# 48# Rainbow Fraud?



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/biotechfishing?npu=1&mbid=yhp










Wired Science News for Your Neurons
48-Pound Trout: World Record or Genetic Cheat?

* By Brandon Keim Email Author
* September 15, 2009 | 
* 4:37 pm | 
* Categories: Animals, Biotech, Ethics
*

konradrecordrainbow580-350

In an age of biotechnological juicing, not even the easygoing pastime of fishing is free from controversies over artificial enhancement.

On September 5, Saskatchewan fisherman Sean Konrad caught a 48-pound, world-record rainbow trout. The fish came from Lake Diefenbaker, where trout genetically engineered to grow extra-big escaped from a fish farm nine years ago.

The previous world record was held by Seans twin brother Adam, who pulled a 43-pound, 10-ounce rainbow trout from Lake Diefenbaker in 2007. That catch sparked online debate over the legitimacy of Lake Diefenbakers farm-born, genetically-engineered rainbows. Technically known as triploids, theyre designed with three sets of chromosomes, making them sterile and channeling energies normally spent reproducing towards growth.

In 2007, on a message board of the International Game Fish Association, the angling worlds record- and ethics-keeping body, some fishermen argued that triploids were unnatural, as divorced from the sports history as Barry Bonds home runs were from Hank Aarons.

The IGFA refused to make a distinction between natural and GM fish. Neither would they distinguish between species caught in their traditional waters and those introduced into new, growth-friendly environments, such as largemouth bass whose extra-large ancestors were imported from Florida to California in the 1960s.

But to purists, there was a difference between transplantation and outright manufacture.

The Konrad brothers response on the message board was curt: Stop crying and start fishing.

Now theyve caught another record-breaking trout. Or have they?


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

IMHO, it is still a 48# rainbow, aka the largest recorded rainbow. However, I remember reading about a 50lb+ rainbow landed out of Jewel Lake in BC, I believe. What happened with that?


----------



## Kearly Shuffle (Sep 15, 2006)

Yeah...I don't care where it came from or what it is...That is a HOG! :yikes:


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

I don't know.... Remember the Supersalmon of the 70's? They regularly got to 90#'s and almost 100#.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

How does that make it a "Fraud"? Whether or not they qualify it as a record is one thing, but it is a real fish, a real rainbow trout, and they really caught it.....so not fraud.


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

A fish is a fish, and that looks to be one nice fish Maybe being the opertunistic feeders they our, would be nice if are DNR would look into planting some of those in Huron? Would be great to have salmon on the westside and 30-40 lb. bows on the eastside.  Can you imagine the splash from that thing going airborne:yikes:


----------



## Sam22 (Jan 22, 2003)

Those fish were in field and stream, or maybe it was a different but similar mag, years ago. For any of you/us with a biology or fish management background, Triploid fish are not new news. I don't see a problem with these fish being the record. It has always been that some specific spots hold the world class fish and others just dont. Take for instance the world record Large Mouth Bass, those little private lakes in California are the only place you have a chance to get into fish like that, and they are basically farmed there. Fish have been manged proliteriately since the time of english settlement! Get used to it.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

wartfroggy said:


> How does that make it a "Fraud"? Whether or not they qualify it as a record is one thing, but it is a real fish, a real rainbow trout, and they really caught it.....so not fraud.


"48 Pound Rainbow Trout Fraud?" was the name of the original link from my Yahoo home page.


----------



## Kearly Shuffle (Sep 15, 2006)

QuakrTrakr said:


> I don't know.... Remember the Supersalmon of the 70's? They regularly got to 90#'s and almost 100#.


Yeah, I do remember those. And there were some later than the 70's because I remember someone catching one that was close to 60lbs during the Harrisville tourney one year and all holy heck broke loose. A lot of the other anglers didn't think it should count towards daily weight or individual weight.


