New addition - Flame Scallop

Dead. :( I tried my best with direct feeding using various foods but it didn't make it past two months(?). I have read some success stories but I think my tank at the time wasn't the right fit for it.
 
I got an electric flame scallop from aquatica a few months ago. At first I did try to move him to the spot I wanted him but he kept moving . So I just left him alone after a few days. He moved once more and found his spot. I then tried to feed him a bunch of different things only to have him squirt it out. I got worried after reading they don't live long. Well this I noticed. He does feed but when it wants to. I have a sleeper goby in the tank always kicking up sand and grinding up pellet food that goes into the water stream. I noticed something about it the other day after I fed the tank it looked like the scallop was out of the rocks face down in the sand but with the tenticals out. I sat in watched and I could see the food enter its mouth and touch the inner lips and be carried back . I was amazed. After a few mins I watched as he backed himself back into his hole he dug out in the rocks. He has grew a bit and is always flashing. I do notice he like the shade. If I so much hit him with light from my flash light he squirts even during lights on. I have some big hermits . One is about four inches. When I put the scallop in the tank they freaked out and tried to climb out. I thought it was funny. None of my animals mess with it. Though my clown sweeps it once in a while because it's next to the corals she is hosting. Its an interesting animal. I hope it keeps healthy and eating.
 
Sorry, but no you shouldn't have the right to try. If 99out of 100 animals die hobbyist should be responsible and not try. If nobody tried to keep them then the animal would not need to be farmed and can continue living. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

400gallonnano said:
Well maybe its are turn? We still have the right to try to don't we?
Click to expand...
 
Rich130981 said:
Sorry, but no you shouldn't have the right to try. If 99out of 100 animals die hobbyist should be responsible and not try. If nobody tried to keep them then the animal would not need to be farmed and can continue living. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Click to expand...

I'd bet 99 out of the first 100 people that tried to keep clown fish in a vessel other than the ocean also killed them. If someone is going to make an attempt at applying scientific method to potentially improve the husbandry of a species I'm all for it. If you think it looks cool and know in you heart of hearts you aren't going to do anything but watch it die, that's cruelty. It's all about intent. Innovation ONLY comes from outliers and exceptions to the rule. We have to take some risks to improve our methods and improvement means conservation for species more than simply banning their collection. I trust the authorities that determine whether a species is endangered (until I don't and then I will challenge that authority) and when you consider the fecundity of these animals and the relatively low per capita numbers of marine reef aquarists it makes the risk more palatable. Don't mistake this for a disrespect for each individual life for which we take responsibility, but ultimately we may better serve that responsibility by learning from a failure than simply never attempting the risk. IMHO and now something clever and funny to break the tension and a smiley face :a08:
 
To me it's all about the person/reefers dedication to reefing and overall knowledge that can qualify you or disqualify you for trying to push the limit on something or try out something new..
 
Herbie said:
I'd bet 99 out of the first 100 people that tried to keep clown fish in a vessel other than the ocean also killed them. If someone is going to make an attempt at applying scientific method to potentially improve the husbandry of a species I'm all for it. If you think it looks cool and know in you heart of hearts you aren't going to do anything but watch it die, that's cruelty. It's all about intent. Innovation ONLY comes from outliers and exceptions to the rule. We have to take some risks to improve our methods and improvement means conservation for species more than simply banning their collection. I trust the authorities that determine whether a species is endangered (until I don't and then I will challenge that authority) and when you consider the fecundity of these animals and the relatively low per capita numbers of marine reef aquarists it makes the risk more palatable. Don't mistake this for a disrespect for each individual life for which we take responsibility, but ultimately we may better serve that responsibility by learning from a failure than simply never attempting the risk. IMHO and now something clever and funny to break the tension and a smiley face :a08:
Click to expand...

So at what point does it become clear people should not try to keep an animal known to die in captivity? I have been reefing for 8 years. Those scallops have been for sale at least that long. After 8 years and still the general consensus is that these animals die. To me if the learning curve is that slow maybe people should choose not to buy the animal. People shouldn't have the pompous attitude that it is there right to try. Just because you have water in a tank doesn't not qualify you to have the right to do anything because you feel like it. Its because you have a tank that you should respect the limitations of the hobby, and be happy with what you know is generally consider able to live in captivity. I am not saying do not try to keep harder to live animals. I am talking only of the ones that have years of death.
 
