Ferox Primary Food Not Genetics

DryFlyFishing

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-environment/species/fish/freshwater/ferox

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Uploads/Documents/FW24%20%20Ferox%20Trout%20mx.pdf

a few monts ago i had this conversation with the Britts... hhhmmmm ...

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/ear-ground/62813-genetics-ferox-trout-primary-food.html

stylie

Why dont you log back in and tell them only some Ferox are genetically different to Brown trout ?

DryFlyFishing

stylie wrote: »

Why dont you log back in and tell them only some Ferox are genetically different to Brown trout ?

Admin of the flyforums.co.uk was under a lot of pressure from the user members so they banned me from the site as i would not take there fishing book reading as fact.. lol...

all trout in different locations are genetically different ... it is there location / climate / multiple food sources and abundance of food that determines when / what time in there life...they have to start eating fish to grow... and be a ferox (primary food is fish)

its called the evolution of trout over thousands of years ...due to climate change ... and a bundance of food......

i think those Britts dont believe in evolution...

by the way humans all come from the same source of DNA... Race...... pitty i did not bring that one up.... lol

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

all trout in different locations are genetically different ....

thats true..........but trout do not have a specific 'time' when they start feeding on fish fry, you can catch a half pound fish on a fry pattern and a ten pound fish on a dry fly.....no hard and fast rules....trout will feed on whatever is available...i dont believe that when trout reach maturity or a certian age or size that they forget about insects and seek out small fish for food.....look at big trout cruising and feeding on spent gnat, green peters, murrough etc....and not a small fish to be seen anywhere.

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

thats true..........but trout do not have a specific 'time' when they start feeding on fish fry, you can catch a half pound fish on a fry pattern and a ten pound fish on a dry fly.....no hard and fast rules....trout will feed on whatever is available...i dont believe that when trout reach maturity or a certian age or size that they forget about insects and seek out small fish for food.....look at big trout cruising and feeding on spent gnat, green peters, murrough etc....and not a small fish to be seen anywhere.

i agree.. they just eat more fish than they did before to grow... its called survival of the fitest... so they live longer...

different lakes have less food in them... (high land Lough or low land lough)

which lake do you think the trout will start eating each other more so at a younger age?

because of lack of food in highland lakes they have a retarded evolution compared to low land fish ... as the high land fish have to eat fish sooner to survive...

Low land fish turn ferox at a later age... ( on the corrib the trout turn ferox at 4.5lb-5Lb) as in there primary food source needs to be fish to survive.... hence the reason there flesh goes white... as these guys eat so much small fish...

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

i agree.. they just eat more fish than they did before to grow... its called survival of the fitest... so they live longer...

no doubt about it that large trout do feed on a fish diet, but not solely, especially in early season when an angler lands a trout often a small roach or skimmer bream etc will be spit up into the net, so then fish are an important part of the diet.

I have a simple view on it, trout are opportunists and will feed on whatever is readily available to them (including young trout). In early spring when insects are few in numbers trout irrespective of size will feed on the previous seasons fry until the first buzzers arrive.... in late spring and summertime there are far more insects (flies) and the trout can easily feed on these as they are abundant and provide the energy required therefore they will mostly eat insects but fry too ....in autumn (about now) fly life tapers off and the trout that are feeding feed on this years fry before water temps drop/spawning starts....

i have often thought that it is much easier to catch trout (with the fly rod) when they are feeding on insects rather than those that are feeding on fry/fish....anyone else agree.

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

no doubt about it that large trout do feed on a fish diet, but not solely, especially in early season when an angler lands a trout often a small roach or skimmer bream etc will be spit up into the net, so then fish are an important part of the diet.

