02-22-2013, 04:42 PM
[quote wormandbobber]
2) The number of big/trophy trout will always be higher with fewer chubs. A rotenone treatment would allow this for two reasons: a) because fish growth of small fish would be much higher allowing more trout through the bottleneck allowing them to convert to an all-chub diet and b) because the complete eradication of chubs will not happen.
3) Trophy fish are almost always the result of fast growth and not age. The idea that those monster tiger trout are at least 8 years old is not necessarily true. Once a trout gets through that bottleneck and coverts to eating and preying on chubs, growth is really fast. So, a tiger trout may grow very slowly through its first 3-4 years and then in year 5 grow rapidly to monster sizes. It would take a tiger trout probably two summers to get to 20 inches in Scofield without high chub numbers.
The big thing a poisoning would do is it would then allow a lot of 20 inch tigers to then convert to a chub diet.
[/quote]
I'll respond with some thoughts to these:
2) I disagree with you here. There is no way you are going to convince me that there will be bigger trophy browns/tigers with fewer chubs. These fish are apex predators and they grow to huge sizes when they have meat to eat, especially when they start getting older and bigger.. they need more and more calories to grow. It doesn't matter how fast they get to 20", without the a large food source of meat, they are not going to reach 30+" and 20lbs. You might be able to say that rainbows will grow to larger, trophy sizes if there are less chubs --> but that is because they do not fully take advantage of meat (chubs, suckers, etc)... they are bug eaters primarily. Growth of smaller rainbows/cutts in particular would be better if the chubs were gone..., but remove the chubs and the tigers will grow fast initially but once they reach 10-15" they need meat and without it they will not grow very fast. What size do you think Tigers start eating other fish? I think VERY soon, you seem to think it takes them awhile.
3) I agree that trophy fish grow fast... but you can't tell me that the 18lb tiger grew "very slowly" through a "bottleneck" for 3-4 years and THEN added all that mass... Sorry, that tiger has been eating chubs and other fish and a lot of them for almost it's entire life. I just don't think your math adds up here, if they grow slowly for 3-4 years how could they get to 20" in two years? (That seems like fairly quick growth to me, not slow..) In my humble opinion (and experience) Tigers below 20" eat a ton of chubs and other fish...they are not rainbows or cutts, completely different fish. It's not like at 20" a switch turns on and they want chubs, they'll eat chubs as soon as they can fit in their mouth. High chub numbers = big, healthy tiger trout. Without them, I don't care how fast they grow when they are younger...they are not going to reach 18lbs in 8 years without gobs and gobs of meat to eat.
[signature]
2) The number of big/trophy trout will always be higher with fewer chubs. A rotenone treatment would allow this for two reasons: a) because fish growth of small fish would be much higher allowing more trout through the bottleneck allowing them to convert to an all-chub diet and b) because the complete eradication of chubs will not happen.
3) Trophy fish are almost always the result of fast growth and not age. The idea that those monster tiger trout are at least 8 years old is not necessarily true. Once a trout gets through that bottleneck and coverts to eating and preying on chubs, growth is really fast. So, a tiger trout may grow very slowly through its first 3-4 years and then in year 5 grow rapidly to monster sizes. It would take a tiger trout probably two summers to get to 20 inches in Scofield without high chub numbers.
The big thing a poisoning would do is it would then allow a lot of 20 inch tigers to then convert to a chub diet.
[/quote]
I'll respond with some thoughts to these:
2) I disagree with you here. There is no way you are going to convince me that there will be bigger trophy browns/tigers with fewer chubs. These fish are apex predators and they grow to huge sizes when they have meat to eat, especially when they start getting older and bigger.. they need more and more calories to grow. It doesn't matter how fast they get to 20", without the a large food source of meat, they are not going to reach 30+" and 20lbs. You might be able to say that rainbows will grow to larger, trophy sizes if there are less chubs --> but that is because they do not fully take advantage of meat (chubs, suckers, etc)... they are bug eaters primarily. Growth of smaller rainbows/cutts in particular would be better if the chubs were gone..., but remove the chubs and the tigers will grow fast initially but once they reach 10-15" they need meat and without it they will not grow very fast. What size do you think Tigers start eating other fish? I think VERY soon, you seem to think it takes them awhile.
3) I agree that trophy fish grow fast... but you can't tell me that the 18lb tiger grew "very slowly" through a "bottleneck" for 3-4 years and THEN added all that mass... Sorry, that tiger has been eating chubs and other fish and a lot of them for almost it's entire life. I just don't think your math adds up here, if they grow slowly for 3-4 years how could they get to 20" in two years? (That seems like fairly quick growth to me, not slow..) In my humble opinion (and experience) Tigers below 20" eat a ton of chubs and other fish...they are not rainbows or cutts, completely different fish. It's not like at 20" a switch turns on and they want chubs, they'll eat chubs as soon as they can fit in their mouth. High chub numbers = big, healthy tiger trout. Without them, I don't care how fast they grow when they are younger...they are not going to reach 18lbs in 8 years without gobs and gobs of meat to eat.
[signature]