Sad ending for an incredible fish

[Rockstar Fisherman]

This topic does bring up another topic that I am curious about though.

If a fish survives to "trophy" size does that mean that it's offspring that survive the initial birth part of their life etc. have greater potential to grow to "trophy" sizes? I mean "fat parents they have fat kids too" as The Offspring says in their lyrics but does this apply to fish? Seems plausible and I've heard it before but I don't know for sure, can anyone help?

The below clearly states what I have always believed.

Abstract: The rainbow trout genetic linkage groups have been assigned to specific chromosomes in the OSU (2N=60) strain using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with BAC probes containing genes mapped to each linkage group. There was a rough correlation between chromosome size and size of the genetic linkage map in cM for the genetic maps based on recombination from the female parent. Chromosome size and structure have a major impact on the female: male recombination ratio, which is much higher (up to 10:1 near the centromeres) on the larger metacentric chromosomes compared to smaller acrocentric chromosomes. Eighty percent of the BAC clones containing duplicate genes mapped to a single chromosomal location, suggesting that diploidization resulted in substantial divergence of intergenic regions. The BAC clones that hybridized to both duplicate loci were usually located in the distal portion of the chromosome. Duplicate genes were almost always found at a similar location on the chromosome arm of two different chromosome pairs, suggesting that most of the chromosome rearrangements following tetraploidization were centric fusions, and did not involve homeologous chromosomes. The set of BACs compiled for this research will be especially useful in construction of genome maps and identification of QTLs for important traits in other salmonid fishes.

Key Words: cytogenetic map, diploidization, gene duplication, linkage map, rainbow trout




I'm sure if I google it, i'll eventually find some cites. I do think(think I read part of a study, but it's beyond my short term memory threshold) trout pass on their genetics. Like you, i've heard the argument for releasing the larger class fish, to keep the superior genetics in the watershed. Hopefully NorCal Bob will chime in. Certainly, not every trout has the potential to grow to the size that this big Golden reached. So i'm inclined to believe genetics plays a big part, and where do genes come from. Scientific, eh.

briansII

Thanks Brian,
Hey, I know we all like to dig deeper than necessary when it comes to these topics but Rubikinda did take note of the Sage rod that caught the 27" on a lure, must have been a fast strip!! Maybe he wanted his pack on for some asthetics to add to the pic but why is he wearing it in the picture, just seems like a major hassel???

JIM MORRISON LIVES J/K

[NorcalBob]

Just caught wind of this. First off, I don't agree with the dude bonking a fantastic fish like this, especially since it's destined for a wall mount. Most taxidermists these days do not do skin mounts so there is no valid reason to kill a fish if you want a wall hanger. Some measurements and a few pics are all you need and then you can let your trophy swim happily away. Now on to the scientific reality of what impact killing this fish will have in regards to future fishing. I really don't know the exact location this fish came from, but I have a pretty good guess. Since golden's were never naturally found in lakes, this fish is indeed from a hatchery stocking. About the possibility of this fish successfully spawning and passing on it's "big fish" gene's, here is a quote from DR Peter Moyle in regards to Golden Trout: "although spawning has been observed in lakes, it is rarely, if ever successful, and attempts to establish golden trout in lakes without inlets or outlets suitable for spawning have mostly failed". As far as big fish passing on genes, selective harvest of larger fish has indeed impacted the overall size of fish. In heavily fished populations in which the largest adults are selectively removed do result in smaller fish over time. Here's a few citations:
http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Fishing/ ... arvest.htm
http://stoneflysociety.org/harvest.htm
http://www.oceanconservationscience.org ... 3.full.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=HpE37f ... q=&f=false
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... tter_hurry
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/ ... 1_regs.pdf

[Flyjunkie]

I'll simply add this Quote from my 80 year Old Father.. upon showing him the recent article in WON about this "gent Killing the Big Golden...:

"What an *!!!!! Why didn't he just take pictures of it and let that beautiful Golden go!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!"

My Dad nailed it on the Head...

[rayfound]

Nice to see that perspective dean, especially coming from someone who lived in the days before catch and release, when every fish coming out of water going in the skillet or smoker or whatever.

[Rockstar Fisherman]

Come on guys, I wouldn't have kept the fish had I caught it and wont if I ever do get one that size of any trout species, but am I the ONLY person here who thinks this holier than though attitude about C&R is NOT COOL?? I practice C&R but still have kept 1 fish last year, and attempted to keep one this year. Give the man a break I say, but then again that's just my opinion.

[rayfound]

Come on guys, I wouldn't have kept the fish had I caught it and wont if I ever do get one that size of any trout species, but am I the ONLY person here who thinks this holier than though attitude about C&R is NOT COOL?? I practice C&R but still have kept 1 fish last year, and attempted to keep one this year. Give the man a break I say, but then again that's just my opinion.

It was a completely legal take, and realistically, had little impact on the fishery, other than to prevent anyone else from catching that individual trout.

I don't think its holier than thou about C&R... I think what is putting people off is how he "was feeling guilty about it" and the fish was "near the end of its life" anyway... the way he justified it and everything, when he set out with the intention to hang a fish on his wall.

Its the talking out both sides of his mouth that bothers me. I have no problem with occasional taking of fish when the fishery can support it, but killing the biggest fish you find... i dunno, that's tough for me.

[briansII]

Come on guys, I wouldn't have kept the fish had I caught it and wont if I ever do get one that size of any trout species, but am I the ONLY person here who thinks this holier than though attitude about C&R is NOT COOL?? I practice C&R but still have kept 1 fish last year, and attempted to keep one this year. Give the man a break I say, but then again that's just my opinion.