I have a simple view on it, trout are opportunists and will feed on whatever is readily available to them (including young trout). In early spring when insects are few in numbers trout irrespective of size will feed on the previous seasons fry until the first buzzers arrive.... in late spring and summertime there are far more insects (flies) and the trout can easily feed on these as they are abundant and provide the energy required therefore they will mostly eat insects but fry too ....in autumn (about now) fly life tapers off and the trout that are feeding feed on this years fry before water temps drop/spawning starts....

i have often thought that it is much easier to catch trout (with the fly rod) when they are feeding on insects rather than those that are feeding on fry/fish....anyone else agree.

agree with it all..

but what do you think about what the britts think? or should i say all the books that they read.. lmao

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

but what do you think about what the britts think?

Cant answer that, I only read the first three pages of that thread it got too repetitive for me.......

you make a point about books that to a certain extent is true...often angling books/magazines have statements that are incorrect and contain errors, but for the larger part I am sure this is unintentional, but it is important to keep the mind open and just because something is in print does not make it true. look at the news papers and the crap they print.

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

Cant answer that, I only read the first three pages of that thread it got too repetitive for me.......

you make a point about books that to a certain extent is true...often angling books/magazines have statements that are incorrect and contain errors, but for the larger part I am sure this is unintentional, but it is important to keep the mind open and just because something is in print does not make it true. look at the news papers and the crap they print.

it gets repeditive because they are wrong...

fontanalis

Isn't there a difference between Ferox (sub species) and pisciverous (fish eating)?

coolwings

It is likely that the genetic difference in a "true" ferox allows it to develop more efficient fish hunting abilities, compared to a "normal" brown trout.
The ability of ferox to take on shoals of smaller fish is noticeable. The switch to fish would be a function of numbers of fish vs other food items, and ability to catch fish vs other hunting abilities.
So big browns eat fish, sure, but ferox do it better.
My limited experience is big browns chase perch in shallows and near weeds, an extension of their insectivorous feeding, but ferox hunt in open water and near structure, a different feeding strategy.
Their roach prey are pelagic, more like char than perch, which are more weed oriented.

fontanalis

coolwings wrote: »

It is likely that the genetic difference in a "true" ferox allows it to develop more efficient fish hunting abilities, compared to a "normal" brown trout.
The ability of ferox to take on shoals of smaller fish is noticeable. The switch to fish would be a function of numbers of fish vs other food items, and ability to catch fish vs other hunting abilities.
So big browns eat fish, sure, but ferox do it better.
My limited experience is big browns chase perch in shallows and near weeds, an extension of their insectivorous feeding, but ferox hunt in open water and near structure, a different feeding strategy.
Their roach prey are pelagic, more like char than perch, which are more weed oriented.

Wasn't one of the ideas that Ferox arrived just after the ice age when char started to populate the deep glacial lakes so that was their food source and it explains them being present in loughs with char.
Before developments in genetic testing the term ferox seems to have been interchangeable with a large brown that fed on small fish.
I suppose the best way to look at it is that ferox are derived from stock/gene pool that evolved/adapted to grow big based on eating fish while big browns that eat fish do so on the basis that insect/invertebrate can no longer sustain them.

fontanalis

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

Admin of the flyforums.co.uk was under a lot of pressure from the user members so they banned me from the site as i would not take there fishing book reading as fact.. lol...

all trout in different locations are genetically different ... it is there location / climate / multiple food sources and abundance of food that determines when / what time in there life...they have to start eating fish to grow... and be a ferox (primary food is fish)

its called the evolution of trout over thousands of years ...due to climate change ... and a bundance of food......

i think those Britts dont believe in evolution...

by the way humans all come from the same source of DNA... Race...... pitty i did not bring that one up.... lol

But they share a more recent common ancestor to each other than ferox.

Rycn

From wikipedia:

Salmo Ferox or Ferox, from the Latin for "fierce" is the name given in Victorian times to large brown trout that grow far in excess of the weight of their "ordinary" brethren. They are "only" brown trout, Salmo Trutta. But they have learned to access a richer form of food than their less predatory cousins, by taking up an almost wholly piscivorous diet.

