Pink Gravel And 'no Fishing Signs' Etc...

[oneponygirl]

I explained that they could but it may cause undue stress on an animal that is accustomed to blending in and being able to hide

Seriously, do some of you genuinely believe that a crab or any of the fish you might keep captive will actually be "stressed" by having gravel that to us looks bright pink? You're forgetting, many animals see the world extremely differently to us.

You only have to watch your pets (of any kind not just aquatic) to see that when it comes to animals, so long as the function is fulfilled, the form is irrelavant.

While I wouldnt ever dream of using any of the things that people are referring to here in my tanks at home or at work, there are too many suggestive comments here implying that simply because people are happier with or prefer to use fake, plasticy, bright or multicoloured decor in their tanks then by default they must either be beginners or not know any better.

Dont look down on people just because of their choice of decor, it really is very sad.

All I said that it "could" cause stress, not that it "would" cause stress and I said that that's more true for some animals than others, some wouldn't care at all. Why is it that zoos have discovered that when an animal is kept in environment closer to their natural habitat that they live longer and healthier lives then? And I didn't judge anyone or look down on anyone, nothing in my post implied that whatsoever. I was actually just giving some of the reasons some people choose those types of decor (taste, beginner, marketing) and I didn't pass judgement at all so please don't pass judgement on me.

 

[Saedcantas]

Oneponygirl,

I am sorry that you have misconstrued my comments slightly, I did quote something you had said, but I removed your name from the tag because the rest of my comment was not aimed at you specifically, the part of your post that I quoted summed up best sentiments that were being expressed by more than one or two others in this topic. It was nothing personal whatsoever and my post was directed at all readers of the topic not anyone in particular.

Your point about zoo's "discovering" that keeping animals in as natural a way as possible benefits them is kindof irrelavant to this, zoo's have found that providing animals with as similar an environment as possible is highly beneficial, but they have also found that the objects and furnishings used dont actually matter so long as the purpose is served. How many zoo's give their Orangutans big hessian sacks to use as a "duvet" and they use them just the same as they would naturally use a cover of branches ripped off trees each night for the same purpose

P.S: I think this topic is just another lesson in how humans often fail to see how eagerly they anthropomorphise and lead themselves to believe that their pets have the same perspectives and priorities as we do.

 

[Teelie]

P.S: I think this topic is just another lesson in how humans often fail to see how eagerly they anthropomorphise and lead themselves to believe that their pets have the same perspectives and priorities as we do.

This, I think is the best point made. People over humanize their pets to thinking that they have similar feelings, eyesight and personality as people but they don't. So long as their basic needs are met, most animals could care less about aesthetics.

 

[Fastblur]

I like the planted and natural look, despite the fact my tank counts amongst it's inhabitants: one spongebob and one 'no fishing' sign. I rather enjoy watching my shrimp idly pick detritus from spongebob's head.

I've always wanted to do a sunken battleship in a nice big tank. I saw an ornament of the bismarck that was easily 2ft long. Ever since then, I started putting money aside for a much larger tank.

So I suppose that all demonstrates how it's really mainly a matter of personal preference. As far as the shrimp is concerned, spongebob is an interesting rock.

 

[PaulEbs]

fish live quite happily at sea in and around life size 'tacky' ornaments e.g. sunken ships, bones of dead sea mammals etc and i'm pretty sure fish in our aquariums don't stress about it too much if there are ornamental things like skulls, r.i.p. signs etc in there as long as the water stats are good and they're fed well.

50 yr old avid fishkeeper might want true to life environments ... some kids / teenagers (and probably adults) want 'fun' environments, so what's the problem.

lighten up

by 'tacky ornament' i mean glow-in-the dark skulls, silly out of place ceramic things and ugly plastic fake plants! I can hardly see where sunken ships and actual whale bones in the sea come in to this at all!?

My reason for starting such a topic was to get a general view of what you preffered, because i have seen a lot of peoples photo's of their tanks and have been rather shocked!

And I also completely disagree that fish don't mind their surroundings as long as they have a place to hide. My 30gal tank started out bare and minimalistic, but I easily recognised that the overall behaviour of the fish was much better when I added a small underwater forest and rocks etc.

A good point has been made that it is up to the owner, and what they prefer. but we also need to suit the fish we have, and care for them as best as possible, to ensure they are happy + healthy. And i just don't think a few coloured gems and a bright orange skull does justice for the fish! whatever the species.

Paul.

 

[cheeky_chappie]

i agree that fish should have places to hide, explore, relax in etc ... but i doubt very much if the fish minds what the things are that provide this, as long as the objects in question do them no harm.

if i had a young daughter, for example, who wanted her first aquarium, and she wanted to fill it with colourful 'fun' things including the gravel, i wouldn't have any issues with this, as long as the general aquarium environment was healthy.

come to think of it, should the mood ever take me to slap a mock skull in there, along with an r.i.p. novelty thing then i will without hesitation. yes the health of the fish is priority, but don't forget they are kept as pets for peoples enjoyment.

