ChicagoLand Fishing Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.trophytroutguide.com/article ... _trout.htm


This rainbow trout from Lake Diffenbacher in Saskatchewan has been recognized by the IGFA as the new world record despite best efforts by many to have them decide otherwise.

This is NOT a rainbow trout....it is a genetically manipulated sterile, triploid trout which has no real relation to the natural article. All of these large rainbows in this lake (and many other places) are escapees from a fish farming operation with these mutant trout which exists on Lake Diff.. Arguing otherwise is moot as the fish has been DNA tested and been absolutely proven to be one of the genetically altered rainbows.....should this count as a record? Heck the thing was only 8 years old and for the first 3 years of its life was hand fed in a pen....until it escaped. The hatchery eggs are heat treated at a specific point in development and it causes the fish to not have the normal 2N set of chromosomes but a 3N set. Resulting in the fish being sterile and not having any energy wasted in reproduction efforts....something native, wild and hatchery fish spend tremendous amounts of energy on. These mutants can grow to 18 inches and 3+ lbs in 12 months.

Should they count this as a record? Rainbow trout have one of the most storied histories for any fish and allowing genetically manipulated fish to replace those from natural and wild sources is just ethically wrong. But most of the line class records now are from these triploid rainbows....you can catch them on light line because they don't have remotely the fight in them of wild fish. Even the state of California acknowledges these fish in a different category. The IGFA is primarily a saltwater oriented organization.....otherwise there would be whining.

BTW, the triploidism and tremendous "unnatural" growth gives them their astounding girths.....small heads and fins.

Certainly a cool looking fish, but I don't think it should be recognized in any books as a record. Why not fish in Cabela's aquariums and enter as a record? What's the difference? What does everybody think?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,466 Posts
If the human race keeps playing with mother nature, it's gonna bite all of us in the a$$!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Even though its not, it almost looks fake. That fish is rediculous and it in no way should be recognized as the world record. What a chunker though.....lol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,582 Posts
I don't know about you guys, but I would love to catch it. And if I did I would submit it for a record. One will be enginereed to be bigger in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
If it is a mutant, then it should be in it's own category as a world record, much like the Tiger Musky.

I don't think the fact that it is farm raised should make it ineligible for the record books. A significant amount of lakes have stocking programs where farm raised fish are released. Would they not be considered if they reach freakish, world record size? If I caught the next world record musky and it was not allowed to be put in the books because it was once a stocked fish, I would be irate!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,346 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I've always had mixed feelings on whether or not any fish caught from private ponds or the likes should be included as a record. I remember a fellow taxidermist a while back that was denied a record perch that he spoon fed and then caught from his private pond and submitted for the Indiana State Record. Personally, I believe any fish that is caught out of private waters - where not everybody has access should be denied record status. But, that's just me. I'm not the recognizing body.

Now, with this fish it brings up a whole new can of worms. Not only was it privately raised, but it is genetically engineered to grow bigger. Granted, man has created hybrids that grow bigger, but as mentioned these fish have their own category. I too think this one should have it's own category if recognized. Which, I don't believe it should even have that. It's one thing to mix two breeds together, but it's a totally different ballgame when chromosomes have been altered by man to halt breeding and increase growth. What's next? Man has already screwed up the wild populations of trout and salmon via playing with genetics and stockings have ruined the natural populations of hardier fish and have created strains that are more susceptible to diseases. What a mess. This entry - if accepted diminishes the entries of all the other fairly caught, wild populations of fish IMO...
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top