New Goldfish Help

Froglet

I assume you mean a bio.They are only good for small tropical fish.A goldfish at 20 years old should be about 9 inches or longer,and there is no way they can swim properly in one of those awful things.Sorry but you really should have him in a 4 ft tank,that is the minimum a fish that age needs.Of course,he is probably stunted ,and permanently twisted through swimming in circles for so long.I have seen it happen.With no filter the fish i saw had nearly all its fins shrivel up through being burnt with strong ammonia from its owm urine,and the chlorine from the tap water.It was a horrible sight.It is amazing what fish can tolerate but they should not have to.

I am not saying yours is like that but it cannot be as healthy as in the proper conditions.If it's not too late,and you obviously do care for him please reconsider his living conditions,and get him a friend.Even goldfish get lonely you know!

bazster

Froglet wrote: »

A goldfish at 20 years old should be about 9 inches or longer

Why?

As someone who used to do a lot of angling in my younger years, I know that fish naturally adapt their size to the conditions. For example, a lake which contains no natural predators but has plenty of nutrients will contain many small fish of the common species (e.g roach) but few or no large ones. Conversely, where there is an optimum balance of predators and prey (or where the small fish are culled) the surviving fish will generally be much larger.

Or compare a common species such as roach when found in different kinds of water. In still lakes they will usually be much larger than in moving water.

So I don't think there is definitive size for an adult fish of a given species, and I don't think that smaller-than-the-maximum necessarily equates to unhealthy.

Froglet

OK a lot of research has gone into this subject and it is proved to be a myth.

http://injaf.org/articles-guides/do-fish-grow-to-the-size-of-their-tank/

and also the link i gave previously about one person's experience.

Whatever you belive it does not make it right to deny a fish the right to grow.The usual outcome is that the skeleton is stunted but not the internal organs which cause a lot of suffering and ultimately death.If people haven't the money or time to spend on a decent size tank they should not have the fish in the first place.Or they should only keep tropicals,and do the research on what size they will ultimately grow to.

bazster

Froglet wrote: »

OK a lot of research has gone into this subject and it is proved to be a myth.

http://injaf.org/articles-guides/do-fish-grow-to-the-size-of-their-tank/

and also the link i gave previously about one person's experience.

Whatever you belive it does not make it right to deny a fish the right to grow.The usual outcome is that the skeleton is stunted but not the internal organs which cause a lot of suffering and ultimately death.If people haven't the money or time to spend on a decent size tank they should not have the fish in the first place.Or they should only keep tropicals,and do the research on what size they will ultimately grow to.

I'm sorry but I think that's nonsense. I read the article you linked to and I find no research referenced there.

People have been keeping goldfish in traditional goldfish bowls for literally hundreds of years, and many of those fish have lived for decades. How is this possible if being "stunted" kills them? How did Tish survive for 43 years in a bowl? It certainly took him a long time to die of "stunting", didn't it?

And anyone who has had a long-lived goldfish in a bowl knows that they are not deformed, they don't have internal organs bursting out of their eyeballs, they are normally-proportioned goldfish. They're not "stunted", they're just small.

When I used to fish (we're talking decades ago, so some of this may sound a bit quaint to modern-day anglers) a 2lb roach was considered to be a rare specimen fish, and most anglers would never see or catch one in their life. But, Tring Reservoirs in Hertfordshire were famed for their prolific specimen roach, and it wasn't unheard-of for an angler to catch 50 2lb roach in a single session. So does this mean that in nearly every other water in the land, where a 1lb roach would be considered a fine catch, the roach were all stunted? Of course not, they were merely smaller, having adapted to their conditions.

I'm not saying that it's right to keep goldfish in bowls, and I'm not saying that goldfish don't deserve good conditions, but I just don't accept that a fish that is smaller than the maximum for its species is necessarily unhealthy.

krlyr

I would query whether this adapting is immediate though - stick a bunch of roach from the same 'batch' into 5 different environments and will they all vary in size, or is it a slower evolving process - the 2lb roaches didn't fare well in the other environments but the odd few smaller roach survived, bred to produce more smaller roach, and voila, evolution at work. I haven't a clue about the science behind fish growth but I really don't think keeping a goldfish in a tiny bowl "because others have done it and it was fine" is a good enough reason - I know of people who've kept dogs confined to crates nearly 24 hours a day, or rabbits in cramped 2' hutches with no mental stimulation, and so on. Just because they may have a long life in those situations, doesn't mean the environment is suitable.

bazster

krlyr wrote: »

I would query whether this adapting is immediate though - stick a bunch of roach from the same 'batch' into 5 different environments and will they all vary in size, or is it a slower evolving process - the 2lb roaches didn't fare well in the other environments but the odd few smaller roach survived, bred to produce more smaller roach, and voila, evolution at work. I haven't a clue about the science behind fish growth but I really don't think keeping a goldfish in a tiny bowl "because others have done it and it was fine" is a good enough reason - I know of people who've kept dogs confined to crates nearly 24 hours a day, or rabbits in cramped 2' hutches with no mental stimulation, and so on. Just because they may have a long life in those situations, doesn't mean the environment is suitable.

As I explained perfectly clearly, I'm not saying it's OK to keep goldfish in an unsuitable environment, and nowhere did I say that "it's OK because others have done it", so please don't try to put words in my mouth.

