Extremely Large, Old Fish

[Nemo]

So was it a male or a female? Just wondering.

[huntervasili]

Lets also remember that over time DNA in all species degrades and as such more mutated, unhealthy genes are added to the gene pool, hence it may in fact be helpful to a popuation to remove the very old fish. Hmm, maybe that would make a good topic for some thesis study... Got me thinking.

[solopaddler]

I'm not familiar with big, old fish getting sterile in their old age. I know the bigger the fish the more eggs they produce. But i'm not sure how long that goes on. You can't compare the repoduction in mammals to that of fish....different sytems which evolved under different pressures. Human females stop producing offspring for a reason.....evolutionarily speaking.

 

That said big fish make up only a small fraction of the reproductive potential of a population and the 1st couple reproductive year classes do most of reproducing for a populaiton. Then various factors take their toll and individuals are lost. A big fish like that has some very good genes to live that long, and her contribution to the gene pool, although small is all the more important in my opinion. Cause without her only her young hold the genes, and not all of them. The more offspring she produces, the more likley of another winning genetic combo being made that will produce more fish like her. The longer they live the more offspring they produce, and that means higher fitness level.

 

I don't like seeing these beasts being killed just cause they are trophies....no matter what species they are....whether the reg's allow it or not. In my opinion its a loss to the populaiton, and when i hear of people releaseing their monsters in good shape, it puts a little smile on my face.

 

I might do alittle digging to see what i can find, but i'm pretty sure fish reproduce until they die.

 

-Dave

 

 

Interesting Dave.

 

As far as not liking to see the beasts killed, neither do I.

I would flat out, unequivocally release all trophy fish. In my day I've released a 51" pike, numerous brook trout in the 6-8lb range, 3 steelhead between 42 and 45", numerous walleye 12-14lb...the list goes on

But I'm not talking simply trophy fish, I'm talking about probable world record fish. Big difference (at least to me).

[danbo]

Normally female is bigger with Musky..

[Beats]

Touchy subject ...........seems that if it is a world record fish in other species it is okay to keep it and hang it on the wall. A musky of that size would become valuable to a taxidermist that makes reproduction molds. You see in order to have a reproduction mold made there must first be a specimen of the actual size. In most cases a fish would have to die to make the mold. Once the mold is made than there are many anglers that can claim that they have caught a fish of the same size which we know is not practical. As a result of this most anglers that catch record fish get them mounted so that reproductions of the same fish do not appear everywhere in the world. A taxidermist with the world record mold will benefit from the mold making many copies for those that wish to pay. The cost of a record fish mold is a free replica to the angler that caught the fish. The angler than gets to boast that he caught a world record fish while the taxidermist will financially gain form making many copies. This is hrte reason why I recommend skin mounts of the world record fish so that copies do not get made and that you as the angler get the publicity that you wish knowingly that you have the only world record fish. The same thing happens to world record whitetail deer only copies of the antlers are made and of course those having the mold will gain financially.

 

Just my thoughts I would probably release the fish and work very hard on adding inches to the closest size form that is available on the market and work from that replica. I know that Advanced Taxidermy does it and I have also done that in the past, however it is a lot of work. I would not look down on someone who keeps the fish instead of releasing it after all it is a world record and most world records are kept in other species.

 

Best regards,

Sam

 

I took a disc of pics of my 17+" white crappie to Advanced Wildlife Design and they didn't need my fish to make the mold. My fish was quite a bit longer than the record fish and I was told they had never seen one with a length that long. They definitely need an actual fish to make original molds of a species, but they can just "stretch"/alter molds to make them smaller or bigger. I know this, because I was there and had it explained to me. In my case, I was told that I may as well just eat my fish and bring in the pics with dimensions since crappies lose their colour fast due to thin skin. I was told a skin mount of my fish just wouldn't be as nice as a replica. Having been there first hand and having seen their products, I know mine will be fantastic. Having said that... its been a while, I should call them and find out how its comin'.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Beats

[danc]

If I ever caught a 14 lb 9 oz., or heavier Brook Trout, it would be coming home with me without question. Other species? Maybe, maybe not. If I ever caught a new world record Pike, I'd take plenty of photos, release it, and start a whole new round of internet postings stating just where my Pike was actually caught.