Dryfly, you are right imo, they were talking shite over in that other place.

DryFlyFishing

Rycn wrote: »

From wikipedia:


Dryfly, you are right imo, they were talking shite over in that other place.

yea I totally agree with you

and to think they kicked me off that forum for trying to educate them... LMAO

you should see the crap thos guys talk although some of it is very funny

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/64120-banned.html

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62554-new-edition-troutslayer-dry-fly-special.html


http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62467-do-irish-wild-trout-like-corrib-trout-deserve-bit-more-respect.html

Rycn

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62554-new-edition-troutslayer-dry-fly-special.html

Why wasn't this guy banned? It is a little funny though

DryFlyFishing

Rycn wrote: »

Why wasn't this guy banned? It is a little funny though

you meen the guy that did the trout slayer mag.. lmao...

he was on the side of the C&R's ... so he is a good boy....

i slap the head off big WILD fish with the back of my 310gramm knife... so im a bad boy...


it was very funny i thought though especially the stuff about bear grills and the new kite fishing technique ... lmao

they were just looking to tar and feather me...

to be fair to the english etc that gave out about me ... they do have a point with respect to, they destroyed most of there water systems and it probably makes them very angry to see a big WILD trout being smacked...

probably brused there egos also to see someone catching a lot of big WILD trout... all of them are stocky bashers or small wild trout fishermen... they don’t get much stuff like us lot...

Rycn

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

you meen the guy that did the trout slayer mag.. lmao...

he was on the side of the C&R's ... so he is a good boy....

i slap the head off a fish with the back of my 310gramm knife... so im a bad boy...


it was very funny i thought though especially the stuff about bear grills and the new kite fishing technique ... lmao

they were just looking to tar and feather me...

Ah well what can ya do, at least u know u were right.

DryFlyFishing

Rycn wrote: »

Ah well what can ya do, at least u know u were right.

so true... LMAO:D:)

it was like talking to a brick wall...:pac:

you should go on there and post this thread... LMAO

WILL YOU POST THIS THREAD heheheheheheheh

fontanalis

Rycn wrote: »

From wikipedia:


Dryfly, you are right imo, they were talking shite over in that other place.

There were genetic tests done on ferox from fish taken from three lakes. One in Ireland and two in Scotland. Each of the three fish were more closely related to each other than they were to any of the brown trout in each of their lakes thus implying that ferox trout share a more recent comon ancestor than other brown torut, so they are born ferox and it's hard wired in to their DNA to feed on fish more so than brown trout probably due to being established at an earlier date when char were already present.

http://www.charr.org/species/ferox.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00595.x/abstract

DryFlyFishing

fontanalis wrote: »

There were genetic tests done on ferox from fish taken from three lakes. One in Ireland and two in Scotland. Each of the three fish were more closely related to each other than they were to any of the brown trout in each of their lakes thus implying that ferox trout share a more recent comon ancestor than other brown torut, so they are born ferox and it's hard wired in to their DNA to feed on fish more so than brown trout probably due to being established at an earlier date when char were already present.

http://www.charr.org/species/ferox.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00595.x/abstract

did you read the two links at the start of this thread

we have gone past all that old research sure it was useless...... just dopes looking to get fame and talk crap about stuff..... and lecture... and all they did is make a nation dumb

coolwings

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

did you read the two links at the start of this thread
...
we have gone past all that old research sure it was useless...... just dopes looking to get fame and talk crap about stuff..... and lecture... and all they did is make a nation dumb

Hmm ... pretty scathing there with the science bashing - have you done much research into ferox?

The material you referred to does not state that ferox are the same as browns genetically. It states there are various types of ferox in Rannoch. Since there are more than one type of char present in Rannoch the presence of ferox varieties is entirely to be expected,

... Data from Loch Rannoch samples, for example, have shown that a wide genetic variability exists within its ferox population...

