World Record Rainbow Controversy

[tippett7]

Come on guys. This is nothing more than a Barry Bonds Rainbow trout. It didn't grow that big, it just looks like it.

[ohmz138]

I have to respectfully disagree with you a little Laker67. I know who you are and your accomplishment, but I'll wade in here.

You said "When an angler hooks into a monster fish, the odds are definitely in the fish's favor. If the angler wins, I'm not sure you should diminish his feat of accomplishment.

While I agree that a monster fish hooked on relatively light tackle, the odds favor the fish. But I used to watch ole timers at Taney, before the reg changes, haul big trout out using treble hooks, 25lb test line and globs of night crawlers. The odds were definitely in the fisherman's favor in that case.

I've heard, but can't confirm, that the brothers in this story use similar tactics of heavy line. Once hooked there is little chance of escape under those conditions.

Okay I'll take my licks now .

SIO3

I agree. The brothers are definetely prepared when gunning for these bad boys. Heavy spinning rods at night with heavy rapalas and heavy line, and a ton of it. It was an awesome catch though, and congratulations to him, even for a triploid.

My opinion is to give him ( and his brother with the previous world record) the world record he deserves, but in a "triploid rainbow trout" class. They have a different DNA patten than a typical trout, how can they be considered the same? From my point of view it seems only fair to the world and the only way to make this legitimate.

[laker67]

Hey this is a good topic with a lot of good views and considerations. I was searching through an IGFA forum and found the following quote from Jason Schratwiesser, IGFA Conservation Director.

"We do not differentiate between triploid and diploid fish."

Then he quotes a ruling already in effect concerning the matter.

"There are some aspects of angling that cannot be controlled through rule making. Angling regulations cannot insure an outstanding performance from each fish, and world records cannot indicate the amount of difficulty in catching the fish."

They are taking a pretty solid stance on the subject.

[zander]

I think part of the reason they may be taking this stance is because then they would have their record keeping thrown into disarray. Records entered before the fish could be sampled for ploidy levels would be under a different degree of examination then fish caught after, then you have the fact that a lot of people think there can only be 1 world record for any species and line class. This is not based on science it is based on sport. It might have been more agreeable if they were able to include this from the beginning, but it would be changing the rules and criteria mid-stream (or is it mid-lake?)

[laker67]

Records entered before the fish could be sampled for ploidy levels would be under a different degree of examination then fish caught after,

So basically you are saying that fish already on record would stand since there would be no way to check those levels to determine if indeed it was a triploid fish. The previous 43 pound "triploid" would stand as the world record "diploid" for lack of proof otherwise. I think I see what you are getting at. I am ready for some of those big boys in taney. Apparently they can grow that large in about 12 years.

[zander]

Right. It looks as if I should have typed "could not" but didn't. But I am glad that inspite of me not typing what I meant to, you still got what I was aiming for.

[troutgnat]

I have to add my two cents!

AFTER READING ALL THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD I FEEL LIKE I'M IN COLLEGE BIOLOGY CLASS AGAIN...........................LOL.......HA.

[Fly_Guy]

Well, I believe a triploid fish is a different species. Many plants have multiple species of the same "type". A simple fern can go from diploid to triploid and a new species is created. The line seems to be fuzzier with animals, because while many polyploid plants are still fertile, most animals with extra chromsomes are, like hybrids, sterile (when manufactured by humans). In nature, some undergo asexual reproduction (essentialy cloning) I believe these trout are sterile, and should be considered a seperate species (similar to the "Wiper" or the "saugeye", though the trout are not hybrids)

Where do you draw the line on "manufacturing" big fish, and allowing them to take the place of record holders? What's real and what's man-made? (in truth, most of our fishing experience has quite a bit of "man-made" in it - like Taneycomo itself, and Table Rock, of course.) Not saying thats a bad thing, of course!

[zander]

I am not familiar with which ferns can go from diploid to triploid and that would make a new species All plants (at least at some point) go through alternation of generations where one generation is haploid and the next diploid. Remember though that in some stages of oogenesis the cell is actually 4n for a period of time, so I doubt that would make a new species I know you are talking somatic cells but still. The difference between saugeye and the triploid rainbow is a matter of hybrid vs triploid, I feel they are two different things even though the usual result of this pairing or condition is sterility.

[Fly_Guy]

Here's a little article on polyploidy and speciation. I didn't know ferns were as subject to polyploidy as it says they were though.

http://www.genomeweb.com/study-finds-polyp...ation-mechanism

Sometimes in gametogenesis, one of the final gametes contains the entire genome (not just half). (via improper cleavage, faulty spindle fibers, ect..) This won't cross with a normal gamete (so actually you are right - you can't go from diploid to triploid), but they will cross with another improperly seperated gamete (2n), creating a 4n individual, and creating a new species which can only breed with other 4n individuals.

The test would be to see whether these triploid trout can breed and produce fertile offspring. If they can, they are a new species. If they can't, they fall somewhere between a species and a hybrid in definition. I'm sure there is some biological definition for such an organism - but I can't think of any off the top of my head.