Extremely Large, Old Fish

[ehg]

Some areas have an abundance of large female fish and an abundance of forage to continue successful populations of their kind. The Bay of Quinte (walleye) and Ottawa R./ St. Lawrence (musky) come to mind, through time.

 

Species that historically thrive in these areas would probably survive an occasional harvest of an extremely large, old fish.

 

This should allow for less controversy when one exercises their choice to harvest or not.

 

Personally i would let them go, unless they would be good to eat.

[solopaddler]

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

 

Thanks for posting and welcome to the board. Hopefully that's not your first and last post, as it appears you'd be a welcome contributor.

 

Do you have a background in fisheries?

[Rich]

lol - I've got $50 that says it's Erie! Dare to raise me?

 

Bah you're both wrong it's coming from the Lynn River!

 

As for the musky. I'd put it back. It's a lot of hassle to claim record status and even after being verified on gov't scales, blah blah you will ALWAYS have jealous naysayers the rest of your life disputing your record. I say let it go and save the trouble.

[forrest]

Bah you're both wrong it's coming from the Lynn River!

 

As for the musky. I'd put it back. It's a lot of hassle to claim record status and even after being verified on gov't scales, blah blah you will ALWAYS have jealous naysayers the rest of your life disputing your record. I say let it go and save the trouble.

 

Not trying to continue this thread on this off topic any further than this post:

 

I am getting tired of hearing the negative implication that naysayers are jealous,

 

I was one of the few guys that stated they would have liked to have seen a couple of extra pics to add some credibility and I am not jealous of that recent big fish or any of the others in the least. It is personally unproductive to be jealous of anything, envy is one of the deadly sins.

 

So, please, keep the insults to yourself.

 

forrest

[BillM]

I couldn't kill a fish like that.. I probably would have taken way more pictures but I'd feel horrible watching that poor fish die in the bottom of the boat...

 

A fish that big deserves the utmost respect...

[fishingisliving]

I think there are good points on both sides of the coin.

 

Without a doubt a WR fish will continue to spawn and will continue the big fish gene in the waters it lives in. In the case of musky, a 55 inch fish that weighs near 60 pounds, does not mean it only has 1 year or 2 to live, it can live to 57,58 inches long who knows it could have 4-5 years left of great spawning potential, for a fish to reach that girth at 55+ inches long that means the fish is healthy and does not have any problems feeding, which normaly means it will live longer. Remember, it is very easy to cause post release mortality of fish that size and age if not handled properly so would it die anyway if released after a fight, getting netted, unhooked, picked out of the water for a few photos (in a WR case you would think MANY PHOTOS, its human nature to do so), well there is a good chance, who knows. So keeping the world record which can be examined and studied, because maybe it would be dead after being released anyway does not seem that bad, but would it really be studied or just put up on someone's wall?

 

My personal opinion is that most giants we see caught in the fall (not taking anything away from anyone because these are fish of a lifetime) weigh at the most 55-58 pounds and when they are caught by experienced anglers they know that if they kill the fish and bring it to a certified scale they would get there to find out they are still 5-10 pounds, shy of the world record so why risk it? But if you want to keep your trophy and have it on your wall that is every anglers own decision to make as long as it was done by the laws of the fishery.

[anders]

Great Topic, and well responded!

 

If i were to catch a world record, or one in the area of the world record, personally i would take it with me, no matter what the species. Not to offend people, but just my opinion.

 

Trophy fish, not the world record fish. I have two on the wall, 1 walleye, and 1 pink (male in spawn mode, quite beautiful). However i caught them when i was in then first few years in high schools, and didnt know any better. If i were to catch a tropphy of each i release after a quick pic. Actually any walleye over 4 lbs goes back know, but i degrese. If i catch a trophy and not a record, they go back, and if i choose i have the pics for a replica if i want.

 

It was mentioned before in this post as well, I would consider the fishery in which it came as well. A lake like Erie for smallies as people talk about a record or trophy wouldnt hurt it at all, a lake around where I live for smallies...that could hurt. Anglers discretion is advised.

[hammercarp]

I target carp and they definately get old and big. This whole issue of world records is getting murkier and murkier. The latest world record carp was caught in France. It was stocked into a 25 acre pond. It was selected from a brood stock of large fish and was fed to increase it's size. The whole thing is completely artificial.

