Lets talk spawning age!

[archie_james_c]

Me and Wormie were having a discussion via MSN a while back wondering when Walleye, among all other sport fish become infertile and no longer spawn. The question I am asking is: Do sport fish even become infertile, and if so at what approximate age would they be "no longer useful to the spawning effort"?

 

This question came up when we discussed wether or not we would keep a mammoth Walleye/Laker/Whatever, as I had noticed someone posting last year about a Tournament winning Lake Trout and C&R activists getting rather "upset" over the fact that the angler kept such a dinosaur (40ish pounds I think?) and others came to defend the angler saying that the fish was "well past spawning age".

 

EDIT- PLEASE THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO ARGUE ABOUT CATCH AND RELEASE VS. CATCH AND KILL. IF YOU WANT TO TELL SOMEONE THEY ARE EVIL FOR KEEPING SUCH A DINOSAUR PLEASE GO ELSEWHERE, AND IN TURN IF YOU WANT TO COME HERE AND TELL SOME ONE THEY'RE A FERRY FOR RELEASING SUCH A CREATURE PLEASE GO ELSEWHERE. THIS THREAD IS ASKING ABOUT SPORT FISH AND HOW THEY'RE AGE RELATES TO SPAWNING NOT A C&R vs. C&K THREAD. THANK YOU.

 

 

P.S. I got cabin fever! I got cabin fever! I got cabin fever! *music off*

Edited March 4, 2010 by archie_james_c

[Terry]

when they get that old it's not that they can't spawn

 

you just need to get them drunk first to put them in the mood

 

but to answer the question, some do dry up, but there is no set age or size where the become infertile

[I'mHooked]

I recently read something on this, just don't remember wear.

 

I read that generally sport fish can spawn through to the end of their lives, it's just a matter of how viable some of the eggs are at older ages.

 

There was an example along the lines of a 3 year old fish laying say 10,000 eggs, and a 10 year old fish laying say 150,000 eggs. If the older fish had 30% unviable eggs, then that older fish still had 105,000 good eggs.

105,000 eggs are a LOT more than 10,000.

Bigger older fish, more chances for successful reproduction

 

Made sense anyhow.

[John Bacon]

Fish in northern waters tend to grow slower and live longer than their southern cousins. I am not sure if they ever get too old to spawning; if they do the specific age would be different for different regions.

[MuskyGreenHorn]

Its a matter of finess really. Any organism reaches a maximum peak potential to produce gametes. After which its downhill untill senesence. The oldest fish in a population will not be the ones producing the most eggs or the most viable ones. Also a fish that is close to its maximum potential age will probably not be as fit as a younger individuals to compete for mates and spawning grounds/sites.

 

I would compare it cutting down a very old tree in a forest. Selective logging. Cutting down a few older trees releases the resources for younger ones to grow and flourish. Yes its a shame that something that has lived for a very long time it detroyed for our wanst and needs, but as humans, fish and trees are a resource that use. Removing very large and old specimens from a "Healthy" ecosystem will not ruin the said ecosystem. The key word there is healthy. If the poplation is small and in trouble, removing anythng could be detrimental. Think of cathedral grove on Vancouver Island. I fish musky and the size limit is ever increasing on many bodies of water and some do not allow any harvest the same goes for sturgeon.

 

But in systems with a large healthy population, the MNR allows for the harvest of large trophy specimens for the resons I detailed in the first paragraph. Polution, habitat loss and degredation and climate change

are the real issues.

 

The freshwater fisheries in Canada are probably some of the best managed in the world, be it fesh water or salt water. the same people who complain about people keeping a trophy probably go out and eat tuna at a sushi place more often then they should. Now there's a fish stock that people should be worried about.