+- Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Utah Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=386)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Board (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Thread: Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later (/showthread.php?tid=401352)
Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - TubeDude - 03-17-2008
[cool][#0000ff]This article is in a lot of newspapers today. Interesting.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff] Biologist hooks fish he stocked in 1983 The Associated Press
GREEN RIVER, Wyo. --
Some people catch fish and release them. Bill Wengert releases them and then catches them - a quarter-century later.
In April 1983, Wengert and other state Game and Fish Department biologists stocked some 12,000 young trout in the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in southwest Wyoming.
Game and Fish spokeswoman Lucy Wold said Wengert was ice fishing recently on the 91-mile-long reservoir and caught a 23-inch Mackinaw trout, a type of lake trout.
Wengert noticed the trout's right pelvic fin had been clipped, indicating it was a hatchery fish that had been stocked. Examining historical stocking data, Wengert determined the fish was stocked on April 14, 1983.
"I may have actually clipped the fins on this very fish, and I know I was driving the barge when the fish were stocked, nearly 25 years ago," Wengert said.
Wengert, a 35-year veteran of the agency, estimated the trout was 26 years old because stocked fish spend a year in a hatchery before being released. But he said it was very skinny, weighing only 2.5 pounds, compared to another trout released at the same time that weighed 17 pounds when it was caught in 2004.
He said the trout will allow fishery biologists "an opportunity to learn more about fish genetics, age and growth of lake trout in the reservoir."
[signature]
Re: [TubeDude] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - lov2fish - 03-17-2008
[shocked] this is pretty cool article.
[signature]
Re: [TubeDude] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - Theekillerbee - 03-17-2008
Neat article, but that fish sure must have been the runt of the litter.
[signature]
Re: [Theekillerbee] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - TubeDude - 03-17-2008
[cool][#0000ff]That really was strange...that small and that old. With good food and no illnesses that fish would probably have been 10 times that weight.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Must not have been getting enough burbot in its diet.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]If nothing else, the article makes a good case for not harvesting older and bigger fish. It takes too long to grow 'em.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Re: [TubeDude] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - CROSSINEYES - 03-17-2008
the report was posted by the angler on the wyo board in his own words as well.[
][signature]
Re: [TubeDude] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - RyanCreek - 03-17-2008
What's up with that fish? 25 years later and its that small?!? [shocked] Wow... That can't be normal. I wonder if there's a possibility some data got messed up with stocked lakers and its actually much younger.
They do take a very long time to grow nonetheless, even in the best conditions.
[signature]
Re: [RyanCreek] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - TubeDude - 03-17-2008
[cool][#0000ff]You are right. That is highly unusual. I also questioned the data. But, I suspect that they kept the fish and checked the "otolith" growths in the fish's head to verify the age. I cannot imagine a fish surviving that long if it had some kind of problem with feeding or growth. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[signature]
Re: [TubeDude] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - Wyobraz - 03-17-2008
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]Here is a link to the Wyoming Game and Fish Website concerning this topic. Bill Wengert is the leading Biologist for Lake Trout in Flaming Gorge, and I respect his knowlege and opinion concerning this fish. If he says it was stocked in 1983 I guarantee that was when it was stocked.[/size][/#808000][/font]
[signature]
Re: [Wyobraz] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - Saberfish - 03-17-2008
[black][size 3]Just my personal guess, but I suspect that genetics play a part in eventual fish size. [/size][/black]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]Like all species, there are genetic factors that contribute to the size a particular "family".[/size]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]If a fish comes from a gene pool that demonstrates large growth characteristics, all of the fish from that particular pool have the possibility of large growth.[/size]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]Just my .02 worth, but it makes sense to me.[/size]
[size 3][/size]
[signature]
Re: [Saberfish] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - PBH - 03-17-2008
OK -- I'll tone this one down.
Everyone please look forward to learning something new every day. This is an educational opportunity.
It is no surprise that the fish was small. Fish are fish. Fish are NOT mammals or birds, and thus do NOT grow like mammals or birds. They never have, and they never will. Thus, age is not the determining factor in growth. Just because a fish is old, does NOT mean it should be large.
I urge all of you to read the following article. Please, please, please take a couple minutes to read it. (saber, I thought you already read this? Did you forget it already?) [url "http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/4-step_plan.pdf"]http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/...bbon/4-step_plan.pdf[/url]
Fishermen need to understand this concept if they hope to understand fisheries management. If you don't understand why this fish was small and old at the same time, then how can you understand any sportfish management policies? This is a basic concept that the majority of fishermen never grasp -- yet it's an easy concept to grasp.
Hopefully, no one has been offended by my post. I simply hope that some of you can understand and learn that fish are fish. They don't grow like us. Size is not a factor of age.
Tubedude -- your an old fish. Your also a large fish. I had hoped that you would have understood that an old fish isn't necessarily a large fish. My expectations for you were higher! I guess when you are placed on a pedestal, there is only one place to go: down.
[signature]
Re: [PBH] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - trout_slayer - 03-17-2008
Uh Oh!!! Dr. PBH with his masters degree is back with some informative info, just to make us all look dumb!!