Varieties within ferox, a new discovery, but they are still ferox..

snow ghost

Tasmania would be a good place to determine whether it is food or genetics, as all what are now considered 'wild' brown trout there were introduced there from a small number of river sources, so if they have large wild ferox trout then is it food???

Here could lie the answer Dry Fly Fishing, you may have to take a trip to tassie to go in search for the truth that you seek:

"on Thursday 21 January 1864, the three masted clipper ship Norfolk set sail from England with a cargo of 90,000 Salmon ova (from the Severn and Dovey Rivers) and 2700 Brown Trout ova, obtained from the Itchen River near Winchester, the Wye at Hight Wycombe, the Wey at Alton and the Test at Whitchurch. The voyage took 84 days and the Norfolk arrived in Melbourne on 15 April 1864, where it was found that 80% of the eggs had survived. They were then transported to Tasmania where they arrived on 20 April and taken to the Plenty River, to the site of the first salmon and trout hatchery in the Southern Hemisphere. This was called the Salmon Ponds and had been established here because it had cold water and was a tributary of the Derwent River which would give the young fish a clear passage to sea. The Salmon Ponds Hatchery was built in 1862 and is still open for visitors today. On 4 May 1864 the trout began to hatch, with the salmon hatching the next day. From that day the streams and waters of Australia have never been the same. The biggest Brown trout caught in Australia was 29 pounds and was taken from the Huon River, Tasmania."http://www.fishing-boating.com/articles/goldate/tassie_trout.htm

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

yea I totally agree with you

and to think they kicked me off that forum for trying to educate them... LMAO

you should see the crap thos guys talk although some of it is very funny

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/64120-banned.html

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62554-new-edition-troutslayer-dry-fly-special.html


http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62467-do-irish-wild-trout-like-corrib-trout-deserve-bit-more-respect.html

i do not look at that forum.....i will have a look through those threads...you say they are funny...i need a good laugh.
as for your comments/thoughts about catch and release well you are way off the mark on that one....considering the advancements in angling technology imagine if EVERYONE killed the fish they caught....most of us would be fishing places like rathbeggan ponds and horrible places like that....

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

..
i slap the head off big WILD fish with the back of my 310gramm knife... so im a bad boy...

definitely

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

definitely

well do you think i should inject them or electrocute them... like what is done to humans LMAO

o god not this again...

an average shop bough priest is only about 120 grams...

my knife is 310 grams its like an iron bar...

does the job... first whack... only reason i smack a few times is because there is residual neural activity and fish can death shake.... before rigamortis sets in...

DryFlyFishing

snow ghost wrote: »

Tasmania would be a good place to determine whether it is food or genetics, as all what are now considered 'wild' brown trout there were introduced there from a small number of river sources, so if they have large wild ferox trout then is it food???

Here could lie the answer Dry Fly Fishing, you may have to take a trip to tassie to go in search for the truth that you seek:

"on Thursday 21 January 1864, the three masted clipper ship Norfolk set sail from England with a cargo of 90,000 Salmon ova (from the Severn and Dovey Rivers) and 2700 Brown Trout ova, obtained from the Itchen River near Winchester, the Wye at Hight Wycombe, the Wey at Alton and the Test at Whitchurch. The voyage took 84 days and the Norfolk arrived in Melbourne on 15 April 1864, where it was found that 80% of the eggs had survived. They were then transported to Tasmania where they arrived on 20 April and taken to the Plenty River, to the site of the first salmon and trout hatchery in the Southern Hemisphere. This was called the Salmon Ponds and had been established here because it had cold water and was a tributary of the Derwent River which would give the young fish a clear passage to sea. The Salmon Ponds Hatchery was built in 1862 and is still open for visitors today. On 4 May 1864 the trout began to hatch, with the salmon hatching the next day. From that day the streams and waters of Australia have never been the same. The biggest Brown trout caught in Australia was 29 pounds and was taken from the Huon River, Tasmania."http://www.fishing-boating.com/articles/goldate/tassie_trout.htm

whats the average fish size down there?:)

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

i do not look at that forum.....i will have a look through those threads...you say they are funny...i need a good laugh.
as for your comments/thoughts about catch and release well you are way off the mark on that one....considering the advancements in angling technology imagine if EVERYONE killed the fish they caught....most of us would be fishing places like rathbeggan ponds and horrible places like that....

well as you well know i release most of my fish.... only keep the good eaters... release all trout under 2.3 lb and 99% over 4.5 unless they were looking as if they would have red flesh...

