|
|
| So if the lying Louie fish gets throwen out it's only 4 lbs less than Kens fish and I still doubt that's attainable for most.
I'd like to use the Williamson fish for an example: 61 lbs and 16 years old, close but not quite a record. A very special fish but now those genes are dead along with the fish. Who knows what that fishes potential was. It was his fish and by no means am I critisizing him for keeping it but I wouldn't have. The problem with any records or way of keeping the and getting accurate measurements doesn't have the best interest of the fish in mind. I shoot for 100% survivalbilaty on all muskies I catch, I know this is unreal but I still try. Even my biggest this year I skiped the girth measurement for the sake of a good release but am confedent that my 50+ lb lunge is still swiming and will be a record class fish this fall. Fish like this have the most value as spawners not trophys.
Dan Crooms
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | dcmusky - 8/4/2009 3:16 PM
A very special fish but now those genes are dead along with the fish.
Dan Crooms
Dan,
While I will not ever find fault in your passion, I find your logic about fate of this particular genetic complement a bit flawed (unless I misunderstood and you were merely stating that 'this fish is dead, and dead fish no longer grow'). If we take a look at that particular fish's genetic make up, we may indeed find it was something different or special; I cannot discount that possibility. It was the result of a genetic coupling 16 years prior to it's capture though. It may have siblings with similar genetic make up, but it's offspring will only be the recipient of half of it's genetic information. The magic combination was the result of it's parents, not anything it can pass on it's own. Assuming sexual maturity of 5-6 years (conservatively), it had the opportunity to pass genetic information to the population no less than 10 times (again assuming annual spawning, which may be up for debate). They do not clone, therefore that fish's genetic make up was not possible to exactly duplicate no matter how long it lived. Now, is the genetic information that fish would pass beneficial to the population as a whole? Probably, but it was able to do that several times. But was it essential for insuring that the line will produce record-quality fish? Probably not.
Again, I'm right there with you on releasing big fish, but to infer that a single fish is so important that future records may hinge on its survival, I personally find to be a bit of a stretch.
S. |
|
| |
|
| True but it can't hurt either. I couldn't wack a biggie for the record books and I'm not saying someone who does is the antichrist but thats allot of eggs and it's the genes that I'd like in a system for as long as possible. I wish this WRMA would look into a C&R freindly format for a WR one that every one could agree with and the fish lives. I think that killing a fish so it can get weighed is out dated for todays C&R guy, also I think just going by length is a poor judge of a C&R record. My only answer is to carry a calibrated scale and photo the scale with fish in landing devise and at least 1 witness but I'm sure youd still have cheaters. Thats why I say who cares.
Dan Crooms |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | "So if the lying Louie fish gets throwen out it's only 4 lbs less than Kens fish and I still doubt that's attainable for most."
Based on how the FWFHoF went about the WRMA report, then spent time and money to re-affirm the record afterwards, it will not be thrown out, ever. Only a bigger fish will trump it. |
|
| |
|
| I think Todd is right. The only way to get Spray out of the FWFHF is to get a new board of directors and president who are interested in the truth. The same will happen with the cal Johnson fish and the IGFA. That fish will not be removed either. Heavy pressure and lobbying by those within the industry and the public who want honest records may be effective if done as a coalition.
Each of the two record keepers recognize different W.R. muskies, both of which are not as large as claimed. Terrific.
For me C&R records are a non valid issue right now. |
|
| |
|
|
I would have to disagree a little with Sorensen's points.
If it takes 2 parents to make the "magic" combination, than killing one of the two possible parents does have a negative affect on that combination happening again.
Furthermore, muskies don't successfully spawn every year. In natural muskie lakes there are good year classes and some years that don't do well at all.
Every spawning opportunity is important, especially with large fish. Many muskies will never reach lengths over 52". The ones that do are special, and if we as muskie fishermen want to catch them than they need to be released.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Guest - 8/5/2009 6:15 AM
I would have to disagree a little with Sorensen's points.
If it takes 2 parents to make the "magic" combination, than killing one of the two possible parents does have a negative affect on that combination happening again.
Furthermore, muskies don't successfully spawn every year. In natural muskie lakes there are good year classes and some years that don't do well at all.
Every spawning opportunity is important, especially with large fish. Many muskies will never reach lengths over 52". The ones that do are special, and if we as muskie fishermen want to catch them than they need to be released.
I think you misinterpreted my points a bit. Yes, it takes 2 parents to make the magical fish (let's say the Williamson fish). It's quite possible that as individuals, they were quite 'normal', or perhaps even unremarkable fish. But it was their spawn, not any future spawn of the Williamson fish that produced a known giant (the Williamson fish). For all we know, the Williamson fish got big because it was sterile (not saying that it was, just throwing out a scenario). And yes, they often don't spawn successfully every year, nor do they often spawn w/ the same individual(s) every year. Add to that the variabilities of external fertilization and you may begin to see my points. Important, yes. But insurance that a big fish produces big fish, no. Particularly on a population level. Removing ALL of the big fish is obviously risky, but an individual here and there probably won't cause any detectable population level responses.
Personally, I think the next world record, if there is one, will be a genetic anomaly with some sort of growth disorder. It will probably be fairly young, and the poor sap who gets it will be both praised and crucified. |
|
| |
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree a little here.
