Limited access waters and Genetically Modified Fish

[bucktail]

Genetically modified fish such as hot water treated triploid's ( causes them to not develop reproductive organs boosting over all growth ) and fish from limited access waters have been accepted as new world records the last few years.

I myself am COMPLETly against this as I see it as not being ethical and not good for the sport in general.

I see it takes away from the rare catchs by " Joe Public" that are truly one in century catches.

Dont get me wrong it still takes a angler to trick and catch these fish but when you take away outside forces ( I.E. Fishing Presssure ) and add unnatural fish to an ecosystem it really lessons the whole uniquness of the catch.

Edited April 18, 2010 by bucktail

[DRIFTER_016]

Genetically modified fish such as hot water treated triploid's ( causes them to not develop reproductive organs boosting over all growth ) and fish from limited access waters have been accepted as new world records the last few years.

I myself am COMPLETly against this as I see it as not being ethical and not good for the sport in general.

I see it takes away from the rare catchs by " Joe Public" that are truly one in century catches.

Dont get me wrong it still takes a angler to trick and catch these fish but when you take away outside forces ( I.E. Fishing Presssure ) and add unnatural fish to an ecosystem it really lessons the whole uniquness of the catch.

 

I agree 100% that genetically modified fish should not be included in the record books. Not to take anything away from the Saskatoon brothers that have caught those big triploid bows out of Lake Diefenbaker but in my opinion they don't belong in the record books. The same thing goes for that giant farm escapee that was caught by Manitoulin island.

While they are nice fish I don't think they are record fish.

In my books the all tackle world record rainbow still comes from South West Alaska.

Edited April 18, 2010 by DRIFTER_016

[DANIMAL]

If they're genetically different, they should be in a different catagory.

[Cookslav]

If they're genetically different, they should be in a different catagory.

 

Thats what I've been saying for a while now, ever since those twins in Saskatchawan broke the record the first time around.

I questioned the legitimacy of their triplod trout record in a thread that was started here, and the twin that broke the record actually stopped in to the OFC to chastise us for even questioning the record....class act

 

Sure its a massive fish, but its been "enhanced"...

Why not just allow "enhanced" athletes to compete in sports then?

Same thing right?

Why is one ok and the other not?

 

IMO there should be a triploid record category put into the mix, or Triploids should not meet record critera.

Just for the record the last two Rainbow trout records have been confirmed Triploids out of Saskatchawan, and Don't quote me but I beleive the former record before that caught in Macgregors Bay Ontario which was also a confirmed Triploid?

(Although that may have just been an ontario record though?)

 

Either way IMO its not right.

[Governator]

I agree with the genetically changed fish, but what's wrong with a trophy fish from a lake that's not that accessible? Because the average fisherman can't or isn't willing to make the trek to it? If it's an all natural fish in our waters I believe that should count regardless of what body of water it comes from. Otherwise you might as well just count records for each lake.

[mikec]

I agree with the fact that they should have another category for these fish, they are not genetically the same and therefore should not be grouped into a category with natural fish.

 

This is almost like a high fence hunt. The farmer "grows" the game, raising it under perfect conditions until it is big enough, and then someone pays thousands to shoot it.

 

Should not be counted IMHO. But, due to the fact that you still have to catch the fish, it should have a category, just not the same one.

 

By limited access, do you mean it is hard to get to (ie. a long hike), or only certain people can access ($$, landowners, paying customers)? If you mean the latter, then this should not be counted, as only those with the money or means to fish these waters have a chance at catching these fish. If you mean a lake that is a 100km hike, but is publically accessible, then this should definately be counted, as there is no reason why it shouldnt be.

Edited April 18, 2010 by mikec