48-Pound Trout: World Record or Genetic Cheat?

By Miss Cellania in Animals & Pets, Sports, World Records on Sep 15, 2009 at 11:22 pm

Sean Konrad caught a 48-pound rainbow trout. That’s a world record. But should it be? The trout he caught was a genetically-modified fish that escaped from a fish farm. It has three sets of chromosomes, which makes it sterile but able to grow unnaturally big. Konrad’s brother Adam caught the previous world record trout in 2007, which was also genetically modified. Whether this counts as cheating depends on how you see the sport of fishing. No matter where the fish came from, the fisherman still landed it, which involves a certain set of skills. However, fisherman elsewhere don’t have the opportunity to even try to catch a trout that big, because they don’t exist in nature. What do you think? Link

Tags: fisherman, Genetically Modified, Sean Konrad, trout

Neat stuff from the NeatoShop:

Dirit
Sep 15th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Witch!! Witch!

Burn him!!
Dirit
Sep 15th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
No seriously people I know fishermen who WILL burn him if this is allowed to stand.
Jaymang
Sep 15th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Granted it is a farm fish, it was still caught and landed, in the wild, which is the point of the record. I do however think that this should be a separate record from catching a wild rainbow trout.
Howie
Sep 16th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Go ahead and make it a record but make it seperate. Make a rule that states also that a genetically altered fish can’t just be caught from the tank or farm where it was bred raised etc.
Edward
Sep 16th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Am I the only one here that is worried that genetically altered fish are escaping from a “fish farm”?
Retardacus
Sep 16th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Surely any world record is somewhat opportunistic.

While it may be true that few others will have the chance to catch such a fish, that would also be true of people who get the land speed record, or the longest balloon flight record.

Equally, it would be a shame to think that one day all fishing records would be based on the capacity of a fisher versus the capacity of a scientist to create a fish big enough that it could not be caught by a non-genetically modified human.
ozoozol
Sep 16th, 2009 at 3:22 am
I agree with 3 and 6. It’s a legitimate record, for catching genetically modified rainbow trout in the wild, and it’s not as if ALL record holding catches aren’t already determined by the genes of the fish they catch, strains and sizes which may not be available to all fishermen, as it is.
dooflotchie
Sep 16th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Hmm, it’s an interesting debate…but if these fish are genetically modified in such a way that they are sterile they will eventually die out as long as no more are being released. I can certainly understand why someone would be alarmed at the thought of GM organisms being turned loose to freely hybridize with their wild counterparts because there’s no way of knowing what damage will be done to the original species. Giant STERILE trout won’t do much permanent harm, if they do any at all. Only if they were capable of reproduction would they be a real threat to their environment.

As for the world record, well, it should be in a separate category from others that were not GM fish. I say that because if it wasn’t for the fish farm irresponsibly allowing those fish to escape in the first place, there wouldn’t be any 40+ pound trout for anglers to catch and therefore claim as a world record.
dmsheldon87
Sep 16th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Just because it has a genetic mutation doesn’t mean it wouldn’t exist in nature. Record stands.
Gail Pink
Sep 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am
I think they should fry it up and eat it!
FishBottleT
Sep 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
The record should not stand. Yea it was caught but it was not natural. It is neat that this fisherman was able to catch such a fish but it is not fair to classify this fish with natural fish.
namowal
Sep 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“We’re gonna need a bigger frying pan”
Paityr
Sep 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I dont see the difference between travelling to specific locations to try and hook big fish. Couldnt any wannabe world record holders just stay in the area where the fish was caught and hope they catch another escapee? Its the same as travelling to a world-renown lake or something because a specific type of fish is known to live there.
Staxeon
Sep 16th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I dont think the record should stand, especially considering the other records are presumably for wild-caught, naturally bred fish.

Its not like I can go throw a hook into Sea World and claim a record, no matter how big a fish I can land myself.
Ellen Crawford
Sep 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Give me a break. This is not the catch of a natural rainbow trout. If you want to catch something heavy…please try fishing in the ocean. You will never be recognized as a fisherman. This is lame, at best.
brett maxwell
Sep 17th, 2009 at 1:01 am
it shouldn’t stand, but what I’m wondering is if they’re growing 48 pound trout to sell at the grocery store!?
mario1
Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
it should stand as a record
ted
Sep 17th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
If these things are escaping from fish farms, they could be devastating to their environments.

It is a cheat. It’s like winning a cake-baking contest with a cake you bought in a store.
ernest
Sep 20th, 2009 at 1:12 am
embarrassing!
Rocky
Oct 4th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Easy solution. Create separate categories for triploid and diploid trout. Then there is no argument.
bone
Mar 8th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
I’ve been fishing for record fish in the kootanys for 20 yrs,rainbows inperticulare.If all i had to do was get a triplod put it in my ponds or creeks feed the hell out of it.throw my line in and sit and wait Iwould hold all the records.triplodes are not naturel they are not records.

Keep track of the comments with

Comment RSS

Lijit Search

The latest from NeatoBambino: