More than two years ago, I questioned the legitimacy of a 43.6 pound, world-record rainbow trout caught at Lake Diefenbaker after learning that it was an escapee from a fish farm – a rainbow trout genetically engineered to grow to the size of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
That post stirred up almost 50 comments, and now that a 48 pound rainbow was caught from the same lake by the brother of the original record holder, I expect there to be a lot more questions about the legitimacy of genetically engineered fish, at least as they pertain to records.
First, from ESPN:
Diefenbaker’s rainbow production is the result of commercially raised sterile rainbows (triploids) escaping local growing pens in 2000, when roughly a half-million fish entered the lake through a damaged net at CanGro Fish Farm.
Because they’re genetically engineered to have three sets of chromosomes instead of two, their growth rate is substantially higher than a diploid rainbow because all of their living energy goes into feeding, with no physical stressors related to spawning.
Biologists estimate that Lake Diefenbaker’s trout could survive for upwards of 20 years, but the lake is almost certainly on the downward side of a steep growth curve that started with the original half-million escapees. That said, Sean Konrad doesn’t discount the possibility of a 50-pounder.
The IGFA is now put in the position of recognizing a world record fish that basically couldn’t occur in the wild, yet was caught by “sporting” means.
While that seems like the classic no-win situation for the IGFA (rock, meet hard place), sticking their collective heads up their asses and pretending there’s no issue probably isn’t going to play in the long run – as more genetically engineered fish render records meaningless.
Maybe they could show a few guts and – you know – just say no.
If a runner set a new world record in the marathon, but was found guilty of EPO doping in the drug test, he’d be stripped of the record.
Yet the IGFA seems willing to hand world records over to anyone who can produce a Frankenfish.
In truth, this is probably all a good thing. With any luck, every externally validated trophy hound on the planet will soon start churning out record-setting fish in their swimming pools, rendering the concept of “world record fish” a pointless one.
After that’s happened, those who fish simply because they love the sport should have more water to themselves – all the trophy hunters will be home fiddling with their do-it-yourself genetics kits.
See you at the taxidermist, Tom Chandler.
The IGFA needs to take a lesson from the Boone & Crockett club on their stand against pellet -head whitetails. They’re not recognizing all of the genetically engineered deer-cattle that are being reared in pens and turned out onto ranches for “fair chase” hunts.
http://www.sullivanwhitetailranch.com/content/BreederBucks.cfm
Tosh(Quote)
Solution: Do away with the IGFA. Records might matter in baseball, but should have no place in fishing.
Turnip Truck Driver(Quote)
Tosh; Good on B&C. Hunting has bigger hurdles to overcome than even fishing in this regard.
Turnip: Records matter in baseball? Maybe they do, but – in light of all the doping scandals (and the likely possibility MLS’s weak testing protocols aren’t catching most of the dopers) – haven’t they already become meaningless?
Hopefully, the same thing will happen in angling.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Maybe we just need a new class for these monsters. If genetically they are that much different then isn’t it a different fish technically?
I assume the IGFA has separate records for Wipers (Striped/White Bass Hybrids) which don’t occur naturally, grow at an astounding rate, and are similarly devoid of spawning ability. They don’t just lump them in with Stripers or White Bass right? So why not just make a new category for these things and call them what they are.
3than(Quote)
I am with the idea of just say no to doping. Your sports analogy pretty much sums it up.
Tight lines
Fish Whisperer(Quote)
I’ll be happy with a native trout, brook, brown, rainbow that weighs that many ounces. The IFGA may reward the fossil-fuel-fools that go dredging for GM trout or metalflaking for bass, but real fisherman don’t need too.
HexaMaineiac(Quote)
Need to know if fish in question is male or female, or both. Then I cn decide.
Flykuni(Quote)
Oh, pish. Go back a very brief tick of evolutionary time, and all fish are genetically engineered. The fish we consider most valuable and beautiful–cutts and brookies for example–are also the most genetically delicate, which is a gentle way of saying they’re extinction-bait whether we care or not; our best effort to eradicate or preserve is only a blip of momentary time. Brown trout aren’t even native to the US and brookies are not native to the west coast. Adaptation is genetic engineering whether the selection and the isolation is natural or artificial. Aside from the irrelevant abstraction of a world record–a fluke by any measure, silly, as useful to real anglers as a Mensa membership–there’s a sharp disadvantage to this concern that some weird confluence of events creates a big fish for some yutz (or family of yutzes.) More power to ‘em. Next they can catch Kamloops or or odd-year Pinks from Lake Superior or delta stripers or Florida largemouths in San Diego or Potomac River smallmouth or freakin’ Tilapia from Cub Foods. It’s clear that people dabbling in fish genetics–like atlantic salmon farmers, for example–degrades some aspects of the stock…but that applies also to bananas, hogs, triticale, shad, maize, people, marijuana, every dog that ever lived, and about 9,000 varieties of tomatoes, none of which grow well in my backyard. Indians altered the genetic makeup of horses by breeding them, and of Camas by harvesting them in alternate years, and of Conquistadors by shooting them with errors; and vice versa, mainly by musketting and also sleeping with, not necessarily in that order.