Record fish aside, just speaking about fish that are capable to grow to mid 50's.
The importance of them as breeders in a population is enourmous.
That coming from Bob Strand, who notes that just the enourmous amount of eggs the put out when they spawn. Taking big fish out of a system greatly reduces potential numbers of surviving fry. Fish over 50" put out up to 3 times as many eggs as females under 50 inches.
I also believe that big fish do have more potential to produce big fish as offspring over smaller fish.
That is just simple statistics.
Anyway, talking about record fish is another story. That is anybodies guess as to how or why they come about.
|
|
| |
|
| good discussion...and just to clarify who's speaking here:
the Guest is choosing to post anonymously.
Mr. Sorenson is not...he's a fish biologist who played a key role in establishing, protecting, and maintaining a western muskie fishery and just happens to have released an unquestionable state record muskie.
if it's "anybody's guess" about how trophy muskies come to be, i'll put my money on the guess that Sorno makes.
|
|
| |
|
| Just to clarify....I'm the "guest" #1 who posted the original topic about the WRMA. I am NOT involved in the discussion w/ Mr. Sorenson.
I know, I know, anonymous posting is cowardly. Sorry, I have my reasons. |
|
| |
|
|
Well it's your "guess" as to what credentials "guests" have is it not??
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | sorenson - 8/5/2009 9:12 AM Personally, I think the next world record, if there is one, will be a genetic anomaly with some sort of growth disorder. It will probably be fairly young, and the poor sap who gets it will be both praised and crucified. If I remember right there was something about the Williamson fish and her reproductive organs... or maybe it was just speculation. If Larry see's this I'm sure he can confirm. |
|
| |
|
| Well it's your "guess" as to what credentials "guests" have is it not??
actually, for those of us running this site, it's not a guess at all.
it will always be your right to post anonymously, but if you want to be taken more seriously sign your name and offer your credentials. you do that regularly on the site you normally frequent...
your general position on the need to protect big fish is a good one, and well demonstrated with the impact of catch-and-release on the fisheries.
at the same time, i think it's unsound to say that the harvest of one single fish is a genetic crisis, and for that i rely on biologist's opinions such as that of Mr. Sorenson.
don't get me wrong: the social message is a bad one, especially when the pictures of big dead fish circulate as it suggests that harvest is okay...but fighting that fight with unsupported genetic arguments doesn't fly. we can and should choose a better and more accurate platform to encourage the release of all those big fish, because if we don't the science will be used against us.
|
|
| |
|
| It was just speculation regarding the fish being sterile. The theory was it may have been resorbing it's own underdeveloped egg mass causing it's rapid growth rate and excessive obesity. It may have also been filled with water just like O'Brien's probably was. |
|
| |
|
|
It comes down to a matter of to what degree does an idividual see as damaging, which has nothing to do with science.
Nobody said anything about a crisis. But the impact is always there when a big fish is killed.
It's up to the individual to decide whether that impact is signigicant, it's not a matter of whether or not science says it is.
Especially considering one biologist will say it is significant while another says it isn't. What is science saying there?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Will Schultz - 8/5/2009 11:23 AM sorenson - 8/5/2009 9:12 AM Personally, I think the next world record, if there is one, will be a genetic anomaly with some sort of growth disorder. It will probably be fairly young, and the poor sap who gets it will be both praised and crucified. If I remember right there was something about the Williamson fish and her reproductive organs... or maybe it was just speculation. If Larry see's this I'm sure he can confirm.
According to Larry:
"Info I got was that the Williamson fish was sterile and putting all energy towards growth, hence the size vs. age."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | DC and J,
Obviously, it's up to the individual who caught the fish as to whether it gets released or not, and there's always arguments on both sides of the issue. I believe we were talking about the WR here, so lets not get all crazy about pushing release of sub-record fish...preaching to the choir for the most part, and not the subject of this thread.
|
|
| |
|
| One way to help prove the size of a fish in photos is to show the fish on a bump board or include a ruler in the photo with the fish.
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| I want to provide several questions in one of John's books. The fish that put Hayward on the map came out of Spider Lake according to the actual account of President Coolidge receiving the fish. It is in the July 1, 1981 issue of the Sawyer County Record. In the same book look at the fish Stasek is holding. How does anyone hold a 45-pound fish in that type of finger hold and not show one sign of muscle strain? That is one well-girthed fish after loosing all that weight. That is one easy-going smile for someone holding a fish that heavy. Only a trained gymnast could pull it off.
I think enough people have connected the dots on this, and the continued support of the Hall and the people connected with it only prolongs what might come out of this.
How you hold these fish for a photo makes a lot of difference.
Thank you for the use of your forum
Edited by musky53dat 2/5/2010 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| I just spoke with the grandson of one person who saw the Johnson fish immediately after capture. In his store in Hayward is another 60 inch fish that has not been in any books due to the owner not wanting any photos out. It hung in Draper for awhile and the person speared it. His descendants, Native Americans, come in to see it. It came off a bar by Pat's Landing.
We had a good laugh about what these guys did. Time to put them into a historical category and get on with things.
Out of respect for the owner and the family I did not even ask for a photo. It is just a monster.
Edited by musky53dat 2/3/2010 10:56 AM
|
|
| |