DryFlyFishing

coolwings wrote: »

Hmm ... pretty scathing there with the science bashing - have you done much research into ferox?

The material you referred to does not state that ferox are the same as browns genetically. It states there are various types of ferox in Rannoch. Since there are more than one type of char present in Rannoch the presence of ferox varieties is entirely to be expected,

Varieties within ferox, a new discovery, but they are still ferox..

considering all trout come from the same DNA and Race.. and that it is only evolution that has changed the way they feed i.e there is more food around so trout have changed the way they feed ... but in other lakes there is still very little food... other than eating each other...

there is no such thing as a ferox species... and the trout that people say are ferox are just a stunted evolved trout over thousands of years... therefore there is no difference between a so called ferox and a so called non ferox as they all came from the same DNA...

sure don’t humans eat each other when they are put in an environment of starvation????? does this not change the chemical makeup of them and change there body shape ...



and that is why when a trout grows big for its location eating nymphs shrimp etc.. it needs more and more fish to eat and becomes ferox...

in other words all trout are ferox well that is if they were lucky enough not to be eaten themselves and grew big enough for there location.. to have to primarily eat fish...

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

well do you think i should inject them or electrocute them... like what is done to humans LMAO

o god not this again...

an average shop bough priest is only about 120 grams...

my knife is 310 grams its like an iron bar...

does the job... first whack... only reason i smack a few times is because there is residual neural activity and fish can death shake.... before rigamortis sets in...

i have never electrocuted anyone so i cant comment,, although i think of a few i would like to (where is Bertie when you want him).... what do you mean "o god not this again" that will never never never go away. thankfully.

don't have a priest...haven't got a clue how heavy they are and couldn't care less....i am happy to see you return small fish.....as i have said on here many times i do not mind anyone taking the odd fish for the table, about 1 or 2 a week is fine if you are that hungry..... some fishery 'scientists' believe it is better to take larger fish as they are less likely to spawn, i am no scientist but dont trust anything the fishery board people say so just to be safe i put them all back.

I cant see why you have been banned from that english forum (although a lot of the posters are Irish) some of that stuff about bear grylls and that kite crap is very sad indeed. some of it is too personal.

coolwings

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

... sure don’t humans eat each other when they are put in an environment of starvation????? ...

On the other hand I eat steak, but am in no danger of becoming bovine ....
Food choices will affect morphology of a specie but over times like 20000 generations, not a lifetime.

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

... and that is why when a trout grows big for its location eating nymphs shrimp etc.. it needs more and more fish to eat and becomes ferox ...

I take it you mean a big trout becomes piscivorous because it's enhanced ability to handle larger food size begins to include more fish items and less insect items. Agreed.

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

... in other words all trout are ferox ....

No. That's an assumption which is not borne out by genetic research to date.
They have common ancestors, but ferox have bred seperately and evolved into a different sub species, not a different species (under the fertility criteria).
However it has been demonstrated that lions and tigers can successfully interbreed with mans intervention, but not in the wild, and they are different species of cats. This is the criteria under which ferox trout are a different species from brown trout.

DryFlyFishing

coolwings wrote: »

On the other hand I eat steak, but am in no danger of becoming bovine ....
Food choices will affect morphology of a specie but over times like 20000 generations, not a lifetime.



You mean a big trout becomes piscivorous because it's ability to handle larger food size begins to include more fish items and less insect items. It's a size thing.


