Pond Boss Forums STOCKING A NEW POND Types of fish to choose CNBG VS Native BG

I know there has already been a discussion on this subject with Bob Lusk affirming larger growth rates from CNBG.

But I came across this study and I thought it might be interesting to some of you, although it is around a 7 years old. It compares the growth and catch rates of two native types of BG with CNBG.

I'd be interested to hear from forum members on their catch rate experience between CNBG and native strains.

http://www.sdafs.org/tcafs/meetings/00meet/abstracts/prentic1.htm

Bill I have seen that abstract but had no luck finding the study on line. Why don't you email the guy or call him and see if he will send you (then send it to me) a digital copy of the study. Inquiring minds want to know. Since you are a Texan (and help pay his salary) he may be more inclined to send it to you. Thanks.

Okay I'll try, but it is so old I wouldn't hold my breath.

Most of the links work, except the home page.

I'll do it now where I don't forget. If I receive an undeliverable message I will try to contact someone else.

Bill I have called out to the HOH research station and ask for a study and the lady sent it to me by email. Good luck !

Can't open the link.

I dont know why Dave. Sometimes when I have trouble I do a copy, ctl c, over the link then paste, ctl v, it directly into the address line of explorer.

I got a copy the draft final report and sent it to Ewest, I should have copy of the final report by tonight if you want to wait.

Hey, this time it worked. First time I had read about the lower catch rate. I have very little use for fish that won't bite.

Bill, I would also appreciate a final report.

When Bill sends me the Final Report I will forward it on. Thanks Bill for doing the leg work.

Dave & Ewest, she didn't send the final report although she said it would follow this document, which was the draft.

I sent an email to her tonight asking if the cybergobblins got it or if she didn't get around to sending it. She mentioned that she had trouble scanning the first document.

Dave I don't mind emailing you the draft. It is 14 pages long, and I am waiting for the final to print because my brain doesnt do mm's just inches and I need to do conversions before I could make any sense out of it since there are lots of measurments in it.

I was confused about the lower catch rate. It seemed that it was an intermediate size and then all types were about the same, but I'm not sure. I have just quickly scanned the draft report. I dont want to have to the measurement conversions twice.

Let me know Dave if you would like a copy of the draft, I'll be up for a while if you are still out there.

Update, I just got an automated reply from her saying she would be out of the office tomorrow and back in the office Friday. Oh well........

Here is some info from the draft study. I do not think this proves CNBG are less likely to be caught as the study says "may" and the stats are limited to 1 specific situation (no other fish in the pond) and only in year 2. The conclusions are in accord with general state level fisheries science methods made on the "known" factors and avoid any risk of the unknown with CNBG. Comments or thoughts?

I agree Ewest. I think when a report like this is issued they will apt to err on the side of caution. It was only one year and there was not a fish community. He still seemed to think that CNBG would add desirable traits to existing native populations if the strain wasn't diluted and overpowered over time and was desirable when isolated from dilution.