I'll take credit for the "Bubba" moniker.
The picture of this giant sunfish has been the screen saver on my computer for three years so I've always been fascinated by this fish. In a way I've used the photo as the benchmark for what I'd like to achieve someday.
My problem with Mr. Holyoke and his business is that the literature that I've read, all provided by the business has been what I would classify as "scientifically dubious". For his educational credits, Ken has used a surprisingly simplistic approach to explaining the origin of this fish.
Here are my very biased original assumptions that I had before Deb came to our forum.
1. I have never believed, nor do I currently believe that sunfish raised in southern regions can achieve life spans of twenty years. I read the story of how "Bubba" was found and saw the claim of 20 years old. Every scrap of literature I've ever read about bluegill, redears, greenies, etc. indicate that even in northern regions a nine or ten year old sunfish is reaching extremely old age. Could these fish be being bred for extended life span? My knowledge of genetics will not allow me to believe this is possible without using 50+ years of genetic selection. Was a scale sample ever taken? Can't find evidence of this anywhere. Also I've taken scale samples and microscopically aged sunfish for years and old sunfish look "geriatric". Body condition begins to deteriorate. Fins show signs of extreme wear. Wr's plummet. The fish in this picture looks extremely vital to me.
2. If these fish have high growth rates (four times normal) and twenty year life span, and great vitality, why wasn't this fish ten pounds?? I know this is ludicrous, but something just doesn't jive here.
3. Why can we never see a clear photo of a mature younger fish? The photos on the website are of fish far away, and hardly identifiable. And to boot these fish have different markings than "Bubba".
4. If a study was done on growth rates, but only something like twelve week period was used, I don't see how this equates to long term growth trends. Often GS X BG hybrids exhibit rapid early growth but all things being equal, almost all states that have records for purebred BG and for hybrids, the BG record exceeds the hybrid record. Conventional thinking is that hybrids won't have a top end weight any better than the larger of the two parent species. Hybrid aggression, "heterosis", and a big mouth make GS X BG hybrids great early growers but they don't have the same genetic potential as a purebred bluegill.
5. Some of the comments made by proponents of this fish have the clear indication that three or more species of fish are involved. If this is the case, it seems to fly in the face of convention that backcrossing of hybrid fish leads to diminished viability and reproductive potential. Something not quite right here.
Now all of this indicates that either I know a little too much about this stuff, or maybe I don't know nearly enough. Regardless, I've always been suspicious of the Georgia Giant.
Now that I've got that off of my chest, I've been extremely impressed by Deb's knowledge and ability to communicate. I also felt like she'd take a little heat and fold up like a cheap tent. Boy, was I wrong there! She's tough, unafraid and believes in her position. I really like those traits and I'm glad that she's here. Most of all, though, I'd really just like to see a clear picture of a live one. To this point I've only seen clear pictures of the mounts, which are only an artists rendition of what a fish "can" look like. Sure, I can see that the mouth is large....that would certainly help early growth rates. It's frustrating, but fun all at the same time. I'm a centrarchidae fanatic and I want to learn more for selfish reasons. I think it can help me in my program to have enhanced growth rate bluegills. I agree with Bill that it would be sure nice to have some information verified using classic scientific process. If that were the case, the people of this forum would probably spread the word enough to sell millions more of these fish.