No. That's an assumption which is not borne out by genetic research to date.
They have common ancestors, but ferox have bred seperately and evolved into a different sub species, not a different species (under the fertility criteria).
However it has been demonstrated that lions and tigers can successfully interbreed with mans intervention, but not in the wild, and they are different species of cats. This is the criteria under which ferox trout are a different species from brown trout.

why did salmon decide to go to sea? is a salmon not a trout origionaly
why did seatrout decide to go to sea? is a seatrout not a trout origionaly

and yes over thousands of years can you imagine what a human would be like if they primarily ate humans... lol

yes it is a size thing ... big fish expend more energy to move so they need to eat more..... but if there was enough nymphs and shrips so they did not have to eat fish they would not eat fish etc... as numphs and shrimps are easier to catch

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

..

in other words all trout are ferox

bunkum...........trout eat what is available.....even ferox will take flies...........but prefer fish

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

bunkum...........trout eat what is available.....even ferox will take flies...........but prefer fish

only prefer fish as they need a bigger dinner to survive...

that is why when an abundant source of nymphs i.e mayfly and buzzer are around the large trout i.e ferox will not eat fish and concentrate on nymphs...

also the same way a large salmon will feed in fresh water... its all to do with im not going to eat that unless i get more energy out of it than i expend hunting it...

scientist have just overcomplicated the ferox thing and brain washed everyone

bet ya those scientist are crap at fishing

coolwings

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

why did salmon decide to go to sea? is a salmon not a trout origionaly
why did seatrout decide to go to sea? is a seatrout not a trout origionaly
...

Your logic is faulty.

The fact modern species all evolved from the same ancestor species does not mean that all modern species are the same today.

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

only prefer fish as they need a biger dinner to survive...

true but to say that all trout turn into ferox.....well... i understand and respect your points but i am not so sure.....what about the sonaghen in melvin do they turn into ferox? and the big trout in Sheelin the 10lb + fish look nothing like the 10lb ferox of mask and corrib. According to your views are larger sheelin fish trout that have turned ferox too???? i dont believe so they are totally different in appearance. All of them are not as old as the ferox is, so the fexox is a long living fish and the brown trout is not....they are different....whether you call them different species i am not sure, maybe different race.

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

its all to do with im not going to eat that unless i get more energy out of it than i expend hunting it...

100%

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

true but to say that all trout turn into ferox.....well... i understand and respect your points but i am not so sure.....what about the sonaghen in melvin do they turn into ferox? and the big trout in Sheelin the 10lb + fish look nothing like the 10lb ferox of mask and corrib. According to your views are larger sheelin fish trout that have turned ferox too???? i dont believe so they are totally different in appearance. All of them are not as old as the ferox is, so the fexox is a long living fish and the brown trout is not....they are different....whether you call them different species i am not sure, maybe different race.

as i said earlier ... all trout come from the same DNA.. but because they lived for thousands of years and evolved over that time... there climate and location has shaped there life...

so as a fish needs to eat more fish when he hits a certain size for its location as the nymphs and shimp do not sustain him any more, a trout becomes a ferox at that time... and this is a different time/fish size in every location...

and yes they are different looking and have slight variations of DNA but who gives a toss... the scientists are full of it.. and talk crap.

look at china... small people in one area and 6 foot people in another... WHY??? may you ask.. the tall people come from the agracultural area... lots of meat... and other good food

i would call the tall ones ferox lol

ironbluedun

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

as i said earlier ... all trout come from the same DNA.. but because they lived for thousands of years and evolved over that time... there climate and location has shaped there life...

so as a fish needs to eat more fish when he hits a certain size for its location as the nymphs and shimp do not sustain him any more, a trout becomes a ferox at that time... and this is a different time/fish size in every location...

no cant agree with that highlighted statement i have not seen it.....was the 15lb trout caught on sheelin in march a ferox???? i am certain you have seen its photo, its all over the net, was it a ferox? yes or no?