] Who is to say that this fish wasnt 30 lbs 5 years ago and got a huge complex and decided to lose a couple pounds by swimming as hard as he could from one end of the lake to the other? It is 91 miles long, I would lose a ton of weight that way too HAHAHA[laugh] TS
[signature]
Re: [PBH] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - Saberfish - 03-17-2008
[black][size 3]I don't place much value in this or any published opinion. The subject is totally off the matter being discussed.[/size][/black]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]A few years ago, the same group of "experts" that are trying to feed us the global warming story today, were trying to convince us of a soon to occur ice age.[/size]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]If you look on page 3 of the works that you reference, the writers seem to agree that genetics do play a major factor in fish size.[/size]
[black][size 3](but also feel that there are other factors)[/size][/black]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]I'm not looking for a middle of main street shoot out, but please recognize that just because something is written, does not make it true or the last word.[/size]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]Peace[/size]
[size 3][/size]
[signature]
Re: [PBH] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - TubeDude - 03-18-2008
[black]"I guess when you are placed on a pedestal, there is only one place to go: down. "[/black]
[black][/black]
[black][cool][#0000ff]That is your opinion. Not everybody elses. At least I don't TALK DOWN to everybody on the board as if they were complete morons. [/#0000ff][/black]
[black][#0000ff][/#0000ff][/black]
[black][#0000ff]Did it ever occur to you that we do not hold our collective breaths until you deign to bless us with more rhetoric and references? And, could you possibly consider that it is not your calling in life to try to make everybody feel stupid?[/#0000ff][/black]
[black][#0000ff][/#0000ff][/black]
[black][#0000ff]We value your meaningful input, but you REALLY DON'T have to jump in and blast everybody whenever you see an opportunity to turn a casual discussion into a confrontation.[/#0000ff][/black]
[black][#0000ff][/#0000ff][/black]
[black][#0000ff]So what if the fish is old and small? Who cares? I don't. [/#0000ff]
[/black]
[signature]
Re: [TubeDude] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - lunkerhunter2 - 03-18-2008
Without the "head pieces" being examined, how do they know someone didn't clip the fin on a younger fish recently? I have seen many fish marked by people other than the dwr. There might be something more to it than that though. Just want to know.[
][signature]
Re: [lunkerhunter2] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - Wyobraz - 03-18-2008
[font "Tempus Sans ITC"][#808000][size 3]Brody, the Wyoming G&F biologists did examin the Otoliths on this fish, and it matched what they originally thought about the fish being part of the 11,656 hatchery released fish that had the right pelvic fin clipped in 1983.[/size][/#808000][/font]
[signature]
Re: [Wyobraz] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - fsh4fun05 - 03-18-2008
What exactly is an "otolith"? Hope I don't get wrist slapped for asking a stupid question.[
][signature]
Re: [Wyobraz] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - lunkerhunter2 - 03-18-2008
Cool, thanks. How many of the released fish do they think survived?
[signature]
Re: [fsh4fun05] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - riverdog - 03-18-2008
Ear bones, can be used to tell the age and even what bodies of water it lived in if it was moved, by the mineral composition.
[signature]
Re: [PBH] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - hashbaz - 03-18-2008
Let me see if I understand the relevant portions of the article correctly:
1. only the maximum potential size of a fish is determined by genetics.
2. the size of a fish is determined by the "fertility" of the lake (availbility of food etc) and not the age of the fish.
Therefore, if we have a 2.5 pound fish that has been in those water for 25 years then we must conclude that those waters are not very fertile and/or that there is way too many fish in the water and not enough food there to allow them to grow very quickly.
But we know that there are some big lake trout in Flaming Gorge. We can only asume that the lake was more fertile 25+ years ago and that all the large lake trout in Flaming Gorge must have gotten very large and then nearly stopped growing for the past 25+ years.
I have never fished Flaming Gorge before. But if the only large fish in there have been there for more than 25 years, I'm guessing that it must be nearly impossible to catch large fish nowdays.
Besides fishing, I also like to keep aquariums. I current have some fish that are 1 week old. They are still very small. Because (quote) Size is not a factor of age (end quote), I can only conclude that I am not feeding them enough. Or perhaps I need to try a different brand of food.
*****End of sarcasm******
If other fish in the same body of water are growing much faster, I am surprised that this particular fish did not either grow faster also, or else die of malnutrition.
PBH, Even after reading your article, I fail to see why we should not be surprised by a fish being this old and this small. Would you explain this to me?
PS Please feel free to call me names and insult my inteligence. This will help me to understand, and gives your arguements more credibility.
[signature]
Re: [fsh4fun05] Tagged FG Mack Hooked Again...25 Years Later - TubeDude - 03-18-2008
[cool][#0000ff]The only "STUPID" question is one that you DON'T ask if you really want or need the answers.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][url "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otolith"]HERE IS A LINK[/url] to what Wikipedia has to say about otoliths.[/#0000ff]
[signature]