Trautman

either way, stray voltage is no issue, my pump is new and the only other things in the tank are a new heater and a skimmer pump, which is also new. plus i do not feel that zap you get if you have stray voltage

that is my primary dry food. this is good to hear.

i have a koran Angelfish with head and lateral line erosion. it is a happy guy, he just has some of it on his face.

i see some people saying to stabilize tank conditions, and to let it be, while others suggest treatment.

anybody ever had this?

I heard melafix might work...

please share any experience or suggestions.

He is in a quarantine tank right now, and is eating well, all treatment options are up for consideration

they look cool, but it seems like it could be a hit or miss. cuttlefish ink also (right?). so get a big skimmer!

GFO= Granular Ferric Oxide. this BONDS with the phosphate ions (AKA PO4) and results in a compound that is insoluble in water. it will not release PO4 back into the water since it is bonded. when all of the GFO has reacted with the phosphate present. it is spend and is no longer useable. so 1) GFO definately does not re-release PO4 back into the water, and 2) the more contact with the water, the better- so go with the one that best allows for this whichever it may be. as OIAB suggested, Phosguard does have good spread

i have a biocube 29. pm if interested. it will be a bit before i can sell it though...

love the share...

oops! share the love

an it is round, so you could just slap one MH and BOOM. the coral would pop

that would be an AWESOME refugium

This is a GREAT skimmer, i have one, and i LOVE it, the neck is super sturdy, and you really trust it. This is a quality brand, and a quality skimmer. BUMP!!!!

it will do great on ANY system under 200. over skimming is never bad!

I have made that mistake too. it was not pleasant.

and the google searches don't help either.

it is cool to hear the history,

i hope you stick around

if you only focus on one thing at a time it will only take longer to improve. it doesnt matter what the lesser of two(or more) "evils" is. because it is still not good for the ecosystem, and it will make a difference whatever level it may be on. and if people can live with more regulation on catching fish, even if it is just because they don't do the hobby, it will be more passable. sunscreen on the ocean... that is a little more touchy for most. then there is a public health concern about melanoma and other skin cancers. my point is that it is a long road and every step matters. and wouldnt it be better to regulate now, so that it doesnt reach such a low number in the future that there is a sudden ban(that is actually passable)?

i have no aiptasia to kill, but they are doing fine. i am glad you like the xenia! if you ever want to trade a frag for a frag, i have plenty more, and different corals too.

good luck!

OKAY!!!! wow

let me get this straight:

we have multiple conversations in this thread going on. WOAH!!

the role of government and anarchy is for another thread.

But i would be SO down to talk about it. i am personally a benign dictator fan myself.

lets cool this thread down before someone gets too riled up!

but gill quotes what you said about a human toll on the environment rather than collectors.

i dont think he was blaming collectors

it is just silly to point a finger at one person. it is all of the factors combined, no matter how small any one peticular element is.

bureaucracy blows.

but i would certainly consider what is being discussed as morality

the article was certainly more upbeat than the raw facts, i will say that.

i think that marine breeding needs to advance. if we can get most of the livestock from breeding, then we will be infinitely better off

hey, lets start having peacock groupers as pets, now THATS humane

1000, if you get the right customer

share the love!

Hawaii has 806 miles of protein skimmer.

true....true...true... i still stand by my statement however

While i do agree with you jackaninny, i think that there is always going to be harm in the system, even if it can "buffer". the fact of the matter is that the toxins(proportionally) to the tank (the ocean) are small enough that the effect may not be realized short term. But as population and tourism increase (Good idea for the bill BTW Kevin) there will be more toxins introduced at a greater rate. The difference is that the ocean isnt going to go out and buy a new protein skimmer, and it isnt going to do a 20% water change. It is going to have less and less functionality. and sadly, it will suffer

you say that it isn't as big of a deal as we say it may be? this is maybe true. but it WILL be a big deal, so why don't we stop(or slow) the snowball at the top of the hill?

As far as other factors such as hotels ETC. yes, they may be worse, and this is also a problem. but it is useless to only fight a war on one front

The chance of this bill passing are slim IMO. It is too radical for the voters.

and as far as the snorkel dude: all the better. it just makes them look more stupid.

and "snorkel bob" that's a pretty stupid name too ( like is said, the veiwpoint is just too radical for the people in the middleground).

The fight for conservation, should be held with noble ( moderate) opposition, i certainly agree

haha, just 17, thank you

and i don't intend to start any drama, its only my opinion

what is the K of the light? 20K?

But [language filter] that is a sick lookin' frag, i wish the other frags would start doing that in my tank lol.

i would have stayed to compliment your tank, but it didn't seem to be the best time with your whole family there

it looks good!

Listen, this may not be a popular opinion(especially on an aquarium enthusiast web page), but here it goes:

Taking fish from the wild really isn't that immoral. But it is when it spans beyond the local area and into a national market that there is potential danger for messing up an ecosystem, thus it becomes immoral to participate in the masses. We all know how delicate a reef is, just think about your tank- if you take out some of your fish, then there will be a new adjustment in how the system handles a decrease in nutrients and inevitably, there will be shifts. In the case of a wild reef with collectors, this becomes even more true. If you think about the types of fish and corals available on a regular basis, there isn't that much in comparison to the large numbers of species available. There are THOUSANDS if not more species of fish. so if the collectors focus on the fish that known to the hobbyist, that are the most desirable, then there is an in balance in that species because a fish collector will get fish that will sell. If you take out a crucial part of the food chain (even if you decrease the amount of that fish), there will be negative effects. perhaps the damage would be minimal if every fish species was collected equally, then there would be a partially proportional effect. However when one area is taken out, there is a big difference. If you take out one fish, you really aren't taking out just one. That fish will reproduce, thus you are taking out multiple fish.

Then you take into account the number that die in transit, the horrible effect of cyanide and other poisons for collecting purposes... its a big deal. (even if it isnt in hawaii)

This being said, this is NOT meant to be an attack in any (i repeat ANY) sort of way to you kevin. Your corals are beautiful, and i have no doubt that you are a conscious reefer/collector. Perhaps even every collector in Hawaii is humane and good with collecting. But the truth of the matter is that in other areas, there are people who are not as considerate. This is the problem

I myself, will only buy fish from Hawaii(perhaps hypocritically), and preferably tank raised.

This bill, even if it stomps on our hobby, is a move to perserve fish.

Isnt that what our hobby is about? admiring wildlife? what better way than to Help SAVE our reefs than to minimize collecting?

Perhaps the bill is a little too closed, but i think regulation is required worldwide in order to maintain the ecosystems