Joeytier Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Everyone has heard the old saying about big fish genes and letting the big girls go to make more big girls... But on the opposite end of the coin, we've all heard many people talk of the limited reproductive capabilities of old fish, because well...it's old. I tend to believe in the latter, but this is unsubstantiated, so if anyone has any worthwhile articles or opinions on the topic, I'd love to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headhunter Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Well, big people tend to "make" big people, so I guess it may be true... HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rousseau Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think big fish make big fish... How do we know if a 5+ pound walleye is 5 or 15 years old... We don't.... I'm willing to let mine go in hopes its a big young fertile fish.... I'm not that hungry that I need to keep all the big walleye I get.... And on the same note..... If you release a big fish.... It can still grow and be a PB for someone else maybe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think there is definitely a prime age for spawning of any fish. I don't think this is when they are at their biggest (and oldest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutologist Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 There is some merit to older fish being important to the reproductive capacity of the population. There is a point at which numbers of eggs peak, however older fish with more fat reserves tend to product higher quality eggs. This means (or could mean) offspring that have better yolksacs and are able to grow quicker etc. Lots of literature available for pretty well any species out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acountdeleted Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 I'll be honest, I'd rather eat a handful of dirt then a 10 pound walleye or a 20 pound pike. Give me a handful of 1-2 pounders any day of the week. And in terms of mounts, I would much rather have one of the new fiberglass models (and lie a little about the dimensions ) No need for me to keep those big fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleDigits Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) I'll be honest, I'd rather eat a handful of dirt then a 10 pound walleye or a 20 pound pike. I've heard this sentiment many times...and am well aware of the higher toxin levels in older fish. I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur when it comes to seafood, and the best meal of fish I ate this year was fried cheeks and fillet of an 8 lb walleye...superior texture and flavor to the 'eater' walleye, smallmouth, lake trout and perch that i cooked and ate over the course of the year...and presumably better than a mouthful of dirt. Not advocating any harvest practice or another, just saying... Edited December 11, 2012 by DoubleDigits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhickey Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yes it is very important to have a healthy popolation of large fish. It keeps the ballance of nature in check. Smaller fish will carry the same DNA as the larger ones and given time some will grow to be as big if not bigger depending on the overall heath of the ecosystem. My own expirence with this is as a child I grew up fishing a lake surrounded by private land it is a typycal bass/pike lake. It wass nothing to go out and comme back with 4 or 5 sweet 3-5 pound bass. Untill a cirtaian portian of land was opened to the public and within the space of about 5 years the lake was almost dead. People stopped comming to fish it and all the locals adopted a catch and release aproach that would be about 25yrs ago. About 5 years ago I cought my Pb 29 inch 8 pound largmouth.(released) Im happy to say that the lake is strong however there arnt nearly as many spawning beds as there used to be 35yrs ago. The other thing that should be thougt about in small inland lakes is the DNA pool being bottle necked but thats a whole different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live2fish85 Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 I'll be honest, I'd rather eat a handful of dirt then a 10 pound walleye or a 20 pound pike. Give me a handful of 1-2 pounders any day of the week. And in terms of mounts, I would much rather have one of the new fiberglass models (and lie a little about the dimensions ) No need for me to keep those big fish. Have you ever ate a 10lbs walleye? I guarantee I could cook up a 3lbs walleye and a 10lbs walleye from Lake Erie and you wouldn't notice an difference. I have many times. I haven't had a walleye 10lbs from up north but have had 7lbs north walleye and it didn't taste any worst then a 3lbs walleye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeytier Posted December 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 SO... Does a walleye fingerling have a better chance of reaching 30" if its mother was a 30" + fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acountdeleted Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Have you ever ate a 10lbs walleye? I guarantee I could cook up a 3lbs walleye and a 10lbs walleye from Lake Erie and you wouldn't notice an difference. I have many times. I haven't had a walleye 10lbs from up north but have had 7lbs north walleye and it didn't taste any worst then a 3lbs walleye. I have not, but I've had 4 and 5 pound walleye when I was younger and they definatly had a different taste. Its all a matter of opinion though. I like the 1-2 pounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 SO... Does a walleye fingerling have a better chance of reaching 30" if its mother was a 30" + fish? I dunno if you could even come up with an answer for that. A fingerling is a fingerling, regardless of what size fish it comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleDigits Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) SO... Does a walleye fingerling have a better chance of reaching 30" if its mother was a 30" + fish? I say no, it doesn't. I would think trophy fish are a product of other evolutionary traits (behavioural, ie. predilection for certain forage, approaches to