Guys have posted that they would not consider a stocked fish to be a world record and I agree.

We are in a time when the hand of man is on everthing. We really don't know anymore if a fish reached it's size "naturally" or if it was the result of us manipulating factors to get a fish that big.

I looked at the picture of the latest monster musky to be caught and I could imagine what the guy felt when he first got a good look at it and realised it's size. What a buzz!. I believe he did the right thing in releasing it. Especially in light of what has been posted on this thread.

I believe that the efforts to release the fish as quickly as possible should far outway any concerns over it's actual weight.

Personally if you catch a fish and want to weight to ten decimal places that's your business.

But I can tell you this, the Ontario record for common carp is broken all the time and by guys that are targeting them. They refuse to kill the fish just to get on the record books. I feel the same way.

[tonyb]

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

 

Good post Dave, check into it, but I do believe the the reproductive success of fishes at the end of their life span is very limited if not non-existant.

 

That big girl has done her part in spreading her genes over a couple of decades though

 

Personally, I think the value of releasing record catches of any species is worth more than holding an official record as it ultimately promotes the sport by the thought that in a year or 2 that fish will be theoretically even bigger!

 

I don't know that you would become rich off of catching a record musky, or any other fish for that matter, produce a replica, maintain bragging rights and let 'em swim

[kemper]

This post has really got me thinking....

 

Is there anyone on OFC (other than the huge musky that has been beaten to death) that has had to face the decision to release or keep a record class fish?

 

Its really hard to make that call without facing it yourself.

 

I caught a gigantic rockbass once, went 2lbs on a legit scale. Wonder if thats worth anything hahaha

[tonyb]

Not sure why I thought that older fish had limited reproductive success...anyway check this out!

 

We've known for a long time that bigger fish produce more eggs, that we might need to have numerous smaller females to produce as many eggs as one larger fish," said Mark Hixon, an OSU professor of zoology. "Modern fish management is based on this assumption. But we've also assumed that one fish egg is just as good as another, and the newest studies are showing that's just not the case."

 

New studies by OSU researcher Steven Berkeley, who is now at the University of California – Santa Cruz, have shown that eggs from very old fish have much larger oil globules in their yolk, giving the larvae that develop from these eggs a chance to grow faster and survive starvation longer. Older fish also spawn earlier, which sometimes better coordinates larval birth with peak food availability.

 

A marine ecosystem routinely has more than 99 percent mortality of fish larvae due to predation, starvation and fluctuating ocean conditions. So anything that helps young larvae pass through their most vulnerable lifestyle stages can significantly increase their chance of survival, scientists say.

 

"In some cases, it appears that almost all of the surviving larvae have come from large, old, fat fish," Hixon said.

 

I stand corrected

[The Urban Fisherman]

This post has really got me thinking....

 

Is there anyone on OFC (other than the huge musky that has been beaten to death) that has had to face the decision to release or keep a record class fish?

 

Its really hard to make that call without facing it yourself.

 

I caught a gigantic rockbass once, went 2lbs on a legit scale. Wonder if thats worth anything hahaha

 

Dave Mercer caught a record fish a few years ago and released it without hesitation. It totally smashed the previous record for this fish, but of course IFGA didn't recognize the catch as an official world record because he released the fish, good on Dave for releasing it, but I'd have kept it!

 

Here's a quick blurb I found online about it.

http://www.thefishingnews.com/mercer-recordfish.shtml

[Hotrod2066]

For those who question whether a world class musky would make you famous, how many people recognize the name Ken O'brien. Sure there would be money to be made off a record fish if you wanted to and had the right personality for it. I would have no problem keeping a record or even a trophy fish and I have with no guilt. Who is to say that the fish won't die after it was releasd anyway? how much longer would it live if it survived the release? 1 year? 6 months? 5years? would it maybe end up in a gill net somewhere? lots of variables involved.

 

I've always wondered why people hunt for the biggest bucks and bulls they can shoot, passing up other animals for the trophy and that's okay but when it comes to a fish it's somehow different? I think this is a great topic, many different POV's.

[anders]

I've always wondered why people hunt for the biggest bucks and bulls they can shoot, passing up other animals for the trophy and that's okay but when it comes to a fish it's somehow different? I think this is a great topic, many different POV's

 

Great Point! There is no catch and release in hunting. Very interesting. has me thinking more about the topic.

