Bluegills

[troy]

What size tank do they need, how many, do they eat or move plants, and do they need any special needs?

[Drumachine09]

Blue gill can get about 8-10 inches. They are a schooling fish, so a tank would need to have about 6 or more, so 100 gallons would be ideal.

[troy]

Do they eat or disturb plants.

[nanaglen2001]

I googled a bit, its looks like as this species needs a planted Tank.

If you check google for:

Lepomis macrochirus

you will find lots of input.

[GoldLenny]

Blue Gills are like Goldfish since they are cool water fish but like Goldfish and Oscars as far as their eating/pooping habits.... in other words, they are messy fish and require a LOT of water and filtration. A single fish would be OK in a 100G tank but a school of 6 or more would need a MUCH larger tank to live out a full healthy life... probably 30G per fish as a bare minimum with over-filtration or 50G per fish as a bare minimum with regular filtration.

There is an organization called "North American Native Fish Association" ( http://www.nanfa.org ) which would have much more info on keeping them in tanks.

[Drumachine09]

Blue Gills are like Goldfish since they are cool water fish but like Goldfish and Oscars as far as their eating/pooping habits.... in other words, they are messy fish and require a LOT of water and filtration. A single fish would be OK in a 100G tank but a school of 6 or more would need a MUCH larger tank to live out a full healthy life... probably 30G per fish as a bare minimum with over-filtration or 50G per fish as a bare minimum with regular filtration.

There is an organization called "North American Native Fish Association" ( http://www.nanfa.org ) which would have much more info on keeping them in tanks.


Oscars dont even require 50 per fish. I think your figures are blown out of proportion. Have you ever had any experiance with bluegill?

[GoldLenny]

Every reputable profile and care sheet on Oscars call for 100G. They grow to 14" and are heavy waste producers and can get quite aggressive in undersized tanks.

http://fish.mongabay.com/species/Astronotus_ocellatus.html

Adult fish require a tank measuring at least 72" (183 cm) with a capacity of 100 gallons (378 L)

Now, as far as bluegill... this reputable profile says 75G so maybe I was under estimating the size needed for them.
http://www.aquatic-hobbyist.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10832

Minimum recommended tank size 75 gallons

[Drumachine09]

However, it neglects to say how many fish, what tankmates, and the like. They are just throwing out high balled figures. for 2, i would say no less than a 55 with a canny. End of story.

[Nautilus291]

I agree with drummachine As long as you keep up with maintenance they you should be ok. but dont go smaller then a 55g.

[GoldLenny]

Two 14" Oscars, which are carnivores, in a 4' long 55G tank is a disaster waiting to happen, IMO. One Oscar in a 55G will likely be stunted, two Oscar's in a 55G will likely end up with only one well fed Oscar. :D

Besides, a 55G is 48" x 12" footprint so the 14" Oscar (if it isn't severely stunted) will have to make rather sharp U-turns in order to turn around without hitting glass.

[Drumachine09]

Two 14" Oscars, which are carnivores, in a 4' long 55G tank is a disaster waiting to happen, IMO. One Oscar in a 55G will likely be stunted, two Oscar's in a 55G will likely end up with only one well fed Oscar. :D

Besides, a 55G is 48" x 12" footprint so the 14" Oscar (if it isn't severely stunted) will have to make rather sharp U-turns in order to turn around without hitting glass.

arent we talking about blue gills here?


Besides, the state record 2lb 5oz bluegill for kansas is only 11 inches long. It is very rare to catch any over 8 inches.

[gm72]

Right, not sure how we got to debating oscars.

Let's get back to troy's original blue gill questions, shall we?

[Nautilus291]

I would put 4 blue gill in there and when they get too big just eat a couple of them. :hmm3grin2orange:

[Drumachine09]

I would put 4 blue gill in there and when they get too big just eat a couple of them. :hmm3grin2orange:


Hear HEAR! Im game. Whos coming fishing?

