03-18-2008, 03:17 PM
hashbaz -- thanks for taking the time to read the article, and for being interested in learning something new -- another concept that many fishermen struggle with...
1. From page 4: "Fishermen often underestimate how fast trout can grow and overestimate the time it takes to grow a trophy trout. Large trout are often a function of fast growth rather than old fish"
2. From page 8: "Fact or Myth? Catch and release fishing regulations allow fish to live longer and thus, grow larger...
...The assumption that released fish are predestined to become large with old age is false. By now, this should be obvious based on what has been discussed about population density and indeterminate growth."
You mentioned environmental conditions. Is Flaming Gorge a good environment to produce large lake trout? You bet. Do Lake Trout have the genetics to grow large? You bet. So, what happened with the fish in question? Why was it so small for its age?
To find out, you can read another very interesting paper on another of Utah's famous fisheries, Fish Lake: [url "http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/fish_lake/fish_lake_lake_trout.pdf"]http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/fish_lake/fish_lake_lake_trout.pdf[/url]
From this study, we find that:
1. From page v: "...it is clear that many lake trout do not convert to a fish diet and remain at smaller sizes compared to their piscivorus counterparts..."
2. From page 5: "Growth rates among individual fish were highly variable. Age 9 lake trout, stocked in 1991 and recaptured in 2000, ranged in size from 15 to 33 inches.
3. From page 6: "Lake trout began consuming forage fish when they reached 18 inches in length. By the time they reached 25 inches they switched to an entirely piscivorus diet."
4. From page 8: "...lake trout between 18-24 inches switch from a diet insects and zooplankton to one dominated by forage fish. However, it is apparent that not all lake trout in Fish Lake are able to make the transition to a piscivorus diet."
So, what can we conclude concerning the fish caught by the biologist?
A. It was an old fish
B. It was in a good environment for growing large fish
C. It had the genetics to grow a large fish
D. It didn't grow large
a. Because it didn't utilize its environment
b. It never made the switch to an entirely piscivorus diet
Should this be surprising? No. If you understand the what's and the why's of fish growth, this should not be surprising at all. Quite simply, the fish was content, or could not make the switch from, eating insects. It never made the switch to a strictly fish diet.
Some of you guys are taking this way to personal. There is nothing wrong with using studies to further understand the biology of our fisheries and the fish in them. If you understand it, it will only make you a better fisherman. Is that bad?
[signature]
1. From page 4: "Fishermen often underestimate how fast trout can grow and overestimate the time it takes to grow a trophy trout. Large trout are often a function of fast growth rather than old fish"
2. From page 8: "Fact or Myth? Catch and release fishing regulations allow fish to live longer and thus, grow larger...
...The assumption that released fish are predestined to become large with old age is false. By now, this should be obvious based on what has been discussed about population density and indeterminate growth."
You mentioned environmental conditions. Is Flaming Gorge a good environment to produce large lake trout? You bet. Do Lake Trout have the genetics to grow large? You bet. So, what happened with the fish in question? Why was it so small for its age?
To find out, you can read another very interesting paper on another of Utah's famous fisheries, Fish Lake: [url "http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/fish_lake/fish_lake_lake_trout.pdf"]http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/fish_lake/fish_lake_lake_trout.pdf[/url]
From this study, we find that:
1. From page v: "...it is clear that many lake trout do not convert to a fish diet and remain at smaller sizes compared to their piscivorus counterparts..."
2. From page 5: "Growth rates among individual fish were highly variable. Age 9 lake trout, stocked in 1991 and recaptured in 2000, ranged in size from 15 to 33 inches.
3. From page 6: "Lake trout began consuming forage fish when they reached 18 inches in length. By the time they reached 25 inches they switched to an entirely piscivorus diet."
4. From page 8: "...lake trout between 18-24 inches switch from a diet insects and zooplankton to one dominated by forage fish. However, it is apparent that not all lake trout in Fish Lake are able to make the transition to a piscivorus diet."
So, what can we conclude concerning the fish caught by the biologist?
A. It was an old fish
B. It was in a good environment for growing large fish
C. It had the genetics to grow a large fish
D. It didn't grow large
a. Because it didn't utilize its environment
b. It never made the switch to an entirely piscivorus diet
Should this be surprising? No. If you understand the what's and the why's of fish growth, this should not be surprising at all. Quite simply, the fish was content, or could not make the switch from, eating insects. It never made the switch to a strictly fish diet.
Some of you guys are taking this way to personal. There is nothing wrong with using studies to further understand the biology of our fisheries and the fish in them. If you understand it, it will only make you a better fisherman. Is that bad?
[signature]