[Rizzo]

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...

 

good point. Dang fish probably ate more muskies in a year than it spawned

[Rich]

Not trying to continue this thread on this off topic any further than this post:

 

I am getting tired of hearing the negative implication that naysayers are jealous,

 

I was one of the few guys that stated they would have liked to have seen a couple of extra pics to add some credibility and I am not jealous of that recent big fish or any of the others in the least. It is personally unproductive to be jealous of anything, envy is one of the deadly sins.

 

So, please, keep the insults to yourself.

 

forrest

 

Dude, obviously you feel guilty, because I never mentioned you or anyone here. I wasn't even implying that. Achieving any sort of record though, not even just in fishing - will ALWAYS result in jealousy, and the contesting of your prize. It doesn't matter what you do. WORLD record means it's known around the WORLD. The world's a big place!

 

I don't care if you contested the pic earlier. I had my doubts too.

[misfish]

I've always wondered why people hunt for the biggest bucks and bulls they can shoot, passing up other animals for the trophy and that's okay but when it comes to a fish it's somehow different?

 

 

No difference(well except for the live release). We all hope to get the biggests, the kahuna of the spieces. Myself I dont go looking for them. If it happens, it happens. I go out to fish and hope for the big one. I do not get over indulged figuring out where they would be.It all about luck aint it? LOL

Same as hunting deer. If it,s brown, it,s down. If a monster buck comes along, well, lucky me.If it,s a record fish/buck. Lucky me.

 

Would I boust about it,,,,,,,,,,,,YA BET YER

[Dabluz]

Well, I do a lot of fishing. Really a lot and I have been fishing since I was 2 years old. I go fishing at least 2 or 3 times a week (year round). I'm 61 years old. I do not have an outboard motor nor a nice aluminum boat and trailer. You would think that over the years, I would have spent more money on fishing but I just can't. Never had a job that paid enough for me to have a comfortable life. No....I don't take drugs nor do I get drunk. I'm a good fisherman and lots of people come fishing with me to learn. However, with all my sucess as a fisherman, I never got close to catching a world record fish.

 

A world record fish would mean a lot to me. It may mean the chance to get a few prizes like a nice 16 foot aluminum boat with a 10 or 20 h.p. engine, a good rain suit, a few good fishing rods and reels etc.

 

I sure would do a lot of fast thinking if I ever catch a world record pike, brook trout, walleye or landlocked salmon. For me, it would not be the prestige of catching a world record fish....I don't need or look for prestige.....however, some nice fishing goodies would be nice.

[Guest steel'n'esox]

The muskie at 57by33inches is still a very healthy fish, and most certainly has some years left, as shes already made it through a VHS disease which took at least 200 mostly adult fish from the system, and thats what was recovered, who knows what sank to the bottom. With that devestation the release of that healthy fish back into the system, to spawn once again and pass those extremly valuable genetics is an incredible act of caring and fisheries management on the anglers involved. In regards to keeping such a fish scrutiny still prevails as Obriens fish is now under the watchful eyes of the record keepers, which could place the williamsons fish in the number one spot. For what its worth in my opinion the have been 3 60 pound plus muskies caught Ken Obriens fish at 65 pounds Martin Williamsons at 61 pounds 4 ounces both kept fish from GB, and Dales 57 by 33 inch release, the Davison muskie at 58 inches had an extremely large girth, although no girth measurement were ever reported, could very well be a 60 pound class fish at least by the photos was also released. Keep it or let it go, there will still be someone or an organization to crap on your decision. Theres my 2 and a half cents worth

[fishingisliving]

Keep it or let it go, there will still be someone or an organization to crap on your decision. Theres my 2 and a half cents worth

 

True indeed!

 

Damned if you, damned if you dont!

[solopaddler]

True indeed!

 

Damned if you, damned if you dont!

 

Maybe so guys but I'm not seeing any of that in this thread (thankfully).

People may have differing opinions but that's as far as its gone.

 

Thanks for all the input people, it's pretty much what I was hoping for.

[Guest gbfisher]

Fish die....people lie and the crap will continue until.......................................

 

We all love a good fish story....

 

 

[misfish]

Andy

[snag]

Ego