Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Anybody want to see a big brook trout?

When are we going to be able to purchase some monster: B C's B G's to add some monster genes to our ponds? LOL Kind of like ray scott's LMB
P.S. congrats on the monster trout

Bruce, you think I was happy? How about overjoyed! Not just by the fish but especially by your hospitality! It's not just with fish that Bruce has done so much but with his whole property. He really is someone that cares for his land.

Now back to his fish. They really are amassing. They're huge and really haven't started to fill out yet. That 2-year old fish has so much room to fill out yet. Think of a teenager that is all arms and legs and 6'4" already. When these fish start to fill out, they really will be monsters!

Bruce is doing everything right to produce a strain of bluegill that deserve a special designation. The Condello strain of bluegill really is happening! This is for real. Hopefully, thanks to ewest, we will have a good discussion about fish genetics and what goes into producing a monster strain of fish. In the mean time, stay tuned because for people that like bluegill, this is going to be a fascinating story.

See you next week Bruce!

Norm has coined a new word: Amazing + Massive = Amassing. It seems appropriate.

I'm honestly not trying to hijack Cecil's thread but last night I went back to the pond (Norm couldn't make it) armed with a camera and a gram scale. I fished for almost two hours without a bite until right before pitch dark and I finally got one. The bluegill was an apparent twin to the one Norm caught. It was 9 1/4 inches and weighed 425 g. The photo was on film so I'll have to get it processed in the next few days and try to post it....unless Norm catches a bigger one.

Theo, you're right, there does seem to be some irony here. I'll take it!

Giant brookie! Huge, power plant, mutant, nuclear fallout brookie.

LBuck,

Who's know? Maybe I'm sitting on an old landfill or nuclear waste dump?

I guess that would explain the bright colors?

My dad swears the farm that was here before me was a pig farm as according to him the soil smells like pig manure when it gets wet. However the local elderly resident across the highway says no.

Bruce you can chime in on my posts anytime. Not a problem whatsoever.

Seeing, how Cecil doesn't mind:

Bruce, a 235 mm (9 1/4 inch) bluegill weighing 425 g has a relative weight of 138. It doesn't get much better than that!

Dave,

Wouldn't that be comparable to the famed Pelican Lake (NE) bluegills? They're reminding me of the pictures I've seen including a 1 kg. specimen caught about five years ago.

Believe it or not I don't have any recent Wr tables. Can you post a link to them? Do you know what Cecil's BT Wr is?

Bruce, YES -- you are duplicating the famed Pelican Lake bluegills, which we often have measured at Wr values of 130 to 140. Pretty cool that you can replicate that, eh?? I was with Gabelhouse there when he caught one that was 10 15/16 inches long. His "guys" (the biologists) would NOT let him claim that he caught an 11 incher. Can't remember what it weighed, but think it was like 1 3/4 pounds.

As for recent tables of the standards for weight at length, I usually do all those by calculator or by computer program. We have mathematical equations specific to each fish species.

Here's my best "quick" idea to get you some of the information. Go to our departmental web page.

http://wfs.sdstate.edu/wfsdept/courses/WL%20412/Spring%202005.htm

Scroll down that page until you come to "Mar 14-16 Condition Indices." Click on "Mar 14-16" and you'll find the handout that I used for my fisheries management class last spring. It has all those pesky equations, but the final four pages are the standards for black crappie, bluegill, northern pike, and largemouth bass in table format. Those should get you started. If you need tables for other species, let me know. I have tables for quite a few fish, but not all. I can e-mail you other tables you might want.

I did calculate the Wr values for Cecil's two brookies. After all, we better get this thread back to him, eh? I don't know how reliable the standard weight equation is for large brookies. However, his 19 incher (pictured) has a Wr of 140, while the 21.5 incher has a Wr of 126. :-)

Dave , Bruce and CB1 :

I have a question on RW concepts of growth. I use RW for info and mgt. and keep up with them. I have read several studies on trophy LMB which indicate that many times the largest fish have a much faster growth rate than the rest of their year class. With this in mind does age need to be factored into the RW scale to give us a complete picture. For example Bruce's BG are not only well above RW (the RW scale under a common sense approach assumes that a certain length is reached at a certain age) they are there way early. Is there a factor or scale for this --BC's BG are 40% over but when compared to normal 2 yr. old + BG they may be 80% over on a national scale and 125% over on a Neb. area scale for same age BG . ewest

Good question/comment ewest! Dang, folks are good on this forum. :-)

I hope everyone else comments as well. I've got two thoughts to add to the discussion.

