In The Wild Vs In The Tank

[KirkyArcher]

Just opening up a discussion about the often and recently quoted saying "in the wild" surely if your fish are for want of a better word "cultivated" for aquarium life they have no concept of wide ranging and vast open waters so is it completely realistic to use such terms or make the comparison, obviously the well being of fish should always take precedence and recreating as natural an environment as possible is the usual goal of most fish keepers. A lot of tank fish are obviously having it easy compared to their wild cousins being kept in stable water conditions, fed regularly, medicated (if and when required) and virtually all threats from predators are eliminated!
Quantities of fish per volume of water recommendations are surely also going to be a varying value too depending on the aquarium husbandry levels of the individual fish keeper.

 

[the_lock_man]

The only time I tend to use that expression is when explaining to people about shoaling fish. In that instance, although the fish have never experienced a shoal of 1000s of their species, they still have the instinctive need to be in a large group. So, yes I do feel that it is right to make the comparison.
 
In what other circumstances do people use the term?

 

[Sophie]

Surely some "wild instinct" remains, even in tank bred specimens.
The fish are designed for that wild environment and their bodies have adapted to those conditions therefore still retaining the need for something as close to the "home" environment as possible?
Like putting a Danio in a Bettas house or the other way around. One likes fast flowing water whereas the other will become stressed and more than likely perish in fast flowing water.
Same with temperatures I suppose, if a Goldfish was to be bred in a tank with a higher temperature, would the fry be then acclimatized to that temperature and still able to attain the ultimate size and life span?
Or as it stands, would the higher temperature still quicken their metabolism shortening their life span dramatically?
 
Do say if this is completely unrelated, just what I gathered from your initial post.
 
It's like a dog I guess, some wild instincts still remain whereas a lot have been taken away from them due to domestication. I guess we see some domestication in fish too?
 
This topic isn't good for a sleepy brain!

 

[ech0o]

Yes I have to agree with Sophie, 5, 10, even 50 generations doesn't undo hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation.  While you can't directly compare these fish to their wild cousins, you certainly can make plenty of general comparisons on how they enjoy to live, what they need to eat in order to survive, their aggression towards other fish.  I know I keep Dwarf Puffers so they probably haven't been too many generations in the aquarium, a lot are even wild caught, but have found it strange that the only luck people have with keeping DP's with other fish, are with certain fish that co-inhabited the same region "In the wild".
 
Even humans have instinctual drive that hasn't been undone by our change of scenery, and we are far more deep and complex than a fish.

 

[Wills]

Just for comparison though a lot of wild caught fish are actually incredibly young. Take wild caught American Cichlids it is mainly one pair of adults and a clutch of young or even fry that are transported back into the aquarium hobby. Although some fish are caught in a large size I for one dont always see captive fish as a negative - fish in tanks will (or at least should) live a lot lot longer than in the wild. In a stable tank with no disease and regular food most fish are happy.
 
The only really bad ones are the migrating swarming, schooling fish like Bala Sharks and Pangasious among others. But interestingly you rarely get the American equivalents of those fish and even more rare is to find them in any great numbers.
 
Also on the schooling topic I think that schooling for the relevant fish is as instinctual to them as it is to a predator to hunt them it is such a strong defense mechanism and such a strong survival instinct it would struggle to go away. The reason people say to keep at least 6 is for the fish to feel like they are on the very edge of the school in their line of sight they have the fish around them but if its just one or two or three of them its easy to realise "they are the only ones left" but then again more is always better and it is such a vast difference when you have a school of 12 compared to a school of 6.
 
Wills

 

[Sophie]

Just for comparison though a lot of wild caught fish are actually incredibly young. Take wild caught American Cichlids it is mainly one pair of adults and a clutch of young or even fry that are transported back into the aquarium hobby. Although some fish are caught in a large size I for one dont always see captive fish as a negative - fish in tanks will (or at least should) live a lot lot longer than in the wild. In a stable tank with no disease and regular food most fish are happy.
 
The only really bad ones are the migrating swarming, schooling fish like Bala Sharks and Pangasious among others. But interestingly you rarely get the American equivalents of those fish and even more rare is to find them in any great numbers.
 
Also on the schooling topic I think that schooling for the relevant fish is as instinctual to them as it is to a predator to hunt them it is such a strong defense mechanism and such a strong survival instinct it would struggle to go away. The reason people say to keep at least 6 is for the fish to feel like they are on the very edge of the school in their line of sight they have the fish around them but if its just one or two or three of them its easy to realise "they are the only ones left" but then again more is always better and it is such a vast difference when you have a school of 12 compared to a school of 6.
 