[kenyth]

Optimal aquariums for fish is all well and good, but realisticly nobody is going to get an aquarium like that for Blue Gills except the die hard hobbyist. I say catch some smaller fish and keep them in a smaller aquarium. Since they are native fish in about every body of water in North America, you can simply release them when they get larger and catch more to replace them.

[Drumachine09]

Optimal aquariums for fish is all well and good, but realisticly nobody is going to get an aquarium like that for Blue Gills except the die hard hobbyist. I say catch some smaller fish and keep them in a smaller aquarium. Since they are native fish in about every body of water in North America, you can simply release them when they get larger and catch more to replace them.

Once a fish has been in an aquarium, you NEVER release them.

[gm72]

Totally agreed. Introducing any animal into any ecosystem is potentially destructive to the environment. Irresponsible to mother nature. The introduced fish could increase breeding which in turn could lead to more fry. More fry mean more consumption of their food which means a change in the balance of the ecosystem. The fry grow up and contribute negatively to the bioload. It goes on and on.

[kenyth]

Sorry, that's overkill on that particular rule. I'm not going to buy that three Blue Gill's are going to corrupt any wild US waters ecosystem where they are naturally found. Especially if he puts them back where he found them. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket.

If it bothers everyone that much, he can always just fry them up and eat them.

[gm72]

You need to do more research or read more about ecosystem stability and habitat management.

[troy]

Well I never was able able to catch a small one, so I probably won't have one for a while.

[Drumachine09]

Sorry, that's overkill on that particular rule. I'm not going to buy that three Blue Gill's are going to corrupt any wild US waters ecosystem where they are naturally found. Especially if he puts them back where he found them. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket.

If it bothers everyone that much, he can always just fry them up and eat them.


So, What if his fish got a contagious disease (like TB) and he just released them back into the wild? Taking one link out of the chain, can and WILL lead to the collapse of an entire ecosystem.

Do some research.

[kenyth]

My son used to catch young fish with a minnow trap, keep them in a small aquarium for a while, then release them back into the lake. He would get minnows, little perch, blue gill, sunfish, catfish, etc.

Strangely enough, I have yet to hear of an ecological disaster in the area. No typhoons, tsunamis, or hurricanes either. I guess we just got lucky. *wink*

OK, enough of the sarcasm. I know where you're coming from. I understand zero tolerance equals zero risk, but the reality of catch, keep, and release is that the risk is so miniscule as to be negligible. There are many more important ecological problems to worry about. Such as the common and excessive use of fertilizer, weed killer, and pesticides.

[gm72]

True, but false. Depends on the size of the body of water. Oh, large ships coming in and out of the Great Lakes? No problem, right? WRONG! They are releasing water from the balast tanks. The water contains organisms. They are starting to take over the lakes and are significantly negatively impacting the indigenous wildlife, and the ecological implications are absolutely enormous. I'll say again, you need to do more research.

[Drumachine09]

Take a day to go out to your local lake. Ill just give you a condensed list of all of the invasive species i am aware of.

-White pearch. Cheney lake had to release a couple extra hundered stripers to combat this population. Its getting so bad, you are asked to kill on sight.

-Hygrophilia (sp?) Invasive plant species that ruins the habitat of local lakes.

-Asian carp. Possibly the biggest nusiance fish there is.

-Zebra mussels. Invasive filter feeder. Starves the local population.


All of these (plus the MANY more i havent listed) could have been prevented.

Im not taking a shot at you, im just confronting you with the cold, hard, truth. The ecology of an ever increasing number of state lakes is being taken over by invasive species, because some people didnt take the proper precautions to prevent it. Thanks guys. Thanks for screwing it up for the responsible population. Why do you think they tell you not to dump your bait in the water when you are done fishing? Im sure there are more than a few minnows in the lake, but if you are constently adding more and more, they will starve out the smaller organisms. The lack of the smaller organisms will kill the minnows off. Followed by the game fish. Not fun, not fun at all.


Just be responsible. Wouldnt you rather have a nice dinner instead of realesing it back into the lake?

