Is the Pending World Record Rainbow a Real Trout?
By Tom Chandler on Jun 27, 2007 in News
The 43.6 pound Rainbow Trout recently caught at Lake Diefenbaker has been submitted for world record status… Except, it’s clear the enormous trout is one of the half-million triploids who escaped a commercial fish farming operation and took up residence at the lake.
Conservation writer Ted Williams sums up the questionable background of the fish:
I learned further that an aquaculture operation called CanGro on Lake Diefenbaker produces over 100 Tons tons of finished commercial fish products annually. The operation is vertically integrated from hatching to processing. Fish are raised inside from egg to feeding size, then moved to net cages in the lake. The fish raised are steelheadXrainbow crosses and triploid females. Apparently the record fish was one of triploid females that recently escaped from CanGro net pens.
In other words, the “pending” world record (IGFA) was raised in a pen, genetically manipulated to grow huge, and regularly fed. Not exactly in line with the “spirit” of the rules, and it raises some pretty interesting questions — which I expect you to answer.
Can anything raised (and fed) in a pen be a “real” world record? The floor is yours…
Technorati Tags: fishing, rainbow trout, trout, world record, igfa, lake diefenbaker, ted williams
hawgdaddy | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
No.
kbarton10 | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
It depends on whether you ascribe to the National Enquirer theory of weights and measures…
Many world records are unearthed and legitimized by the scientific staff at NE…recent examples include the 1400 lb portugese 9 year old, that had not eaten in 8 years - as well as the 12″ tall chocolate Virgin Mary - now proudly displayed at GoldenPalace.com…
I could argue the fat kid was pen raised, but that would align me with boorish, non PC behavior.
I figure a Vibert box is a pen too.
Many of the species we stalk are as inbred as the reigning Houses of Europe…not through any fault of our own, this was done many years ago.
Cleft palates we can handle, but Hemophiliac trout will doom Catch and Release fishing for certain.
I would allow it, that big arsed triploid could have been ground into cat chow, he took his chances and won. That is still a singularity in my book.
Doug | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
What do you think Tom?
You can force feed any animal, but that is not natural. If this is one of the reared fish then it shouldn’t be considered for this particular record, but perhaps there are other records to define.
Although, look at the Asian carp in England that have been eating and getting fat off ground bait over the years that are being caught up to 50lbs. You don’t get them that size in nature, but the English are quite happy to qualify these exotic species, that were introduced hundreds of years ago, for national records.
kbarton10 | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
Yep, you’re right…as the angler supersized his BigMac and Fries prior to landing this behemoth, it is unnatural and should be disallowed.
So, in that jaundiced light, can we assume that the only valid 100m dash record involves a Pterodactyl chasing a Caveman?
I mean…unless a dirty loincloth and flint spear is involved, aren’t all records unnatural?
Bjorn | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
Yeah… I’m going to call BS on that one. I caught some massive fish at Henderson Springs, but the clearly were not “natural” so I don’t count them in my personal list of “largest trout”, because they were Disney Trout, just not real.
When a trout gets pen fed it grows that hump back from getting too much food in too short a time… a sure sign of the fish’s past in the Pen.
El Pescador | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
it’s definitely not a “real” world record but it is a record frankenbow…isn’t it? did he catch it on a chernobyl fly of some kind?
Larry Swearingen | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
“Can anything raised (and fed) in a pen be a “real” world record?”
Abolutely NOT ! Just my humble opinion.
Larry S
ijsouth | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
This fish is the Barry Bonds of the piscatorial world. It might set a record, but much like Bonds’ upcoming “event”, it will never be accepted, nor should it be. Setting a record should be about skill; clearly, this fish was never intended to be caught on a hook and line, and little to no skill was involved in catching it.
tom | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
I caught a fish identical in shape but only about 7″ long , an the upper Sac at Scherrer St at the RR tracks
Tom Chandler | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
I’m heading for the lake to try and catch a legitimate world record fish.
Sure, the odds are against me.
As for this world record, I think this is the kind of thing that happens when you start keeping records. I’m in favor of abolishing them all right now, but sadly, I hold a minority opinion.