Wills

 
Agreed, I went from 3 Sterbai, to 6 Sterbai to 12 and the difference in behaviour was phenomenal. 
 
 
At the same time as them having a "happy" life, there are still many stressors placed on fish unintentionally whether it be noise, our ugly mugs staring at them, water changes etc that aid in weakening the immunity and shortening the lifespan - so I've read and personally believe to be quite true.
 
But again, at the same time, a varied diet, good feeding routine, clean water, no stressors placed on them from things like predators as they would in the wild. It's just positive and negatives on each side weighing up.

 

[frapadoodle]

I agree with the "in the wild" analogy for schooling or shoaling fish, such as cories. Mine wander around in ones, twos, et ctera, but if spooked the groups all hide together.
But with predatory or territorial fish one should also look to "in the wild". The higher you go up the food chain, the fewer larger/predatory species.
Such as Angels, four or five give good social interaction, but if you get a mated pair, unless it is a monster tank, you'll have problems.

 

[stanleo]

I have thought about this type of discussion a lot and not just about fish. I take advantage of this hobby because it already exists and you can make a fish as happy as possible in a tank. But IMO you cannot get a tank that is big enough, clean enough, and stress free enough to emulate the wild fully.
 
There was recently an article about someone who caught a rock fish that was over 200 yrs old. Now, do we really think that its possible to keep that species of fish alive that long in an aquarium? I use that just as an example, I know SW and FW species are vastly different in life cycle and hardiness. But barring predation and ecological disasters, I really don't think its possible for a fish in an aquarium to live longer than in the their natural environment.
 
Yes its useful to describe wild behaviors but you can never fully emulate their natural environment. You must try to come as close as you can but ultimately you will fall short. And IMO that's true of even the most experienced fish keeper.
 
Remember, it took thousands of years for animals like dogs and cats to become creatures that want to be our pets. Fish haven't been kept for anywhere near that long. We are keeping wild animals in our homes. All fish-keepers should respect that fact.

 

[tropicalmumma]

Hmm, I've never thought of it before but I agree that with fish who group together in schools it's best to have a few isn't it?  I actually have an issue with keeping birds in cages and also with keeping reptiles in captivity so would never have them myself other than in a wildlife caring capacity, but have no issue keeping fish in aquariums.

 

[KirkyArcher]

Thanks all for your contributions. After reading several threads on here, other forums and also from viewing content on Youtube. there are several references to "in the wild" but an aquarium environment is always going to fall short of the mark IMO, Plus things like having fish and plants from different continents together in the same tank is often normal practice to the community fishkeeper, that is also something that is frowned upon by "purist" keepers, Dosing Co2 for plant welfare is another issue that is often a bit confusing when given some thought along the lines of in the wild, we are aware that plants don't use Co2 at night so turn off the supply is the given advice both to save gas and to prevent fish suffocation, Are the Co2 levels that plants need to thrive in the natural environment somehow reduced at night time? As for wild instinct you just need look at football fans to see that even human evolution can take huge leaps backwards at times  

 

[Baccus]

I know, no matter how hard we as animal keepers try ( be it as professional zoo keepers or home hobbiests) we can never hope to fully replicate all the situations/ environmental scenerios that a particular species will find itself in. But we can do the best that our experience, budget, space and personal preference will allow.
We can also make things look how we would think it would look like in the wild, even though species from various countries or regions have been put together.
 
For example look at old Tarzan movies when they had him in the forests, many of the plants used to give the illusion of being a forest or to look like what we think a tropical forest looks like where actually plants collected from all over the world. No true wholey and souly endemic plants where actually used to complete the desired affect. They did the same with many animals and birds too. And it happens even at home in backyard gardens everywhere. Where somebody who lives in rather temperate climate want a tropical feel garden, so they utalise plants that will look lush and tropical but can with stand the rigors of a cold winter and are not actually tropical at all. I know Tarzan movies and the like are fictional but so are our tanks. Our tanks are a snap shot if you like of how we think a particular fish lives in the wild while catering to our own likes with regards to appearance.
 
So I say provided we do our best to replicate certain aspects of what a creature will encounter in the wild then we are doing the best we can. Take Glass catfish for example, they like being in large schools but there is no way we can keep as many as they would like in one tank. However we can introduce a mirror to the tank and give the fish the illusion that their school is bigger, thus increasing their confidence. This trick has even been done with flamingos in zoos to trick them into thinking the flock was bigger and getting the birds to breed.
 
In conclusion yes the term  "in the wild" is relevant in that we then have a better understanding of what a particular species may or may not adapt to in relation to what we as keepers of any species can provide.