I'm simply saying that "small" doesn't necessarily mean "unhealthy". Froglet is confusing the maximum size for a species with "optimum" or "healthy" size, and what I'm saying is that there is no "optimum" or "healthy" size for a fish.

As for the immediacy of the effect of conditions on the size of fish, fish farmers know perfectly well what the optimum density of fish is to get the best commercial size. If they try to rear too many fish, they will get fish that are smaller than they want, and vice versa. Circumstances, not evolution.

Incidentally, fish are not dogs, or even rabbits for that matter. That's not to say that fish shouldn't be looked after properly, but to extrapolate what would be mentally cruel for a dog to a fish is just daft.

krlyr

bazster wrote: »

Incidentally, fish are not dogs, or even rabbits for that matter. That's not to say that fish shouldn't be looked after properly, but to extrapolate what would be mentally cruel for a dog to a fish is just daft.

Now who is putting words in who's mouth? My point was merely that just because animals can be kept in certain ways, does not mean they should. Nor was I actually saying that you said so, it was just a general comment on the overall attitude from many that it's fine because their childhood goldfish lived for 15 years in a small bowl with no (apparent) problems.

Froglet

Keeping a fish in a bowl IS cruel.End of.So is keeping a budgie in a tiny cage so it cannot fly,or a rabbit in a small hutch so it cannot stretch it's legs.You are denying whatever creature we are talking about,the right to do what is normal.The expession "it's only a fish" should not apply".

Just because bowls are legal and available in no way makes them right.And what i don't understand most of all is why people can look at their animal,bird,fish,whatever,day after day,in their big houses,and repot their precious plants when they grow but deny a living breathing animal the same thing.And think it perfectly acceptable.

Willowpop

OK, first off, OP I hope the fish is still alive. Don't splash out on a massive tank for it. It is a waste of money. This is a pond fish and should live in a pond. Whilst it it small it will be ok in a plastic storage container of about 80litres - you can get these for around a tenner in DIY stores/Wilkos etc.
Change 80% of the water each day, treating the water with a dechlorinator before adding it to the container.
The water must be dechlorinated as chlorine will cause the fish discomfort, despite the claims to the contrary on this thread. Also try to match the temperature of the 'tank' water to that of the fresh water ...noone likes a bucket of freezing cold water chucked over them.

Unfortunately fish are still given as prizes at fairgrounds and there are many movements to try to stop this. The law was changed relatively recently so fish cannot be given to under 16's..this was supposed to mean that a responsible adult would accept the fish or refuse it if they cannot care for it, however many fish are being taken from the fair without a second thought to their welfare until they get home and are mistreated(albeit unintentionally).

Katy721 you are quite right in post 3 where you say that these 'fairground fish' are notorious for not lasting very long. This is very true, and the really sad thing is that it's not the fault of the fish, it's the conditions they are kept in. So many are kept in tanks that are far too small (bear in mind they should be in a pond, so any tank is going to be too small long term unless you are looking at several hundreds of litres and something like 6 foot long), and these small tanks are often unfiltered, or untreated water is used which would kill any bacteria in the filter that is needed to keep the fish alive. As the fish is living in it's own toilet it will die, poisoned by it's own waste. Not especially quickly either. Sure, some will survive and you'll always find some people saying that I have kept a goldfish in a tank the size of a shoe box for 3 years and he is fine. Trust me, he is not. These should be big fish. A healthy fish of that size would not even fit in the shoebox sized tank.
There is a massive difference between surviving and thriving.....and for me that is possibly the most important thing. I don't want a fish in my care to survive. I'd want it to thrive.

An analogy that I read: If you kept a 5 year old child in the cupboard under the stairs for it's entire life and fed it nothing but crisps, would it survive? Yes I would think it would....would it be thriving like your kids or mine are? Would it be healthy? No, of course not- far, far from it. Now don't jump on me saying you can't compare fish to kids..I'm not, it's an analogy, not a comparison...just trying to demonstrate that because something is alive doesn't meanthat it is healthy and they are being looked after well.

Legally also there is a duty of care to the fish under the animal welfare act..the RSPCA has details on their website:
http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/faq/-/question/ENQWADAWAFishInGoldfishBowls

Unfortunately the RSPCA have lumped 'fish' together as a generic term when it comes to stocking as in a 120l tank for example you could have dozens of small tropical fish, but only 2 fancy goldfish, and no single tailed fairground goldfish longterm, but aquarium stocking is an incredibly complex topic. The RSPCA guidelines are a good start and I'm sure that individual fish would be considered as seperate cases as one rule does not fit all.
Froglet has give you some great links to the practicalfishkeeping.co.uk forum and there is loads of info there that is accurate. Sure, again if you look hard enough there are people all over the net mistreating fish, sometimes they know better and sometimes they simply think this is the way it's done, but thankfully good websites with knowledgeable fishkeepers like practical fishkeeping (and a few others) are around and we can only hope that people find these sites and some of these fishkeeping myths, many like the ones on this thread, get cleared up. And that can only be good for the fish.

nikki702

I have had my goldfish since I was 16 ... Im 32 now, they don't have a fancy tank just a normal tank with a pump and light I feed them one pinch of food per day