Now...on to business. Yolk, I appreciate your reference to the Romanovs'....I too tend to think of HBG in a royal light, so we share common ground there. As far as the difficulty you've encountered with your theory, I suggest approaching the problem from another vector.
I fear you've overlooked the obvious.... that being that the fish in question was in a weakened condition. Consider this: I stocked adult RES at the same time I stocked that fish. Yet I have neither caught, nor even seen one, in the time since. In light of this, there can be only one conclusion: My HBG have killed and eaten the RES. I submit that the consumption of so much inferior genetic material played havoc with the fish's immune system, contributing to his being susceptible to injury sustained in a fall.
When I caught that fish, he had a crudely fashioned necklace around his head, and dangling on it were the opercular tabs from five or six RES....I didn't give it much thought at the time, the HBG's penchant for being extremely aggressive yet having questionable taste in fashion being well known... it seemed perfectly normal.
So you see that once all the evidence is taken into consideration, it plainly shows that there's not a genetic weakness inherent to HBG, rather it's a case of hyper-aggression and displayed dominance over all other lepomids that will lead to their eventual demise. These fish may need counseling if they are to survive, but they are actually quite tolerant of being dropped. So in conclusion, I regret to inform you that there is no Constant of Death where HBG are concerned. I hope you haven't spent all the grant money.
Sparkie, there are two fundamental flaws in your reasoning, but it is a pleasure to engage you in debate after enduring the puerile rantings of the GSA for so long. However, I am going to hold my response for a later time and different thread. This one is filled with excellent [on topic] information and doesn't deserve be further corrupted.