Right now we’re wondering about force-fed triploids. In a few years, it’ll be gene-spliced superfish — the Rainbow Capable of Eating Your Fly, Line & Rod (not to mention you).
Reed | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
No.
Since this was a triploid trout, all of its resources were diverted from the matter of reproduction into increase in mass. Just as with steers, we want these fish to keep their mind on eating, just eating. Now, we can debate whether such single-minded behavior is good overall, but it certainly has no benefit to the species.
We don’t allow dogs who have been sterilized to compete in events, since - should they win - their genetic material could not be passed on to improve the breed. I suggest we apply somewhat similar logic to triploid fish and records, should the fish escape the frying pan. It might even be argued that these triploid trout are not genetically the same species of fish as their diploid cousins.
BTW, one interesting note on the use of triploids - triploid male brook trout can sexually mature (triploid females don’t) and disrupt the spawning behavior of diploid brook trout.
Best regards,
Reed
kbarton10 | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
Interesting thought that…
” we can debate whether such single-minded behavior is good overall, but it certainly has no benefit to the species.”
For a second I thought he was talking about High School kids and Sex - wasn’t the result that we (humanity) rose to the top of the food chain?
Perhaps this “scout” was the first evidence of a insidious plot to reduce Mankind to serfdom - a gi-normous sentient race of trout, intent on World domination?
Put a cute name like “triploid” on it, but someone put a rubberband around some mighty sensitive equipment…I would hold a grudge, large.
Reed | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
kbarton,
You said “For a second I thought he was talking about High School kids and Sex - wasn’t the result that we (humanity) rose to the top of the food chain?”
Actually, the average High School male’s preoccupation with sex is probably detrimental to the advance of the species. Given the 23 hours and 57 minutes a day he spends thinking about sex and the possible remainder of the time spent in propagating the species (if he is “lucky”), it is a wonder that we still exist. Add in Onanism and we might feel endangered as a species.
As for being the “top of the food chain”, there are some microbes that might be better contenders.
Best regards,
Reed
Bruno Greco | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
That is like shooting a deer raised on a farm in a fenced pen….no record. I am sure it was fun to catch, and wouldn’t mind being the one to do so, but no record no way.
ethanopia | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
This record is no different than the future Barry Bonds home run record. Sure, it happened, but it was juiced up by unnatural means, and should be stricken from the books.
Now, Pete Rose, he should be allowed in the hall of fame!
KW Morrow | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
I think fish raised in aquaculture ag facilities should not be legitimized as SPORT fish.
But I think THAT is the appropriate line of demarcation rather than simply “pen raised” or “artificially fed.” If you use those standards, then ALL hatchery fish are out of bounds. That would eliminate MOST IGFA world records. If the fish was raised for sporting purposes (like typical hatchery fish released young into sport fisheries), then it’s cool. If it was raised for agriculture, research, etc. then it is not cool for sportfish records.
kbarton10 | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
Genetic stocks have been polluted for most of a century; rainbow trout, humans, and asparagus, all have undergone evolutionary changes due to environment and artificial genetic tinkering.
I agree with KW, that if you insist on the moral high-ground, all hatchery fish are out of bounds. I would also include all fish that were transplanted to new habitat - as they had an unfair advantage (read unnatural) as well.
Purism is a house of cards, as effluent from farms and cities have changed growth rates of almost every species (usually for the worse). Hydro electric dams and their turbines dice fish from lakes and spew this chum into an afterbay or stream, is this not “artificial” feeding as well?
Proximity to humans can influence growth rates, but in the rare instance there is some benefit - we are going to claim it’s “unnatural” therefore wrong?
“Cultured” pearls are man made but still quite expensive, they are considered pearls just the same. Aside from a change to the categories of world records, I see no way not to legitimize this beast.
A guy goes fishing and throws a hook in a lake populated by Rainbow trout, he lands the biggest ever, case closed.
