and fish loss) even if one disagrees with their list.

I am, however, surprised to see Mirolabrichthys tuka listed there as a "B" and not an "A" - I thought that was one fish that everyone agreed was a 'leave in the ocean till we know more' fish. But then I thought the same applied until recently to Pygoplites diacanthus, and now I know it can be kept successfully in the home aquarium provided one plans ahead properly and avails oneself of specific foods for it.

I was also very surprised to see Chaetodon falcula, the Double Saddle Butterfly Fish, listed on that site, because if memory serves, Mike Paletta lists that as one of the tougher Butterfly Fishes that is suitable for an aquarist to move onto after acquiring experience with less troublesome fishes.

Still no surprises to see Chaetodon trifasciatus on the list though ... unless of course one actually wants to sacrifice large quantities of live corals to feed it. How many people would set up a coral farm just to feed the Rainbow Butterfly though?


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002