(Just for the record, you should never eat fish that have been kept in an aquarium, because of all of the chemicals and such that we put into the water)


:28:

[gm72]

Very, very well said, Drum. This is the same situation as saying "oh, it doesn't matter if I throw this empty can of soda out of the window of my car." Okay, great, but now what if everyone thinks that way. Now instead of one can we have 1,000 cans. THINK!

This same situation happens with deforestation. "Oh, 1 acre, no problem, let's log another 1,000 acres. Now 10,00 acres." Where does the problem actually start?

[Nautilus291]

They do have some big points. Just like the walleye in lake erie. You used to be able to go up to the lake and catch 30 of them with just a couple of guys. Now you go up the the lake with 40 people and only catch 30 of them.

[Drumachine09]

They do have some big points. Just like the walleye in lake erie. You used to be able to go up to the lake and catch 30 of them with just a couple of guys. Now you go up the the lake with 40 people and only catch 30 of them.


EXACTLY. A sudden imbalance in an ecosystem can make the whole ecosystem screwy.

In fact, grizzly bears were just de-listed as an endangered species, and they are already setting up a hunting season. The permit will be somewhere in the $4,000 range, but they need to be controlled none the less.

For the same reason there are hunting seasons. Take a healthy chunk out of the population, and then give it some time to revive.

I guess we got off of the bluegill topic, and more on to a conservation topic now huh?

Maybe we should just make a conservation thread

[troy]

I live where there is bluegills and if I let go later I'm not letting go a new invasive
fish. Okay.

[Drumachine09]

I live where there is bluegills and if I let go later I'm not letting go a new invasive
fish. Okay.


But, you could be potentially releasing parisites from your own aquarium. Ick is ALWAYS present in EVERY aquarium.

There are fungi, infections, and many other ailments that are contagious.

Im going to give you the bottom line. If you release a fish from ANY aquarium into ANY public body of water, you are irresponsible. END OF STORY.

[troy]

What do you think I am, stupid? Why would I put a wild fish with fish I bought from the store.

[gm72]

Drum, well said. troy, back off. You are talking about irresponsibly toying with the ecosystem. You also are not accurately reading the prior posts. Drum said nothing about releasing fish from your aquarium, but rather was very specific about releasing potential diseases from your aquarium. THINK and read. Your abrupt reaction is not appreciated.

Bottom line, again, is that if you remove an organism that is contributing to the ecosystem, remove that organism, and then release that organism back into the system, you are negatively impacting th ecosystem. THINK.

[cocoa_pleco]

drum and GM have perfectly good accurate points

[gm72]

Thank you, cocoa. At least some of us get the point.

[cocoa_pleco]

the ecosystem is not something that can wipe off a little change. one cabomba plant and a few foreign minnows palced into a small north american pond can wreak major havoc

[gm72]

Agreed, obviously. Although the negative impacts will not necessarily be noticed immediately, negative impacts WILL be evident given adequate time.

[cocoa_pleco]

yep, like in my example, the natural plants would have to compete with the cabomba and the other natural fish would have to compete with the minnows

[troy]

If I set-up a tank for it only, the only diseases my bluegill would have are ones that it had when I caught. Stop with I'm going to destroy the ecosystem, because it is no forgein species.

[Drumachine09]

If I set-up a tank for it only, the only diseases my bluegill would have are ones that it had when I caught. Stop with I'm going to destroy the ecosystem, because it is no forgein species.


YOU DONT LISTEN. You have thrown excuses left and right, and GM and I (along with the help of others) have hit them in your direction with point-by-point rebuttals.

When you take several animals out of an ecosytem, more are are made to take its place. Because, the ecosystem is made to support a certain number of each species. Then, when you go add on to that number, you are adding more that it can handle. Soon, the food will all be exhausted, because of the extra large population. Then there will be a die off.

I am an EXTREMELY avid fisherman. I know FIRSTHAND the effects of invasive species, diseases and the like. Most of them are cause by people who think they are infallible, IE, you. Every time i see someone take a fish thats under the size limit, i cringe. Every time i see someone dump in their bait when they are done fishing, i cringe. Do you know what i have caught in small neighborhood ponds? Gar. Yes. Gar. The long nosed prehistoric looking predator. How did they get there? irresponsible people. "This would be cool. I could release some gar, and catch it later". WRONG. Adding even 1 gar could SEVERLY upset the balanced ecosystem. I have seen almost entire ponds and small lakes destroyed by diseases. I have caught my fair share of koi in a neighborhood lake.