----------



## Fish Eye (Mar 30, 2007)

Ralph Smith said:


> ...would be nice if are DNR would look into planting some of those in Huron? Would be great to have salmon on the westside and 30-40 lb. bows on the eastside.  Can you imagine the splash from that thing going airborne:yikes:


Yes, that would be great. That is why everyone needs to support a fishing license fee increase. Even a special surcharge for coldwater species. Our cowardice politicians in Lansing combined with the politically manipulative NRA have stymied reasonable efforts to improve the Great Lakes cold water fishery. As we all know the Lake Huron forage base is shifting. Species of the future will be Rainbows/Steelhead and Atlantics. We will only get meaningful change with a license increase. Do you prefer a $28 license with poor fishing or a $38 license with world class fishing? For me, $10 is a small price to pay to catch some nice silver fish.


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

Fish Eye said:


> Yes, that would be great. That is why everyone needs to support a fishing license fee increase. Even a special surcharge for coldwater species. Our cowardice politicians in Lansing combined with the politically manipulative NRA have stymied reasonable efforts to improve the Great Lakes cold water fishery. As we all know the Lake Huron forage base is shifting. Species of the future will be Rainbows/Steelhead and Atlantics. We will only get meaningful change with a license increase. Do you prefer a $28 license with poor fishing or a $38 license with world class fishing? For me, $10 is a small price to pay to catch some nice silver fish.


I don't agree on this. Reason being is there used to be alot more DNR officers, there used to be alot more stocking(which means employees). The salmon stocking is nothing compared to what it used to be. There has been so many job cuts, and the liscence is alot more than it used to be when there were more people employed and more work being done. They need to lean how to use what they have correctly, instead of funneling the money elsewhere. JMO.

I think a 1/2 or 1% sales tax going twards the fish and wildlife management in Michigan would be alot better, and give them alot more funds, but would it go twards what its suppose to is the question????? That way everyone helps out, since everyone in one way or another is connected to the resource we have here, whether its through recreation,fishing,hunting,boating,camping...It should be a team effort so anyone who wishes to enjoy what we have as the greatest outdoor state in the country, can.


----------



## fishlkmich (Sep 18, 2002)

Ralph Smith said:


> I don't agree on this. Reason being is there used to be alot more DNR officers, there used to be alot more stocking(which means employees). The salmon stocking is nothing compared to what it used to be. There has been so many job cuts, and the liscence is alot more than it used to be when there were more people employed and more work being done. They need to lean how to use what they have correctly, instead of funneling the money elsewhere. JMO.
> 
> I think a 1/2 or 1% sales tax going twards the fish and wildlife management in Michigan would be alot better, and give them alot more funds, but would it go twards what its suppose to is the question????? That way everyone helps out, since everyone in one way or another is connected to the resource we have here, whether its through recreation,fishing,hunting,boating,camping...It should be a team effort so anyone who wishes to enjoy what we have as the greatest outdoor state in the country, can.


Opinions are great. Facts are better.

""Restricted revenues," which by statute can only be used to support related programs, are generated from hunting and fishing licenses ($50 million), state park entrance and camping fees ($38.2 million), two percent of the gas tax ($19.1 million), snowmobile registration and snowmobile trail and ORV permits ($9.7 million) and forest camping fees ($1.2 million). Restricted funds also are used for nongame protection and management. The Department also generates timber sale revenue from state lands. Approximately 90 percent of timber sales revenue goes to Forest Management and are used for the protection and development of our state forests. The other 10 percent of timber sales go to the Game and Fish Protection Trust Fund."

The people who still live in Saginaw, Flint, Detroit . . . would disagree with you about raising taxes. In fact, almost everyone would. Since revenue from fishing licenses go directly to fishing and are NOT "funneled elsewhere" we should be paying for a better fishery, not kids in Detroit or gray haired ladies in Flint. Right now is the absolute worst time to even talk about raising taxes. People are struggling to live in this state. The last thing that they would even want to hear is that we are going to raise taxes to plant fish!

