48-Pound Trout: World Record or Genetic Cheat?

[chrispee]

Thoughts?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...iotechfishing/

[DarkAisling]

Interesting.

What it boils down to for me in the end is that Mr. Konrad caught a 48 pound trout on his line, fought it, and landed it.

The scientific name for a rainbow is "oncorhynchus mykiss", and as long as he caught a oncorhynchus mykiss I think the record is valid. Genetic engineering is here for the long run, and unless genetically engineered lifeforms get a different scientific name I don't think there is a whole lot of room for argument.

[Cal]

I've always maintained that they should not allow geneticly modifyed fish into the record book. Especialy when the fish in question only live in a couple lakes in one province. Now the only way to have a chance at a record trout is to fish Lake Deifenbaker which puts the rest of the world at a huge dissadvantage.

ps Can anyone imagine what would happen if they started stocking 3 chromizone pike, I wouldnt want those in the record book either but I wouldnt mind fishing for them. They could stock them in Lake Deifenbaker to take care of the frankenstien rainbows as well as the odd swimmer.

[mooseknuckle]

Originally Posted by Cal

I've always maintained that they should not allow geneticly modifyed fish into the record book. Especialy when the fish in question only live in a couple lakes in one province. Now the only way to have a chance at a record trout is to fish Lake Deifenbaker which puts the rest of the world at a huge dissadvantage.

ps Can anyone imagine what would happen if they started stocking 3 chromizone pike, I wouldnt want those in the record book either but I wouldnt mind fishing for them. They could stock them in Lake Deifenbaker to take care of the frankenstien rainbows as well as the odd swimmer.

I was on the fence until I read Cal's post I agree!! Maybe it should be a record however with strings attached or with the advancement of genetics and all the scientific BS maybe we need a seperate catagory for Modified species!!?? Heck of a nice fish regardless.

[Beazer]

Seperate category would seem fair I believe.

Doesn't take away from him landing it and it appeases the purists out there.

[monstermulie]

They should model the record book after the Pope and Young book. In it if you shoot an animal with a bow that has a 65% let off it goes in the book, if you shoot an animal with a 80% let off it goes in the book but has an "*" beside it which indicates to the reader that it was shot with a bow that had 80% let off

[Sundancefisher]

Just so everyone knows...these genetically enginnered triploids are not rare...most of Alberta has now gone triploid.

Most stocked lakes in Alberta and many in BC are triploid. What makes this lake different is probably the type and quantity of available food. The triploids are clearly feeding in a previously unused niche.

At this point and time it is very hard to make a differentiation between the two. Also in Alberta many rainbows and/or cutts are not pure. So...does that disqualify them from being a potential record if they were split?

Sun

[Cal]

To me allowing geneticly modifyed fish to be a record is the same as allowing steroid use in the olympics. If you want to do that you may as well allow splake to count as brook trout and tiger muskies to count as pike too cause the truth is that you are no longer dealing with the same species of fish. Any fish that has been intentionaly tampered with by the hand of man should be in its own category and yes I realise that this would disqualify many hatchery trout that are not triploid as well.

[fishman]

I have a question for all of you if you were at lake diffenbaker and you hooked into a 50 lb rainbow and landed it what would you do

[bsnyder]

WOW, i wouldnt be to disapointed if that was me in that picturetough subject, he did catch it on a rod and hook , and records are about the anglers skill more than the fish so i say let him have it( and i want one too , hehe)

[Izumi]

I think that the 'Barry Bonds' Astrix would be in order.

[mooseknuckle]

Originally Posted by fishman

I have a question for all of you if you were at lake diffenbaker and you hooked into a 50 lb rainbow and landed it what would you do

I'd probably S#$T my pants take a picture then let it go.. the fish that is.

[Cal]

I admit I would be very tempted to try and get it in the record book as hypocritical as that would be.

[bruce44]

If i caught that fish no doubt i would submit it. But on the other hand i would still feel a tiny bit guilty that it was modified. I think the best way to go about this is to make 2 seperate categories. Its only fair.

[chrispee]

i wonder if it tastes any good

[PoorTurtle]

So what about the other records they have.
are you saying catching a 43lbs trout on 6lbs gear should not be a record?

[DarkAisling]

Well, I've been reading lots about the giant rainbows in that lake. I've changed my mind about whether they should be considered for the record. My new answer is "No, most certainly not."

The monster trout in that lake are rainbowXsteelhead. Steelhead have been known to reach 36lbs. While the trout in that lake are not ocean going, they're as much steelhead as they are rainbow . . . the primary difference being ocean going/not ocean going, and size. That becomes complicated, of course, as rainbows and steelhead now have the same scientific name (this was revised a couple of years ago).

I'm quite sure that anyone hoping to land a giant trout in that lake isn't fishing with 6lb gear.

[PoorTurtle]

"I'm quite sure that anyone hoping to land a giant trout in that lake isn't fishing with 6lb gear"
they hold that record 43lbs 10oz caught on 6lbs line......that is impressive

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by PoorTurtle

they hold that record 43lbs 10oz caught on 6lbs line......that is impressive

Oops. Missed that part. Yes, that is impressive, and is certainly indicative of a very skilled angler.

If there was a category for engineered trout (which there probably should be), I'd have no complaints about the fish being submitted for the record. This one has been engineered beyond simply being a triploid, though.