There are two kinds of people.

1.) The people who think they are doing right. When they are confronted with the facts, they do what is right, instead of what they belived was right in the first place. These people are responsible. We all make mistakes, but you are supposed to learn from mistakes.

2.) The people who think they are right no matter what anyone says. These people are irresponsible. And right now, you are being iresponsible.

This is where you can make your choice. Who would you like to be troy? Would you like to be number one, or number two?

You cant take your own path. However, if you chose the latter of the two, you will lose all respect from me.

[gm72]

Very, very well spoken, Drum.

But I will also add that troy will not only lose respect from Drum but the rest of us as well. Irresponsibility is just that, plain and simple. A lack of willingness to learn is also just that, plain and simple.

Troy, let's give an example to demonstrate something. Your comment was directed at diseases and "no foreign species." Okay, so I have a gourami tank. I remove 4 of those fish and wait a month. Now I re-release them into the tank. I am upsetting the existing occupants. I am going to create an ammonia spike that may very well kill off some of the other fish. Now, take that example into a far more dependent ecosystem such as a pond. In that pond, there are thousands of organisms, all of which rely on each other to balance out the ecosystem. Something is there to eat fish, plants, etc. The very issue that you are trying unsuccessfully to argue is exacerbated, and it CAN destroy an ecosystem.

Troy, please perform some research before you go discussing issues that you clearly do not understand. Excuses are not going to get you anywhere. Educated discussions and questions will however, prove that you are willing to learn. As such you may be able to become a valued member of the community.

As you continue to dig a hole for yourself you will quickly find that people will not respond to your questions and comments. If you chose to be an outcast so be it, but this forum maintains a very high level of "professionalism" to keep out people who aren't willing to learn and move their knowledge base forward.

[cocoa_pleco]

and taking in wild fish messes with their metabolism. stock store fish are used to a good constant 77F-80F, but wild fish are used to cool mornings, hot afternoons, and cool nights and evenings. its their cycle. if you stick them in a aquarium, the lights suddenly go on and off, theres small space, a constant temp., and theres whack parameters. think of what youre doing to the ecosystem and fish.

BTW, good articles GM and drum

[kkyyllee]

few fish out of a few thousand in a lake isnt going to ruin an ecosystem

[Drumachine09]

few fish out of a few thousand in a lake isnt going to ruin an ecosystem

That sure is an ambiguous statement.

[cocoa_pleco]

few fish out of a few thousand in a lake isnt going to ruin an ecosystem


thats like saying a few exotic fish going into a lake of a thousand fish isnt going to do harm. it still will

[gm72]

Agreed. Do these new posters not research ecosystem balance? Wow, amazing.

kkyyllee, wrong. Please do some reading, increase your knowledge base, and check back with us. Same problem as we have with troy.

[kkyyllee]

there already living in the lake its not a new species introduced

[kkyyllee]

there not an invasize species being released, he said he wont be keeping it with fish from stores so ich or new diseases wouldnt be a problem, one fish will not throw off an entire ecosystem of a lake, they already live there, if one fish is eaten by a bird will the whole ecosystem crash? if one more fish out of all the fry hatches than usually does will the lake being thrown off? no

[gm72]

Honest to goodness, this thread is killing me. How do people not understand ecosystem balance? I'm not trying to be rude, seriously, I just don't understand how this is not understood. Boggles the mind.

[kkyyllee]

how is 1-3 fish going to thow off a lake...

[kkyyllee]

maybe if it was an aquarium or a small pond i can see an effect

[gm72]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Good to see that you are starting to get the picture. The original post was about what?

So please explain the difference between a small body of water an a large one? In objective, proven, researched terminology. Opinions on a topic like this mean nothing.