Reed | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
I think the answer to the subject line - “Is the pending world record rainbow a real trout?” - should be based upon how the fish was modified and not necessarily on how it was raised. In other words, is the fish genetically the same as the species “norm”? Obviously, a sterile triploid fish is not genetically the same as a fertile diploid. For political and economic reasons, genetically modified species are allowed to retain the taxonomy of the parent species (even though genes may be introduced from other fish species, or plants, bacteria, etc.) even though, in the case of triploid salmon, “triploid fish include all
elements of the diploid genotype, but the reverse is not the case.” (click for reference)
Thus, from a purely genetic sense, IMO that fish is not a rainbow trout. JMO, of course.
Best regards,
Reed
Tom Chandler | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
kbarton: I found the hidden meaning in your post. You’re going to catch a world-record asparagus, aren’t you? (Admit it!)
This topic is an excellent example of a slippery slope; start placing conditions on the circumstances surrounding a record, and chaos is the likely result.
My initial take was that a “fed” fish shouldn’t qualify, but the trout below Ruedi dam on the Frying Pan are essentially “fed” by the shrimp that were planted in the reservoir. Aren’t tailwaters inherently artificial?
Of course, throw commerce into the gears, and you’ll likely jam the wheels of logic entirely.
For example, it’s common for pay-to-play British stillwaters to raise monstrous fish, which are then dumped into the lake in the hopes someone will catch them before they expire, bringing favorable publicity to the business.
Hell, in this case, this monster trout was caught by one of a small handful of youngsters who decided to specifically target these escaped fish to bring favorable publicity to their guide venture.
So what counts?
Since I’m not in line for any record of any kind, I say we abolish them all — until such time as I land a world record. That works for me.
Mike Love | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
Why not make to classes of records one for real trout and the other for giant genetically engineered mutant trout.
kbarton10 | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
Good idea.
Ok, Lift up that trout’s skirt and tell me which kind it is…
Kentucky Jim | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
That is the ugliest trout I’ve ever seen. I will say, though, that I’ve caught a much smaller version with the same body type. Those fish had stuffed themselves on small shad that had received some rough treatment from some generator turbines.
KW Morrow | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
Personally, I’m kind of in the same boat as Tom on this one. It would be just fine with me if there were no records…period. No tournaments, no records, no “what’s your biggest…” or “how many did you catch” questions used to hang labels, promote gear, and promote fisheries. The whole “X number of world records caught here” hype and nonsense has just about ruined some very nice rivers. I know many anglers who refuse to fish close to home anymore, but instead make one or more big trips per year to “holy water” somewhere else. Nothing wrong with trips…I love them too! But I have a hard time understanding the angler who won’t fish locally/regionally several times per year so that he can go to “world class water” once per year. There is world class water almost EVERYWHERE in this country within driving distance for a day trip. Most of it is just unpublicized…thank God!
Will | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
The parallels to the Bonds record ARE remarkeable. When Bonds hits number 756, does he break the record? He does, in my opinion, but we must conclude that the record books themselves are compromised. Similarly, as the fishing record books are filled with force-fed, genetically questionable fish, the caveats come out. How can they not? The record books themselves are the victims - what is this record testing now? I agree with ijsouth: certainly skill is not being tested here. So what becomes the record that tests (at least somewhat) the skill of the angler? If there is no replacement, we must say the record books are not only lacking, but misleading.
Mike | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
Do you think Barry Bonds deserves the praise he gets? Enough said.
Clay | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
I call shenanagins!!! Oh what the hell, give the kid a record. I could give him a whole bunch of records, I have all the classics but my record player is broken and parts for repair are non-existant. Records need definition, I have a friend that caught a 32″ river brown on the Muskegon river but the State of Michigan does not discriminate between “Lake Browns” and “River Browns”. Although there is a HUGE difference. Lake Browns look like a football,(much like that rainbow), and “River Browns” are almost “tube like”. But in the large scheme of things who gives a schmidt.
Tom Chandler | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
You gotta love a topic that incites more thought than a tortured, 1200 page novel.
In truth, if you can’t adjust your perceptions up and down to match the environment, then there’s little hope for you in the first place.
I fished the lake a couple nights ago, and caught trout up to 17″, yet the “big fish” of the week was the 14″ brown from the smaller stream.