"User fees now cover about 76 percent of the DNR's annual budget, but the system needs adjusting. Michigan has lower fees than many other states while offering longer seasons, more state-owned land and more waterways."

It has been more than 12 years since we had any significant increase in fishing and hunting license fees. Sportsmen need to cough up the money to pay for the quality fish and game opportunities that they want. Asking the guy that works at McDonalds and can't afford a fishing pole to pay for it is a joke. If you want to add a surcharge form other user groups on outdoor gear to help out, that would sound reasonable.

This state is on the edge of insolvency. State employees have been cut back and given concession after concession. We are looking at another possible government shutdown within days or weeks. Asking the public to pony up a 1% sales tax increase just to help balance the budget will get you a major demonstration on the Capital lawn. Asking for it to increase your fishing opportunities is beyond comprehension, given the state of the economy in the country and especially this state.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

> QuakrTrakr I don't know.... Remember the Supersalmon of the 70's? They regularly got to 90#'s and almost 100#.





Kearly Shuffle said:


> Yeah, I do remember those. And there were some later than the 70's because I remember someone catching one that was close to 60lbs during the Harrisville tourney one year and all holy heck broke loose. A lot of the other anglers didn't think it should count towards daily weight or individual weight.



The State record King has stood for about 35 years, and was snagged from the Grand River when snagging was legal, and weighed 46 lb, 1 oz. There has NEVER been a 90# - 100# Salmon caught in any of the Great Lakes. The World record is 97#, and was caught from the Kenai River @ Alaska. Sorry, but there just weren't Kings that large in our lakes, ever. I have fished Salmon for decades and the largest Michigan King I have ever actually seen was 35# - and it was HUGE. 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/master-angler-min-lengths-weights_272184_7.pdf

When Tim Roller had a client who caught a World Record Brown, it took him about 1 hour to have it weighed on a certified scale, and submitted for the record, pending genetic testing. I have to think anyone who caught a King over 50# would have done the same. If it had been weighed for a tournament, it would have been registered for a new State record. 
The DNR planted triploid Kings in our lakes, as an experiment, to see if they would grow to huge sizes. None were ever documented as having been caught, and the DNR opinion was that it was a failed experiment.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

I never said the Great Lakes. As far as I knew Alaska was the only place they were planted. They never had any natural reproduction so that's why they quit. In the Fred Bear Museum (when it was operating in Gainsville) they had a 99 pounder hanging on the wall. I thought BunyanTown in Oscoda used to have a 60 poundr or so hanging there too.


----------



## MSUICEMAN (Jan 9, 2002)

great fish, though genetically altered fish should NOT count towards any kind of records, unless they wanted to start up another "division".


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

Kearly Shuffle said:


> Yeah, I do remember those. And there were some later than the 70's because I remember someone catching one that was close to 60lbs during the Harrisville tourney one year and all holy heck broke loose. A lot of the other anglers didn't think it should count towards daily weight or individual weight.


As was said earlier in this thread the state record is less than 50lbs. Why was that fish never entered, esspecially since it was a tourney that was weighted?


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Geneticaly altered or not, as long as you didnt have anything to do with growing it or plantng it, and you hooked it and landed it, then there is no fraud or foul on the part of the fisherman who landed it,,, reocrd should stand, JMHO


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

QuakrTrakr said:


> I never said the Great Lakes. As far as I knew Alaska was the only place they were planted. They never had any natural reproduction so that's why they quit. In the Fred Bear Museum (when it was operating in Gainsville) they had a 99 pounder hanging on the wall. I thought BunyanTown in Oscoda used to have a 60 poundr or so hanging there too.


The one at Bunyan town was 70 lbs., and thats what I was told by them, that it was a super salmon, and therefore was not eligible for any type of record. I guess they could tell by genetic tests done on it. I've since been told it wasn't possible from this site

I also don't agree with the post on taxes to help all outdoors in Michigan, I never said anything about just stocking fish, re read post. Also 1/2 percent sales tax is a penny on $2.00, but would add up significantly. I know everyone hates taxes, myself included, but when something helps the good of all, and there isn't much alternitive, you need to do what is neccessary.