[solopaddler]

If I ever caught a 14 lb 9 oz., or heavier Brook Trout, it would be coming home with me without question.

 

Me too Dan.

What still blows my mind is this potential world record brook trout that was released:

 

 

It was caught out of a stocked lake in Manitoba.

Not a wild Nipigon or Minipi fish....a fish from a stocked lake.

[Ramble]

Female is bigger in pretty much every species....it doesnt take much space to store a few million sperm at all. So males don't need to get big....there is whole heap of stuff i could carry on about relating to optimal body size and metabolic rate....basically it boils down too, the bigger the female, the more eggs she produces, the more youg she has, the more young survive to spawn which means a higher fitness level for big females, so through natural selection females are bigger.

 

Lets also remember that over time DNA in all species degrades and as such more mutated, unhealthy genes are added to the gene pool, hence it may in fact be helpful to a popuation to remove the very old fish. Hmm, maybe that would make a good topic for some thesis study... Got me thinking

 

I'm gonna pull this apart, and want you to know I'm not trying to be condesending or anything, so please don't be offended.

 

Mutations occur...YES! There is a whole wack of things that can wreck and alter DNA. Ultra-violet light for example. There is a few "checks" in the DNA replication system which are supposed to catch any errors, but due to the nature of the system some get by. Some people have a better replicating system then others, and have DNA with less errors. A DNA error that isnt caught basically means either nothing, cause it didnt wreck a gene, OR a tumor...cancer or not. If bad genes are in her eggs as you suggest those fish wouldnt survive very long anyway...but the fact she has lived well past the age of the others, seems to indicated she has very good genes, and a healthy replicating system. That would mean few if an mutations, and those genes being passed on is GREAT for the population.

 

Now i hear it all the time "mutations" being used in a negative way. Mutations are not always bad. Randow mutations occur all the time in pretty much all forms of life, and it's for their own good. "Pure" jeans dont help anyone. You need variety to stay alive on this plantet. Almost any one involved in breeding livestock can tell you about the benefits of hybrid vigour. SOme that is increaseingly lacking in farming today.

 

Anyway, being really old and still producing is about good genes, and good health. Both atributes any fish would want. Big fish producing bad genes to the population doesn't make any sence from what i understand. If anything, eggs un able to be fertalized migh be the casue of some mutation but that would be the only concern i can think of.

 

-Dave

Edited December 9, 2008 by Ramble On

[danc]

Me too Dan.

What still blows my mind is this potential world record brook trout that was released:

It was caught out of a stocked lake in Manitoba.

Not a wild Nipigon or Minipi fish....a fish from a stocked lake.

 

I can't say for sure Mike, but I have reason to believe that this fish is a triploid. In other words, a test tube fish created by man to grow to mammoth proportions. I spent a week in The Pas Manitoba last summer (working, not fishing ) The lake where this fish was caught is not far from The Pas. I talked to a few locals that told me that they knew if even bigger fish caught from this lake. One guy told me that his friend had a bigger one in his freezer. I did happen to stumble upon a few photos on the net of a fish about as big as this one from the same lake. And it was obviously a different fish. Personally I would not consider a triploid fish for a world record. Or any stocked fish for that matter.

[aniceguy]

danbo yes...in an self susataining fish population a world record, note not a trophy fish but a world record I would not think twice about its demise as its time has come and gone in terms of adding to population divergence, its benefit to tourism. local economy, and its wow factor far exceed its potential to be caught again, now in a non self sustaining population, that becomes a different kettle and something that now borders on personal ethics.