Rich130981 said:
So at what point does it become clear people should not try to keep an animal known to die in captivity? I have been reefing for 8 years. Those scallops have been for sale at least that long. After 8 years and still the general consensus is that these animals die. To me if the learning curve is that slow maybe people should choose not to buy the animal. People shouldn't have the pompous attitude that it is there right to try. Just because you have water in a tank doesn't not qualify you to have the right to do anything because you feel like it. Its because you have a tank that you should respect the limitations of the hobby, and be happy with what you know is generally consider able to live in captivity. I am not saying do not try to keep harder to live animals. I am talking only of the ones that have years of death.
Click to expand...

I don't want to make those judgements and I don't trust anyone else to do it. People keep dogs and cats and birds in terrible conditions too. How long do flame sallops live in the wild? How many babies do they have at a time? Every animal we remove from it's natural habitat can be judged as suffering in some way by some people. Our clowns live a long time in captivity, but they have longer life expectancy on the reef, unless they are eaten by a shark. Are there wild corals that only exist in a tank because of extinction, or is the collection of corals causing extinction? I think it could be viewed as pompous to judge the value of one life over another or to think that we are in a position to make those judgements at all. I personally would not buy a flame scallop because i don't believe they are a good choice for a tank and I am dedicating my husbandry research to other organisms right now, but I want awareness and education of of their poor survival rate, and not legislation to dictate their availability in the trade. I might sign an agreement to never have one, but I wouldn't support a law banning their collection. I hope that makes sense. I just fear the slippery slope, in reefing and in society in general.
 
Our clowns live a long time in captivity, but they have longer life expectancy on the reef
Click to expand...
Actually, not necessarily true. Captive animals kept properly, should way outlive their wild counterparts. We shouldn't be introducing disease into our tanks, better food (served right to them!) & NO predators. I have many fish who have made it past their 20s.
 
Pufferpunk said:
Actually, not necessarily true. Captive animals kept properly, should way outlive their wild counterparts. We shouldn't be introducing disease into our tanks, better food (served right to them!) & NO predators. I have many fish who have made it past their 20s.
Click to expand...

there are exceptions to every rule but it's pretty clear that the consensus is that clown fish live longer on the reef:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/clown-fish-facts.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101007155818AAoNqV7
http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=3390
http://www.fishlore.com/Profiles-ClownFish.htm
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=963040

all things being equal and considering the average aquarist, these animals are "better off" left on the reef. All of them, period. Horses are better off running around Europe (not indigenous to North America), pheasant should go back to china, brown snakes out of Hawaii, etc. Modern domestic cows and chickens are the only exception (along with some freak dogs) in that they would not survive a conversion back to feral status from their current state and are, therefore; better off with human intervention. Every other animal is either better off in its natural habitat or should have gone extinct. Again, this is essentially a semantics issue, but I just can't get behind one "murderer" judging the morality of another. Maybe the worse reefer is better because the animal doesn't get a chance to starve to death. It's all about personal responsibility. That can never be legislated, only educated. We need to have these tanks so people know there are reefs and that the beauty of nature should be revered and respected. We need these animals so people know what they are fighting for when they cut the rings on their 6 packs. Conservation gets exponentially more money from hunters and fishermen than granola chewing hippies and the reef is protected more by the collectors who want to sell me a coral in a year than those trying to close the reefs from public enjoyment. Mother nature marches along. We just need to decide if we're in the parade or getting passed by it. Photos by professionals from a distant alien world is not going to cut it. I do sinceraly hope that when aliens come they are more inclined to my philosophies than those of the "That's cool lookin' let;'s buy it and see what it fights in the tank" set, but I do hope they're allowed to collect pets if the earth happens to be melting at the time. :)
 
Herbie said:
You need to document what you fed and post that for science. You appear to be the only one ever.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in hearing about that as well. I tried two back in the mid 90's and they lasted maybe 2 weeks.
 
yeah, based on what I've read they take about 9 months to starve to death so anything over that is basically setting records for the common aquarists. In a nano that's crazy. I think Julian Sprung has a couple that he has had longer, but he probably has a small islander sit next to it hand feeding it phyto of exactly the right size. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top