----------



## Captnbobb (Oct 20, 2003)

If a fish has been genetically altered so it can no longer interbreed with its original species (even if it is because it is sterile), then it seems like it is a different species. Records could be kept separate for triploid trout so as not to confuse with the natural versions. The bass in California are a little different case....they are a naturally occurring genetically undifferentiated strain put in a very favorable environment. If you raised a fish in a large aquarium, providing ample food and vet care, then "caught it" with a fishing pole, does that count for a record? How do you draw the line between a totally wild environment, a partiallty managed one, and a fully managed and controlled one?

To me it does not matter. I don't fish for records, I fish because I enjoy being outdoors in a fairly natural environment, relaxing, trying to tempt a few fish to bite, keeping a few to eat. I don't view fishing as a competition with other fishermen or as a pursuit of records. Man as a tool user can always overcome nature's creatures....it just depends on how close a battle we choose to make it. Do you fish with your bare hands, an ultralight tackle rig, heavy duty tackle, a trap net, or electro-shock equipment. Its up to the individual how much "sport" we choose to make the catching and how much enjoyment we get from doing so.


----------



## Trout Scout (Apr 27, 2005)

I even hate to post on this site this much but here goes. Never been a triploid salmon caught in Michigan that beat the existing state record (caught on stream in Lake Michigan and might even been snagged when legal there). Biggest verified on Lake Huron 42+ caught in Tawas river. As far as Bunyan Town that was an Alaskan Salmon Caught in Alaska and mounted in Michigan and Chuck used it as a BS for his business not Super Salmon As far as 60lber caught in Harrisville never happen just rumor.
If triploid or Super Salmon would have been caught over state record probably would have had different cat. just like splake or other crosses or strains. Dr Tanner had great idea but fish burned themselves out and never materialized. Of course DNR did not tell us that they had marked fish so we killed a lot of them when they were 1 and 2 years old on the Lake. They had special fin clips. We are getting some of the Lake Rainbows now that escaped or were planted in Canada that look like this fish but only getting to 15lbs. Very heavy body and very red meat. Capt Ed


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well, if it were caught by fair chase methods, than I guess its fine. If it were in some private lake or something, I'd have to rethink it.

On the supersalmon, I've never heard of anything other than one the DNR netted off Alpena years ago, can't remember exactly what the weight was, 64# sticks in my head. In theory, there should be some of them still swimming around, but that would be pretty hard to believe. Maybe calling someone at the DNR would answer the question as to whether or not one of these triploids have ever been caught that big.


----------



## MSUICEMAN (Jan 9, 2002)

allowing designer fish into the record books does nothing but water-down the meaning of the record books. whats next? allowing genetically altered and hormone aided deer into the record books?


----------



## Trout Scout (Apr 27, 2005)

Just got off phone with the head Biologist for Lake Huron and staff of the Chinook the research boat and never was a Super Salmon of any size netted or confirmed caught in Lake Huron or in Michigan for that matter most did not take and either died or didn't grow even if they could live for years. Some actually spawned because the triploid process did not take. I won't say what the guys said but asked where this information was coming from? On two good notes had to check on cormorant control for the Brown Trout Plants and they will start in Lake Huron 1st week of Oct and they are 12 to 14" long now and looking great. Also, Lake Huron will have an Atlantic Salmon plant in the next 2 years aside from the Lake Superior State one and the DNR will start to grow Atlantics for Lake Huron and that came right from Jim Johnson Lake Huron Biologist today. Capt Ed


----------



## Captain (Feb 11, 2000)

Thx Ed for the reliable information..Have a good Fall!


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Thanks for the info Ed. Good news for sure! Where did they plant the browns? Was it offshore?


----------