 

I ll add 2 to 1 on that 50 buck bet lol

[richyb]

Im not shy ... i have kept a few trophy fish ... and one thing ive noticed is that their reproductive organs arent that good lookin anymore.. At fleming college they told us that every fish has an optimum age range that they will reproduce the best , so the old " torphy" fish dont reproduce like they once did... Hence the slot sizes on walleye and other species.

 

And besides , If you were that big momma muskie and a little ( in that case even 15 pounder) male came swimmin up do you think she would think hmmmm spawn time or is she more apt to say mmmmmmm LUNCH !!!

[Ramble]

RIGHT Richyb....optimum age range....i forgot all about that. They still produce eggs, but not the numbers they once did. I'm pretty sure slot stuff has more to do with cohorts in the population doing the producing....but it's similar to the size thing. Still they can produce eggs with good gene's.

 

Im surprised you havn't mentioned harvesting large brookies yet Dan. But thta's been covered a few times before.

 

Must of this stuff im carrying on about is for multiple spawning, long lived species. Regulations to protect those big fish genes is another discussion entirly.

 

-Dave

[solopaddler]

I can't say for sure Mike, but I have reason to believe that this fish is a triploid. In other words, a test tube fish created by man to grow to mammoth proportions. I spent a week in The Pas Manitoba last summer (working, not fishing ) The lake where this fish was caught is not far from The Pas. I talked to a few locals that told me that they knew if even bigger fish caught from this lake. One guy told me that his friend had a bigger one in his freezer. I did happen to stumble upon a few photos on the net of a fish about as big as this one from the same lake. And it was obviously a different fish. Personally I would not consider a triploid fish for a world record. Or any stocked fish for that matter.

 

I agree, in my heart I wouldn't consider it a true record.

Still, it would be officially recognized as a record and being a stocked fish there's no real good reason not to kill it.

Wasn't it 2 summers ago that a new canadian record rainbow was caught in Huron's north channel?

That particular fish was a ridiculously fat pen reared escapee.

I certainly don't count that fish as an official record, but everyone else that matters does.

[T Fisher]

I worked with the MNR in lake Nippissing netting fish to see if black Crappie were in the Lake. We netted all kinds of fish Walleye, bass, pike, sunfish,bluegill, sucker,and black crappies but we also netted some monster Musky. If I were a betting man 2 of the musky we netted were well over 60 pounds. Sorry we did not take any measuerments of the fish not to hurt them but a guess would be that one fish was A WORLD RECORED over 70 pounds this fish was full of roe. The old lady is still producing.

[Grimace]

With the short life span of brookies would it be a safe assumption that that fish had 1 fin in the grave. Assuming it is not a splake that got mixed in the stocking efforts ( i heard that can happen as well ).

 

I agree with Dan about the consideration of stocked fish for records as they are in an environment that nature did not naturally provide them so they are growing the way nature did not intend. I also feel the same way with those giant Saskatchewan rainbows those brothers keep catching I don't feel those fish have anything on a nice ocean run Steelhead.

 

I would let the musky go. It would be hard not to.

[solopaddler]

Ed Crossman would've been the right man to answer my question, but he's been gone for 5 years now...

 

Back in the day I had the opportunity to meet and speak with the man. A more knowledgable person I've never met when it comes to esox.

 

Anyone know if there's someone else of his ilk out there?

[Uncle Buck]

as for genes/genepool a fish that size will also eat other musky also, so 1 monster fish potentially is hindering musky population

 

reading a musky report a while back, there was cannibalism in muskys at 27 days old... now if they are 27 days old an eating each other, what the heck do you think a 30-35 year old one eats? probably not gobies...

[bigfish1965]

There are two times in a fishes life where it has greater value to the overall population.

1. During peak egg production/vitality. This is the age and size where a fish creates the greatest number of highly viable eggs. These fish are often the ones protected by slot, though it is statistically derived by the size of the females.
   