With that in mind, what’s “bigger” to you — a 16″ rainbow that blindly ate a wooly bugger you were dragging behind the float tube, or a 12″ rainbow you caught from the lakes inlet, and had to make a long roll cast under an overhanging bush to do it?
As for records, I’ve read a lot of stories lately about a guy in Florida who holds more fly fishing weight records (based on tippet classes) than anyone else. It’s basically what he does, and all I could think was “that would suck.”
Mike | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
A record in my mind goes to show that you have done soomething that no one else has. Sure this guy caught a massive rainbow that is breaking records; I’ll give him credit no one else has done it. I’m not sure I could go feel completely satisfied knowing that my record was juiced up on Balco Drugs, but what the hell, its the fattest rainbow I’ve ever seen, good for you. It’s the new record and someone else should break it if they feel like complaining.
On the other hand if I held a record for the biggest tarpon on light tippet, or any fish for that matter, I would challenge anyone and their mother to top that. If you say that sort of record is silly or unmentionable, I’d like to see you try and break it. Bob Rich broke several fly rod records by pulling in all sorts of exotic fish on light tippet. No one else has done it and until someone else breaks his records that is exactly what he will have until someone does.
kbarton10 | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
I submitted a claim to the IGFA yesterday for largest rainbow trout.
Just lucky I guess, but I had eaten some farm raised Rainbow trout for dinner that evening…on an errant backcast I managed to hook myself in the left buttock…
The way I figure, there was enough genetic material from dinner coursing through my bloodstream to qualify me as a trout.
I won’t mention the 14 colors I turned when the barbed #4 long shank tore through my jeans…
Gordie | Jul 18, 2007 | Reply
In the 1930’s there was a trout a rainbow. It was said to be a kamloops or a gerard rainbow. This was netted in jewel lake. In the Greenwood BC area. In the 1950’s another big one taken and many large fish years ago. The 1930’s one weighed 52 lbs. 2 Oz. Where do they figure 43 lbs being the record. My Guess the species.
Brad Ranger | Aug 17, 2007 | Reply
Hey guys I’m a fishin maniac. I live a few hours from Jewel lake B.C. The lake is full of crayfish. No more big rainbows. And when these
net pen Quazimoto’s out live thier time, and we can’t seem to come close to that elusive record any more, all we have to do is to slash open one more triploid net pen and were back in business. Better yet I’ve studied Salmonid Culture at UBC I can just grow my own triploid
in a private lake net pen, have my brother release it, then catch it. Why don,t we all do it. I,ve wanted to do that for years, But what is the legacy we leave behind? It,s not moral!!
Now having said that you can,t fault the Konrad Boys they,re probably pretty awesome guys. They obviosly worked hard for what they,ve got,(breaking four records, releasing hundreds of trout over 20lbs.) But boys this just doesn,t sit well with most. Keep fishing,Don,t enter the genetically-altered non propagating fish.
S'toon | Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
Hey Fella’s I live in Saskatoon, an hour north of Lake Diefenbaker where this trout was caught. My dad was a Conservation and I grew up living 100yards from the shore of Diefenbaker. About 10 years ago 500 000 Bows escaped from the pens on Diefenbaker. These were grown trout mostly weighing 8-12 lbs. I know cause I had been down to throw pellets into their pens a few times. Anyway. It should be a record.
What are the chances that a fish will get away from a pen and grow to be that huge? Not very good. What are the chances that someone will catch a fish that big??? How many fish have you caught that were that big? Actually, I would be there are bigger trout in the lake than that, so why don’t you come and catch one???
In reality it’s not like shooting fish in a barrel. These two brothers fished the heck out of that lake getting to know it and the fish in it. They worked hard specifically for record rainbows and have gotten some. Good for them.
Personally I would rather see someone earn a record like they have not luck into a record like some kid trolling for pike with his dad.
As well, keep in mind that fish put on at LEAST 30 lbs during its lake life. Sure it had an advantage but I’ve seen a Whitefish that weighed 32lbs (Great Slave lake) because it was a triploid and had an advantage. Anyway, just remember that that fish was not fed to be a 30 lb trout in the pen!!!!