[kkyyllee]

the post was about care in an aquarium. i know that, but what you have started arguing about is that if you release back if they grow to large they will destroy the ecosystem which is a bunch of nonsense

[Drumachine09]

there not an invasize species being released, he said he wont be keeping it with fish from stores so ich or new diseases wouldnt be a problem, one fish will not throw off an entire ecosystem of a lake, they already live there, if one fish is eaten by a bird will the whole ecosystem crash? if one more fish out of all the fry hatches than usually does will the lake being thrown off? no



Ich is always present, in EVERY tank. No matter what.

[kkyyllee]

then its present in the lake

[Drumachine09]

the post was about care in an aquarium. i know that, but what you have started arguing about is that if you release back if they grow to large they will destroy the ecosystem which is a bunch of nonsense

Also, you must know nothing the effects of said problems. Like i said, i know all to well the effects small changes can have on an ecosystem. Untill you have some true input, i wouldnt recomend posting in this thread.

[Drumachine09]

then its present in the lake

Correct, but when the fish get stressed, they are more suseptibe. when you move them from body of water to body of water 2 times, they will get stress, and they will most likely catch ick. Then the others will slowly start to catch it.

Im not even mentioning the fact that when a group of new comsumers is added, the food source depletes it self MUCH faster.

[kkyyllee]

were talking about a lake so foodsource isnt going to be a problem, it would take them a while to get big enough that they woulkdnt fit in a 55 so it really wouldnt stress them out that much

[gm72]

kkyyllee, seriously, post with intelligence and research. Reactions of your manner are not appreciated nor are they contributing to the knowledge base of the forum. A post like yours, "then its present in the lake" is purely argumentative and poses no informational value whatsoever.

[cocoa_pleco]

ich is always in the tank, but with a UV sterilizer 90% can be taken out, but still, it is not good to take wild animals into aquariums. done

[Drumachine09]

Ok, before i go and start ranting and raving, this will by my last post in this thread.

Listen to me and listen carfully.

THE ECOSYSTEM IS NOT YOUR'S TO TOY WITH!


It is ours to protect and to respect. And anyone who would do ANYTHING to jepordize an ecosystem, loses my respect.

[kkyyllee]

okay, but seriously a few fish being caught and taken back isnt going to do anything to lake, lakes are big, it wont deplete food scources, or release a new species which will takeover, they wont get ich and kill the whole stupid lake. done. seriously just chill out. ive caught bluegills and had em in tanks for a while then i released em back when they started getting to large, its the same as moving a fish to a new aquarium.

[Drumachine09]

okay, but seriously a few fish being caught and taken back isnt going to do anything to lake, lakes are big, it wont deplete food scources, or release a new species which will takeover, they wont get ich and kill the whole stupid lake. done. seriously just chill out. ive caught bluegills and had em in tanks for a while then i released em back when they started getting to large, its the same as moving a fish to a new aquarium.


I know i said my previous post was going to be my last post in this thread, but i must mention ^^^^^^^^^toying with the ecoysystem=no respect from me. Period.

[kkyyllee]

you have a marine tank, you have liverock? you disrupted the ecosystem, you have fish, most of them came from the ocean, you disrupted the ecosystem, shrimp, coral, most of it comes from the ocean, you disrupted the ecosystem too..

[Drumachine09]

you have a marine tank, you have liverock? you disrupted the ecosystem, you have fish, most of them came from the ocean, you disrupted the ecosystem, shrimp, coral, most of it comes from the ocean, you disrupted the ecosystem too..


Ok, i take back that last post, because i guess i am going to have to explain EVERYTHING to you. Live rock is cultured in somewhat of a factory. Giant tubs filled with LR.

Most fish ARENT taken from the ocean.

Seriously, stop making a fool of yourself.

[gm72]

False. If you had any idea to which you were speaking you would realize that Drum's fish are almost all able to be captive bred. Corals can be propagated and shrimp are easily bred.