First, trophy fish indeed are often very unique. It's probably a combination the right genetics and the right setting.

Second, the fisheries profession is just starting to get some "relative growth" standards. So far, there are summaries for walleye, crappies, and channel catfish. It's slower to gain acceptance because growth rates can vary so much from north to south (growing season), while conditions factors did not. High Wr in the nothern states often (not always) means fast growth BY THE STANDARDS OF THAT REGION. The fish in question might actually be growing a lot more slowly than a southern population at a similar Wr.

Dave,

I think the regional aspect is very important. What may be phenominal growth in one area may be closer to the norm in another. Also BG life span may be considerably different from region to region. My experience in East Texas is that we have BG growth rates higher than other northern regions, but our BG do not seem to live as long and hence do not often reach the 2 to 3 pound mark...but 10 inch BG are not unusual at all in my ponds.

ML :

Our BG are not 10in. and 1 lb. at 2.5 years they are more like 8in. and .75lbs. It takes another half year to get to that size. Do yours get that big that fast. Ours are not subject to extensive art. feeding though. To look at this from a little different point of view consider growth and life expct.(LE) together. That is at a certain % of LE (or age) how big are the BG at RW. That was what I was asking Dave et al. A very interesting topic. I think this would apply to other species as well. ewest

EWEST,

I must confess that I do not know how to "age" BG, but believe yes, some do reach 10 inches in 2 years in my ponds, two full growing seasons. I posted a picture of one sometime back and Bruce said he believed it was a 2 year old fish. I do use high protein feed (42%) and feel that certainly contributes to the rapid growth rates.

How do you "age" BG or LMB for example?

Once again a reminder...

If I say age-2 it means the fish is in it's third growing season. My big 9+ inchers (age-2) are well over half way through their third growing season. In any region you're lucky if the first growing season (age-0) yields a fish over 4 inches or so.

ML, I know the age of my fish because they have their own pond starting age-1, but most wild fish have to be identified by analysis of scale annuli or otoliths. I believe that the further south you are, the more difficult it becomes to analyze growth by scale samples. I've gotten pretty good at analyzing approximate age of fish by looking at the overall appearance, especially the size of the head and eyes as they relate to the size of the body. Not accurate every time, but a good way to make broad generalizations.

ML & Bruce :

ML -- Bruce provided the answer to age determination - based on year rings on scales or observation (not as good at that as BC) or knowing age of birth + time in pond when all the same age (working with and looking at a lot of BG with known age).

Bruce -- I know the BG are 2 1/2 +- that is why I compared to 2.5 yr. old BG here. I am comparing to norms not genetic picked BG. Yours are genetic picked (selectively breed by you) and ML's are to buy his hatchery , I think. ewest

Wr's have inherent limitations and are really just meant to be a tool (one of many) with which to help make decisions.

Cecils incredible brook trout's Wr of 140 might have a different value designation if there were Lake Nipigon strain Wr's.

EWEST,

Just to finish off my comment that 2 year old 10 inch BG are not at all unusual in my ponds....here is the link of a BG picture I posted recently. I'm relatively confident this is a 2 year old CNBG...and it is typical, not unusual. Out of maybe every 10 or 15 BG caught, one will be like this or larger. In the spring, during certain times, I have caught them just like this cast after cast. Lots of fun on a 5 wt fly rod.

http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=001858

ML's BG is typical for our pond.
One pound, 10 inch BG are very common - 1.25 pounds, 10 1/2 inches is largest weighed and measured.
They are fast becoming my favorite, next to a HSB on a flyrod...
George Glazener

Everything's bigger in Texas, right?

You're spoiled, I tell ya!!

Bruce, I'm really not........

I took BG for granted until I realized they are more than just "forage".

Thanks to your and Cecil's comments, I have a new appreciation for them...