feeding, aggressive tendencies etc.) and environmental factors (waterbody size/forage base, angling pressure, the luck of not being caught, etc.) that have come together to allow those individuals to grow to above average size, rather than a 'BIG' gene. Do Bay of Quinte, or Green Bay walleye have a 'big' gene? I don't think so. They just have an excellent forage base, and a lot of water to hide from recreational and commercial fisherman. Edit: Let me revise that: Yes, it probably does have a better chance, since the same genetic/environmental factors that were present for the mother will also likely be present for the fingerling (with the exception of luck, of course, who knows?). But this is not an argument for the 'Big ones make Big ones' theory. Any fish in a waterbody that holds the potential to produce big fish, has the potential to grow big. Edited December 11, 2012 by DoubleDigits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutologist Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Short answer...yes, because high quality eggs are more likely to survive early life stages when natural mortality is higher. Long (short) answer...some many variables. Environmental conditions, food availability etc. The reason a lot of slots protect "spawners" (say 18-22") is there are simply more biomass of these fish in any given population, and will contribute overall more to the reproductive capacity of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grant Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) . Edited January 30, 2014 by XxX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outllaw Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 the key is forage base fish. if theres fatty food base fish will become larger and fatter no doubt.. overcrowding a species in a small pond produces stunted fish. if theres less and less food competition you get a larger specimen. l.s.c. is the perfect labratory. before zebra mussels came on the scene,it was hard to achieve a 30lb musky or a 5lb smally. since the 1990,s the forage increased. in t-days world theres 7lb smallies and a recent 48.4lb musky caught and released.. the genetics are in the great lakes its truly a matter of forage. in erie since the stocking of steelhead,walleye now compete for the same forage. the l.erie biologist told me this will be detrimental for all game fish there. just a few thoughts i thought to share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleDigits Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) Short answer...yes, because high quality eggs are more likely to survive early life stages when natural mortality is higher. Long (short) answer...some many variables. Environmental conditions, food availability etc. The reason a lot of slots protect "spawners" (say 18-22") is there are simply more biomass of these fish in any given population, and will contribute overall more to the reproductive capacity of the population. The connection between fat content in the spawning fish to high quality yolksacs is interesting. Never heard that. However, the idea that larger fish may have more plentiful, successful spawns, still doesn't make a connection between Big mothers and big offspring. Edited December 11, 2012 by DoubleDigits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigdritchie Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 SO... Does a walleye fingerling have a better chance of reaching 30" if its mother was a 30" + fish? Absolutely. Freaks of nature aside, the maximum size a fish will attain is determined partly by genetics, partly by the environment it lives in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeytier Posted December 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 I am aware that the biotic potential of a waterbody is ultimately what dictates average size of the fish [without considering anthropogenic factors]. Just wondering about genetic makeup altering a fish's potential to grow large. Thanks for all the reply's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleDigits Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 I am aware that the biotic potential of a waterbody is ultimately what dictates average size of the fish [without considering anthropogenic factors]. Just wondering about genetic makeup altering a fish's potential to grow large. Thanks for all the reply's. Can we assume that the walleye fingerling in question is the one in your avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adempsey Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 I am aware that the biotic potential of a waterbody is ultimately what dictates average size of the fish [without considering anthropogenic factors]. Just wondering about genetic makeup altering a fish's potential to grow large. Thanks for all the reply's. Just look at other animals. I have a feeling the underlying population genetics will be very similar. Fish aren't anything special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeytier Posted December 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Can we assume that the walleye fingerling in question is the one in your avatar? Nope. I had it for dinner that night...on a triscuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 All i know is, ive seen pike ponds get robbed of trophies for two seasons.. and never saw another trophy for the following 7 years. Oh and long point bay is the biggest most obvious example of trophy fish breeding trophy fish, as 5+ bass simply dont exist there anymore when 7 pounders used to be a common thing a few times a season out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeytier Posted December 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Oh and long point bay is the biggest most obvious example of trophy fish breeding trophy fish, as 5+ bass simply dont exist there anymore when 7 pounders used to be a common thing a few times a season out there. I believe there are many other environmental factors that could be causing this. But the thought of a 7 pound largemouth really makes my mouth water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 When you watch the opening day coolers every year its obvious there is one major factor bringing the bass sizes down.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now