Let me be blatant here. Are you here to contribute or are you just here to argue? Thus far you have demonstrated an affinity to argue without significant information to back up your posts. If indeed you are here to argue you may as well consider yourself banned, because none of us are going to bother replying to you when you do have a question. Make a decision, and make it now.

[kkyyllee]

im done.sorry.

[gm72]

Apology accepted. Let's be more responsible with your posts in the future, please. We are here to help.

[kkyyllee]

alright but, maybe its different in some areas most of the fish and liverock at my lfs is from the ocean, except there clowns and damsels and occasionally a few others

[Gawd_oOo]

You need to change up the way these two are seeing things.

Lemme try my explanation.

Think of how a disease spreads through people. Say we take one person out of your house. We then move that person into another house full of people that have Avain Flu or TB. Now lets "release" that person back into your house.

Now to go back to the Bluegill subject, your best bet would be to take the fish from a lake that already has a stunted population. The lake our cottage is on it is rare to find one larger then 5".

[troy]

That the regular size of the ones I catch when I go fishing. Not every bluegill is going to be 16 inches long.

[ChromeLibrarian]

Whatever you do, make sure you check local wildlife laws. For instance, where I live, not all fish can be taken alive from the wild, and none of those that can be taken alive can legally be released again.

[Drumachine09]

That the regular size of the ones I catch when I go fishing. Not every bluegill is going to be 16 inches long.



I would give you my first born child if you could catch a 16 inch long bluegill...Nuff said.

[gm72]

...and I'll throw in a million dollars. Wow, and I thought we were done with this thread, Drum!

[troy]

In this book I have it says that is their maximum size, but I've never seen one more than 7 inches.

[gm72]

Troy, this doesn't even make any sense. You've never seen one larger than 7 inches and you have some book that says 16 inches is their maximum size? What are we even talking about here?

[ChromeLibrarian]

Unless I'm mistaken, the world record Bluegill is less than 13 inches.

[Drumachine09]

Unless I'm mistaken, the world record Bluegill is less than 13 inches.


http://www.thecrappiekiller.com/n_images/biggil_sm.jpg


EXACT replica of the world record bluegill.



Property of:

www.thecrappiekiller.com

[troy]

You aren't going to catch fish their maximum potential size every time you catch
one. We need to quit on the thread.

[Drumachine09]

You aren't going to catch fish their maximum potential size every time you catch
one. We need to quit on the thread.


*toot**toot*

Here comes the clue train, last stop you.


We know troy, that is the point WE pointed out, and you repeated.


Any mods wanna lock this thread? Im getting sick of it.

[RobbieG]

Sorry, that's overkill on that particular rule. I'm not going to buy that three Blue Gill's are going to corrupt any wild US waters ecosystem where they are naturally found. Especially if he puts them back where he found them. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket.

If it bothers everyone that much, he can always just fry them up and eat them.

Its not really a good idea to eat fish that have been in an aquarium.

Also even though the fish may be native to North America the diseases in your tank aren't - releasing 3 native fish back inot the lake they were caught in might not trash the ecosystem, but releasing 3 native fish infected with some kind of malaysian parasites would.

[gm72]

*toot**toot*

Here comes the clue train, last stop you.


We know troy, that is the point WE pointed out, and you repeated.


Any mods wanna lock this thread? Im getting sick of it.

All ABOARD!!!!! :27:

[kkyyllee]

can we get this thread closed?

[Drumachine09]

can we get this thread closed?



Ive already pmed the active mods.

[Lady Hobbs]

To me this whole conversation is off base to began with since blue gills are not aquarium fish to start with and it's doubtful it would live long in a tank. Neither are trout, bass, salmon or any other "wild" species and it's illegal in most states to keep them in a tank. Rather like finding a bear cub and putting him in a pen behind your garage.

Releasing any fish in the wild that is diseased will not effect only that fish. It could infect hundreds of others. Recently here in MI hundreds of fish were stacked up dead on the beach and the thought was that tame diseased fish had been released from family fish tanks. However, Troys post did not speak of releasing diseased fish. Only about the care of blue gills.

I also think it's time to close the thread since it's now proven you can't have an intelligent conversation here.