03-18-2008, 07:33 PM
I have limited time on my lunch break and I have not yet taken the time to read the Fish Lake article (I assume that W&B and PBH are refering to the same article). But from what you two have quoted from the Fish Lake article, it sounds to me like it makes a MUCH better explaination of why a 25 year old fish was still so small.
PBH, It just seemed funny to me when you stated:
"Size is not a factor of age." Interpreted literally, a 1 day old lake trout is capable of weighing 30 pounds if conditions are right.
I think what you are meaning to say is something more like this:
"Age is only one of many factors affecting the size of a fish." I think all of us can agree on this.
[signature]
PBH, It just seemed funny to me when you stated:
"Size is not a factor of age." Interpreted literally, a 1 day old lake trout is capable of weighing 30 pounds if conditions are right.
I think what you are meaning to say is something more like this:
"Age is only one of many factors affecting the size of a fish." I think all of us can agree on this.
[signature]