How bout we say, "passionate" instead of holier than thou. I can understand your position. If we "holy" fly fisherman rank on anyone who keeps fish, or trophies, then I understand the perception of elitism. My take is, we need both sides for balance.....but is the overall picture IN balance. IMHO, no.

This particular situation rubbed me the wrong way. I see plenty of glory shots of fish, and don't get any rash from it. There were a few reason why I didn't like the picture, with Ray pointing out a big one with me too. I will say, I do not know the complete situation with this guy, and the lake he caught the fish in. I'm going off of gut reaction as much as anything.

briansII

[Rockstar Fisherman]

I can agree fully with the fact that Parker is full of it, when he discusses his reasoning for keeping the fish. He was a proud man whose hard work as a fisherman paid off, and in my mind he should be congratulated whether he kept it or not. I see his reasoning for saying what he said, and also releasing his story to the press. For keeping the fish he was going to recieve flak no matter what. I would be very dissappointed if he made the location public, though he did give supposod hints.

So I do understand your attitudes towards his justifications for keeping it, but keep in mind he also wanted to brag, as most of us do when something amazing like this happens and knew that many people will put him down so he came up with some lame justifications, or the writers left out some more details whatever. And Parker obviously is aware that the body of the fish isn't needed for a mount these days. Maybe his inner child came out and the thrill of keeping it occured IDK.

It just seems like more often than not (certainly not all the time) we put people like Parker down after they've put in good hard work into catching a fish. And trust me I'm not mad at any of you either for your opinions, hope my writing doesn't come off that way.

[Pete]

I tend to agree with Rockstar. Even though I practice Catch and release I feel we do portray an elitist attitude toward people who keep fish. I find myself doing it. Who knows, I have kept that fish. But, then again I don't practice C & R when I hunt. Ok, say it, I must be an ego manic or neglected as a child to be interested in a record catch.

As I said in an earlier post. If he laid the fish down on the grass to photo and measure we would have jumped all over him for that.

I have a friend who caught a world record large mouth on a fly rod. He had to kill that fish to get it verified as a world record. That's how its done. Its too bad but, until there is a better way to get the fish verified, record hunters are going to be outcast.

Maybe the fish is better off dead. Think about it, if that lake was land locked, all those years and no sex. I'd beg a fisherman to kill me too.

[Benny]

My first thoughts were, What a big f....ing golden!!! To bad it had to die....

Instead of <oops> about this guy Parker killing his catch no matter what reason he had, people need to get out and go fly fishing for a hog golden of there own

I'm passionate about C&R and preserving the resource, but I understand that people have the right to keep fish. Mr Parker gets a big congrats from me on his fish of a life time

Next time I'm out in the backcountry, I'm going catch a Golden and then eat the $@!%, I hear they are quite tasty I'll be sure to post some photos of my golden trout meal.

[dh2x]

There just seems something a wee bit fishy with the guys story. Yes a fish of a lifetime with no respect to the lifetime of the fish, that's just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt. I feel lucky that even I ever wanted to keep such a beauty, I would pass out at just the sight of it at the end of the line and have to be airlifted out .

[Flyjunkie]

Nice to see that perspective dean, especially coming from someone who lived in the days before catch and release, when every fish coming out of water going in the skillet or smoker or whatever.

Dad kept Fish, that's certain.. but he limited his take most of the time... Keeping only enough for a Dinner at home for the Family after the Trip(Of which All where Hatchery Trout)...
When He was a Child in Alabama, during the Depression, they kept everything caught...To Survive...

Dad has gotten wiser as he's gotten older, even mentioning to times back when he kept abit too much and later on threw it away.. "I was wasteful back then".. he'd say...

I am more concerned about the fact that Mr. Parker is so Wishy Washy about his reasons for keeping the fish... He wasn't gonna eat it.. He didn't need the Carcass for that "Trophy Wall" of his...(and any Angler who says they don't know that you can Release the Fish and have a Replica made of it is a Liar..)
I personally do not mind folks keeping Fish for food.. as long as it is Legit where they are fishing and they are following the Limits and Rules (and hopefully only taking enough for that evening's Dinner..)...

Mr. Parker killed that Fish only to feed his Ego.. That's what * Me off the most about what He did..

[FlyinFish]

What's really annoying is that the law abiders feel the laws should be more stringent than the law makers do. When's the last time anyone complained that 65mph was too high for a speed limit? Yet, most good fishermen usually think certain limits are ridiculous and should be more strict. 5 trout, 2 wild trout, 5 largemouth, 10 calicos, 10 barracuda, 10 catfish, etc, etc. Most all of them are set too high.

Why does anyone even need to be allowed to keep a golden trout? Ok, fine, allow one per angler with a slot limit. This allows backpackers to have a well deserved meal and not kill babies or biguns...

Its just sad that most fishermen would support stricter regulations, but the authorities never work on developing those regulations.

[FlyinFish]

Well, they're about to shut down a significant chunk of the CA coastline as well as some islands, and not many anglers have showed up to public hearings to protest this. So, I can't imagine them raising much of a stink.

Even still, if this specific lake had a slot limit, this guy wouldn't have killed this trout. How many bait dunkers are really going to venture to areas like that? 5 trout limit on stocked lakes is a-okay with me.

You'd be surprised at how little fishermen care and how lazy and unorganized we are. The MLPA has more than proved that here in CA...