200 year old fish caught in Alaska

[grizzlybri]

I saw this on PTI on TSN, and I was looked into it. Apparently a fisherman by the name of Henry Liebman 39 pound 200 year old rockfish caught 900 feet below the North Pacific. Here is one of many articles about it...

 

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/200-year-old-fish-caught-off-alaska-coast

 

 

 

According to all reports Mr. Liebman, kept it and plans to mount it, he did however sent a sample to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Another article I saw says the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said if the fish was released it probably would have died anyways, I'm guessing because of the pressure change. I just wanted to know what the OFC thought about this, and how many of you have heard this story.

[DRIFTER_016]

Yep.

Heard about it earlier this week from my buddies in Alaska.

Fish is dead. Rock fish grow very slowly and live in deep water which is why the limit is two and you need to leave the area after catching your two fish. They are near impossible to release.

 

[kickingfrog]

Mmmmmm 200 years old. That's about as far from veal as you could get. Massive rock fish.

[DRIFTER_016]

They are actually one of the tastiest fish to be had.

[mcdougy]

we caught them in 300ft of water off port hardy of vancouver island. 15lbers. Guide told us to guess how old they were. I said 18months. He siad 80years. I felt kinda bad.....Until i ate some!!! Very tasty almost like eating lobster was my impression. He called them Yellow eyed rock fish.

Edited July 4, 2013 by mcdougy

[jace]

yeah. that's a yellow eye although its eyes aren't too yellow anymore in that photo. I've never seen one survive after being caught and you can tell you've got one when you're reeling them in because they only wiggle around for the first little bit, then they float on up and all you feel are the giant weights. The limit of yellow eyes is just 1, the limit for non pelagic rockfish is 2 and only 1 can be a yellow eye, but you basically leave the spot once you get any non pelagic as Drifter said. I don't know of anybody who targets non pelagic rockfish so they're always bycatch .. and very delicious bycatch. a lot like yellow perch. huge body but there's only a small strip of meat along the back...everything else is stomach cavity.

[Jds63]

very cool, never knew they would be so old .... that fish is an oldtimer

[DRIFTER_016]

I know lots of people that target black rockfish as well as the yelloweye's

[jace]

I know lots of people that target black rockfish as well as the yelloweye's

 

 

the black is a pelagic so that's okay since there's a different limit and life cycle on those. The only other pelagic i've caught is the dusky and they're easier to get once you're on them because they school up and they're fished high in the water column where there's almost no chance of getting a yellow eye or any other non-pelagic rockfish. Most people i know who catch yellow eyes (or copper, spiny, tiger, etc) are fishing for halibut and/or ling. just typing the names makes me hungry.

[steelhunter]

Nice fish

[DRIFTER_016]

Seems it's not as old as first thought.

 

http://www.adn.com/2013/07/09/2968740/biologists-reduce-estimate-of.html

 

 

The Associated Press

SITKA, Alaska — A record-size rockfish caught near Sitka is not nearly as old as first estimated.

The Sitka Sentinel (http://bit.ly/184YOyT) reports the 39.08-pound, 41-inch long shortraker rockfish caught June 15 by Henry Liebman of Seattle broke the old weight record by nearly .4 pounds.

The oldest rockfish caught in Alaska was a 205-year-old rougheye and Department of Fish and Game area fisheries manager Troy Tydingco estimated Liebman's shortraker might have also been in that age range.

However, testing has put the age of Liebman's fish at 64 years old. Age can be determined by counting rings in an ear bone called an otolith.

Tydingco says that estimating age can be difficult once rockfish reach a certain length and age.

He says Liebman's fish was just a really good grower.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/07/09/2968740/biologists-reduce-estimate-of.html#storylink=cpy

[kickingfrog]

Interesting, thanks for the follow-up.