EDIT: As for what I'd do if I caught one of these . . . I'm on the fence. I'm might keep it to have it stuffed/mounted. Normally I would never consider that, but an engineered genetic freak might change my mind. I might put it back, but as they are sterile I don't really see the point in that. I'd rather see the lake's natural rainbow population thrive (if there are any natural rainbow in there), and these ones must make a serious dent in the available food. I don't think I'd eat it, as it probably wouldn't taste that great (even though rainbow/steelhead are my favourite fish to eat). Would I submit it for the record? I don't know. I suppose I would be somewhat influence by what those around me thought at the time.

[Sundancefisher]

So without a doubt there is probably an Alberta sized record yellow perch in Lake Sundance. I have caught a 16 incher. The record is 16 1/4 inch. I have been broken off in view of a really big perch at least 3 times this year.

So if a record is caught...it is not genetically altered...the record should stand then should it not?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So without a doubt there is probably an Alberta sized record yellow perch in Lake Sundance. I have caught a 16 incher. The record is 16 1/4 inch. I have been broken off in view of a really big perch at least 3 times this year.

So if a record is caught...it is not genetically altered...the record should stand then should it not?

Not sure what your asking here? To my knowlege nobodys realy tampered with most species of fish including perch so go catch yourself a reccord. A 43 lb fish on six pound line is very impressive, but it has been done before on a number of other species.

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So without a doubt there is probably an Alberta sized record yellow perch in Lake Sundance. I have caught a 16 incher. The record is 16 1/4 inch. I have been broken off in view of a really big perch at least 3 times this year.

So if a record is caught...it is not genetically altered...the record should stand then should it not?

As long as it isn't caught in your netting program, I don't see why it wouldn't be eligible for the record. Is there something you're eluding to that I'm not getting?

[Wood1]

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

As long as it isn't caught in your netting program, I don't see why it wouldn't be eligible for the record. Is there something you're eluding to that I'm not getting?

I believe the issue with a record Sundance perch would be that it was caught in a private water body. I'm quite sure it would not qualify, and I would agree. Private waters can be managed for trophy fish production vs wild caught fish. My pond is managed for optimum growth through a feeding program, lack of competing fish, water quality management, net pens, etc. I don't think it would be fair for me to enter a fish for trophy consideration.

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by Wood1

I believe the issue with a record Sundance perch would be that it was caught in a private water body. I'm quite sure it would not qualify, and I would agree. Private waters can be managed for trophy fish production vs wild caught fish. My pond is managed for optimum growth through a feeding program, lack of competing fish, water quality management, net pens, etc. I don't think it would be fair for me to enter a fish for trophy consideration.

Okay, I follow that.

The Sundance perch, for the most part, are pretty stunted I think. I don't think I've seen any over 8". As the perch in Sundace are considered pests, they certainly aren't encouraging their growth. But, being that the Sundance perch are eating the same thing as the stocked rainbow, maybe your point could apply to the perch there.

So, while I agree with you . . . I think Sun is a great guy, and if he catches a monster perch I'd probably encourage him to submit it for the record anyway, simply because I'd like to see him have the record.

[huntsfurfish]

I dont think records should be allowed to stand or be submitted from from private lakes either.

[JohninAB]

If I am not mistaken and I stand to be corrected here but I think the world record is for the size of the fish caught on the weight of the line. Not for rainbow trout. If it is a record for caught on size of line then yes it should stand. Not for rainbow trout record though.

[WayneChristie]

these Triploids can ocasionally occur naturally, so if you caught one that was a natural, would you be willing to not submit it for the record? I think not. How could you prove it was natural or not, what if it was a natural in the same body of water that the escaped ones were in? Its a 50 pound rainbow trout, its the biggest rainbow trout ever caught, therefore its a record. Maybe a note that it was a triploid, but its still the biggest. And I second the motion for triploid pike!!!!!!! or how about quadruploid pike!!!! anyone got a used harpoon they dont need?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by WayneChristie

these Triploids can ocasionally occur naturally, so if you caught one that was a natural, would you be willing to not submit it for the record? I think not. How could you prove it was natural or not, what if it was a natural in the same body of water that the escaped ones were in? Its a 50 pound rainbow trout, its the biggest rainbow trout ever caught, therefore its a record. Maybe a note that it was a triploid, but its still the biggest. And I second the motion for triploid pike!!!!!!! or how about quadruploid pike!!!! anyone got a used harpoon they dont need?

The biggest lake trout ever caught was a triploid, it was caught in a net out of lake athabasca. Had it been caught on a line I would say this is still a reccord, it was an anomily and someone was lucky enough to catch the freak. As far as I know theres no genetic engineering going on in lake athabaska other than what all the shat that ends up in the athibaska river does.

[ACM]

I was raised in Uranium City and the fish in the lake glow in the dark from all the radiation!!! Athabasca River is amazing clean when it enters the lake. Not much water there now and when you realize in the old days barges were floated down the B to the lake then across to Uranium City. Would be hard to get a barge thru there these days. I had my 16 ft aluminum and we had a heck of a time getting thru the fletcher channell. The delta and the lake are truly amazing and the fishing was steady all the way down from Ft Mac. The delta is like no other place I have ever seen. You can walk a mile into the lake and its still only inches deep. A highly reccommended trip for anyone but make sure to bring the bug dope!!!
The trout and Pike are huge especially on the Sask side plus the grayling at Stoney are world class!!!

[pikester]

Don't know if this point has been brought up but I believe the only way you can start disallowing genetically altered fish is by providing & testing a DNA sample from EVERY record fish which has ever been recorded which, of course, is almost impossible esspecially given the current trend towards catch & release. Perhaps a fin clipping from a pending record fish would do it? Also, if you're going to get into genetic testing, who is going to foot the bill; the IGFA would be the most likely I suppose.