2. Trophy Size. These fish have shown the ability and necessary genes to live though all kinds of changes by adaptation. They are highly disease and predator resistant. While their egg vitality is low, their ability to create even one more healthy adult fish in their waning years makes them very valuable.
   

[Sharkbait22]

Hello, I thought I would finally chime in here for this is an important subject. There seems to be some misconceptions and there is new science shedding light on this matter.

 

Big fish tend to have better egg quality than small fish. Better meaning better chances of contributing to the population.

 

Population growth of crashed populations is different than that of healthy populations and the thinking now is that the large females are not present in the crashed populations. This might mean resilient populations have big fish. Not only do they have more eggs but higher quality eggs too. As said earlier fish are not mammals.

 

Many have shown how harvest restrictions can inadvertently cause fish to become smaller and mature earlier. This is happening in some large game pops too. Non-natural selection. Fisheries-induced evolution. This is a really hot area or fisheries research right now. Much is yet to be learned. Check out or google fish maternal effects egg.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81130210013.htm

 

Kind of makes you think that all the big fish should go back and keep the smaller ones.

 

Great community here! Ciao

[Burning Babies]

Nice post, Sharkbait22.

 

as for genes/genepool a fish that size will also eat other musky also, so 1 monster fish potentially is hindering musky population

 

reading a musky report a while back, there was cannibalism in muskys at 27 days old... now if they are 27 days old an eating each other, what the heck do you think a 30-35 year old one eats? probably not gobies...

 

Infisherman published a good article on esocid forage size in this year's June/July issue. Extrapolating from the hundreds of diet items they show in their muskie predator size/prey size figure, it looks like the maximum prey size even a monster (say, 57") muskie would consume is not likely to be over 25". The vast majority of diet items reflected the typical size of forage in the lake (from a couple inches to around 8"), regardless of predator size. Now, I'm sure there are rare exceptions (indeed, I've seen it), but by-in-large, these predators seem to feed on what is common. On top of that, factor in that giant fish make up a tiny proportion of the population, and I suspect their impact is minimal.

 

Reproductive impacts aside, the economic value of large fish is enormous from a tourism point of view. In Ohio, we fine poachers thousands for every trophy buck they take, based on their economic value to the state, and most are far younger and more common than a true monster fish.

[Radnine]

I would assume that such a fish is long past it's spawning prime and is likely a fishy version of a senior citizen. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Apparently they can't cut the mustard, but they can still lick the jar.

[MarcusDiGiovanni]

i've never even caught a muskie soooooo... yur lucky to have all that knowledge and money to buy stuff... damn being young sucks

[Dabluz]

So was it a male or a female? Just wondering.

 

 

Only the females get very big.

[Dabluz]

I once caught a very very old walleye. She was quite weak and looked to be on the verge of starvation. She was 32 inches long and was caught in a rather small lake that is full of small walleyes. Catching a walleye over 15 inches in this lake is rare yet the lake is loaded with walleye. The only other species of fish that I have seen in the lake are horned nosed chub. She weighed maybe only 6 or 7 lbs. Her stomach was all caved in and she had a huge head. She was obviously at the end of her life. The fish was caught in the Saguenay region of Quebec where a huge walleye weighs 9 lbs. I guess the record walleye for the area is about 10 lbs. According to biologistes, the oldest walleye they ever caught with a net in Lac St-Jean (a large body of water) was 28 years old.

[waterwolf]

only tangled with two muskies with any proof that they exist . the 1st was a minor at 28in and the 2nd was a scugug devil at 46. my equipment and experince now allows me to target larger fish. these inarguable enviro-markers should be released at any size. that being said ,, i can also understand the possibilities in keeping a wr. i sometimes wonder how much money was made from a fish that was thought to be a snag .

whatever eggs a giant like that produces ,, if any , is a definite kick to a struggling population on any lake they inhabit.

genes, genes. i do eat wild caught fish ,, but it better pay well if one of those giants doesn't get released. just my opinion.