 

[oneponygirl]

Saedcantas (and others), I think we are actually agreeing. My point about the sand v. hot pink gravel was not so much the color but the function. Gravel, no matter the color, would not have permitted the crabs to burrow and hide, thus robbing them of the function of the sand. I do believe (as I stated in my original post) that some animals don't care about being left in a barren tank no matter the colors and decor used, others will be stressed by the constant exposure. My point by bringing this up in my original post (although obviously not as well stated as I'd hoped) was that some people use the obnoxious colors to make their pets more visible. This is harmless at times but they really must considered the needs of the particular animal and not just their desire to see them (thus my attempt at educating the family that took my crabs on their need to burrow, it just happened to be that the gravel they wanted to use was hot pink). My point about the zoo was merely to reflect on how they used to keep animals in small barren cages with little or no thought to their original habitat. It was great because patrons could see them but the animals didn't fare well. Now most zoos know they need to provide them with a more natural setting even if the monkeys get rope swings which I highly doubt are found much in the jungle, it provides them with a function more natural than nothing at all.

While I personally find neon colors repulsive in nearly any situation except for "open" signs I have nothing against the little signs and other decor and I do think that they can even be used and not necessarily look bad. I even thought it would be funny to really make my coldwater tank really look like the bottom of a pond by adding a license plate but the possibility of leaching metals and paint kept me from it. For whatever reason that people choose to use the obnoxious colors and other stuff mentioned my concern is for the animal and that their needs are being considered and met, just like tank size, tank mates, water quality, good food and whatever else they need. B)

 

[Talz]

I remember in my first tank I used sky blue gravel and a sunken ship... it wasnt long till I switched to more natural colouration though and ditched the ship. The fish still seemed healthy with the blue gravel and stuff though, so although I think a more natural look is best I still dont think the tacky skulls and pink gravel acually harm the fish, its really all about the water I think.

 

[samyboy]

ive actually removed the day-glow pebbles from my tank although they do look kool in the dark natural scenes are best if you ask me, although i quite fancy a sunken ship

 

[PaulEbs]

I think we are all more or less arguing almost the same point here..

It really doesn't matter how much you make your tank look like an essex teenager, as long as the water quality is good, and the fish's behaviour is standard.

To be fair, i knew this before posting such a topic, it's nice to eventually realise that the majority do like a natural looking tank, but mainly started out with a comical one.

Thank you for all your posts on the subject.

 

[Talz]

I think we are all more or less arguing almost the same point here..

It really doesn't matter how much you make your tank look like an essex teenager, as long as the water quality is good, and the fish's behaviour is standard.

To be fair, i knew this before posting such a topic, it's nice to eventually realise that the majority do like a natural looking tank, but mainly started out with a comical one.

Thank you for all your posts on the subject.

Welcome sir

 

[annka5]

... I agree that a tank should suit its inhabitants... but (now, stay calm here) a densely planted tank with bogwood etc is no more similar to what would be found in the natural habitat of most fish than lots of ornaments, etc.
Think about what, say, the Rio Negro wod look like under water - very heavilt stained, very very few plants, the bottom would be silty mud. Other river systems would generally have silt /mud or large boulders at the bottom with far fewer plants than is in the average "natural! aquarium. Who here keeps their fish with mud substrate, or large boulders (both I'd imagine are incredibly difficult to keep clean), lots of particles / sediment in the water, etc etc?
I don't think it's cruel to keep fish in environments which are not natural for them, so long as the size, water quality etc etc requirements are met and they have appropriate cover. If the cover is neon fake coral rather than plants, I don't think the fish would feel loads better with one than the other. I do think appropraite cover is important - something resembling rocks or plants in shape or form, but if its plastic or real, what difference does the fish know, really? I know which one I would prefer...but... that's just my own taste.

 

[PaulEbs]

well said annka. You are indeed right, infact, angelfish from the amazon region live in water so cloudy their eyes are almost useless. So surely captive angelfish are thanking us for giving them the ability to see?!

 

[Bloo]

annka5, Well said But that said: many fish try to "blend" with their surroundings. Look at many catfish in particular. When they change substrates, they often change colour to blend with the substrate. It's far easier to blend with something natural - than for instance neon pink / green glaring gravel.

 

[annka5]

Bloo, I think that's very true - I've a problem with very pale coloured gravel /sand which just must cause a glare, or very bright lighting without adequate plant cover, etc.
I guess it depends on the species to a huge extent. However, I do think it's unfair to say that densely-planted aquariums provide a natural habitat for all fish in the way that no-fishing signs don't.
Perhaps it sould be good to see some examples of good, well aquascaped "fake" tanks? I do reckon they must be hard to make look good, burt surely someone has one...?