03-18-2008, 06:59 AM
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]
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]