One lake full of sterile Hindenburg rainbows is a size 28 asterisk in the long wild history of fish evolution. I for one am honored to be an active participant in the genetic engineering of Driftless Area brown trout, who are measurably smarter because of my painstaking application of subtle forces of incompetency in fly tying, casting, and mending. No applause necessary.
d
Davem(Quote)
I have to agree with Davem; genetic stasis, or purity, is a fond and false notion about natural science. I actually thought about planting triploid trout into a pond I maintain for kids, old folks, and frustrated anglers (like me) on bad days. This is because triploid trout are naturally sterile, and even though the several means I take to ensure that any planted trout can not escape into the native stream nearby, nothing is perfect. And the occasional planter must make it into our area from the public area a few miles downstream, even if it does not live long. However the triploids are so damned ugly I can’t imagine anyone would prefer them to carp, who are quite noble fish, even if they inhabit odd terrain.
So, yes, let’s encourage planting of sterile oddball fish for the full-cooler crowd. As withe the grotesque mammal game farms, such settings are like roach motels, and spare the rest of us from running into folks who enjoy such ideas of sport.
Philip(Quote)
There seem to be two things we can all agree on here:
1) IGFA records are silly
2) The farther away from the record-chasers we can fish, the better
By the way, I hear that the IGFA triploid brown trout record for fly anglers under 15 years of age using 4-weight rods with 2lb class tippet on a Tuesday afternoon is still open…
Yudo Nomi(Quote)
Tough topic. Along the same lines as a lake-run or ocean-run rainbow trout being categorized as a “rainbow trout” when it is considered by and managed by some governing bodies as a steelhead, when in fact it is still categorized for all scientific purposes as a Oncorhynchus mykiss.
Unless one scientific governing body out there (not IGFA) eventually categorizes one or the other as a sub-species of sorts then how can anyone expect IGFA to rewrite the name in the book. That being said, a triploid rainbow trout, whether occurring naturally (because it does happen in nature, although rare) or by the influence of man, it is still a Oncorhynchus mykiss. Thus, by the common scientific basis for species description, a triploid is still a rainbow trout. So really, IGFA has no power categorizing the triploid as anything other than a rainbow trout.
Also, man’s “artificial” influence on our fisheries can be traced back 100′s of years along a learning curve of fisheries management. When man learned that a heartier and robust “strain” of brown-trout could be introduced geographically to other parts of the world, then in essence, he began “artificially” controlling that fishery.
For example, the Loch Leven brown trout was “introduced” to the US, not a so-called “native” species. Since man “stocked” our lakes and streams with them, should we now strike those huge brown trout from all world record keeping facets because they did not occur there prior to man’s influence?
Man has and will continue to have the power to change our fisheries. Times change, just as man once learned to artifically introduce strains to different locales he has now learned a method to alter the fishery further through hatcheries and now polyploidy. It’s just the way it is. And until one governing scientific body declares the triploid a separate sub-species, then one could say IGFA cannot rule otherwise and the Konrad brothers are catching some damn big Oncorhynchus mykiss. These two men are catching wild rainbows, not domesticated fish. These fish are instinctual predators living in the wild like any other rainbow trout, they are not fed with pellets by man in a “captive” setting and really can’t be categorized a “frankenfish” because by common scientific categorization they are merely Oncorhynchus mykiss. So IGFA and the Konrads have done nothing wrong, they are at the mercy of “the book of species”.
For further reading on man’s thirst for bigger fish and get an idea of the future of our fisheries and man’s inate desire to taint the non-existent definition of “natural order” then read about Texas’ Operation World Record: Operation World Record is an attempt to produce the next world record largemouth bass through a program of selective breeding.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20060508f
A State agency is doing this. And the fish are being caught in the wild. IGFA or no other entity in this world for that matter can control the outcome. IGFA can only approve that the Micropterus salmoides was caught in an ethical and fair manner and store that information for future generations, who will, I bet, find a way to legitimately catch the 30 lb largemouth.
Define Native Fish(Quote)