http://www.shannon-fishery-board.ie/guides/game/reports2010/march3rd.htm

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

no cant agree with that highlighted statement i have not seen it.....was the 15lb trout caught on sheelin in march a ferox???? i am certain you have seen its photo, its all over the net, was it a ferox? yes or no?

http://www.shannon-fishery-board.ie/guides/game/reports2010/march3rd.htm

if its flesh was white it is a ferox as it does not primarily eat shrimp / numphs etc anymore, it is primarialy a fish eater...

did they cut it open?

all small trout to a certain size in sheelin are red fleshed... then they go white... as they need fish primarily to live and grow

what size on sheelin does the flesh go white on average?

if a fish is lucky enough to gorw in its location to the size where it has to eat fish.. it is at the top of its food chain.. and it extends its life expectancy by many years.. therefore any trout that grows big for its water system/location turns ferox and lives longer...

ironbluedun

i heard that the big trout was kept alive in a pike sack for inspection by fishery staff, scales taken and returned to the water alive....i suppose you are horrified with that :):D

i dont cut open any trout so dont know what colour the flesh is of any fish......

that fish could also feed on nymphs and flies like many other larger trout do... in my opinion it is not what i call a ferox......

DryFlyFishing

ironbluedun wrote: »

i heard that the big trout was kept alive in a pike sack for inspection by fishery staff, scales taken and returned to the water alive....i suppose you are horrified with that :):D



i dont cut open any trout so dont know what colour the flesh is of any fish......

that fish could also feed on nymphs and flies like many other larger trout do... in my opinion it is not what i call a ferox......

i think they were right to take samples of the fish....... as the scientists are far from the truth....they need all the help they can get lol

its something that is open for debate...

and even if they did a DNA test it does not make it a ferox or not a ferox ....

its all to do with what is a trouts primary food...

and yes im 100% sure that fish gourges on easy food like nymphs shrimps etc when they are abundant...

BoarHunter

when the fish reach a certain size you have to consider the ratio : Energy spent to catch < energy provided by the meal . A big Trout will consider more hunting for easy fish preys than spending the whole day rising for small insects... that just doesn't worth it from their perspective.

therefore the fish that intend to catch bigger preys will go and find them deeper and as they change their diet their flesh and colour will also change. I suppose that their cortex evolve differently than other trouts from their diet.

this of course influence the genetic IMHO and i wouldn't know the single clue about why some fish change and some other don't.

As DFF says all dogs come from one single species of wolf ...

coolwings

BoarHunter wrote: »

..As DFF says all dogs come from one single species of wolf ...

So far so good - but then he goes on to say that all dogs become wolves :eek: when they grow up to be bigger and eat more, which just isn't so!

DryFlyFishing

coolwings wrote: »

So far so good - but then he goes on to say that all dogs become wolves :eek: when they grow up to be bigger and eat more, which just isn't so!

ever heard of pack mentality .... sheep killings ....:D

BoarHunter

Have we ever managed to breed a ferox in captivity ?

DryFlyFishing

BoarHunter wrote: »

Have we ever managed to breed a ferox in captivity ?

dont know.. has anyone ever tracked a stocky for its full lifespan,,, and one that was lucky enough to be in fit enough shape like a wild trout to chase fish.. when the other stuff did not suffice



but what about all the trout the guys breed and release when small..... im sure they have... as they were released when they were very small... big difference between a baby fish being released and a fat stocky


or do you meen keeping the fish in a tank and only feed it fish?????????????lol

coolwings

BoarHunter wrote: »

Have we ever managed to breed a ferox in captivity ?

I think they are being bred in the US.

The Great Lakes have always had large trout and salmon, not due to good spawning inflowing streams, but grown on from enormous quantities of stocked fry.
Only a few of the game fish in the Great lakes spawn successfully, and those are not enough to sustain a fishery on a water the size of an inland sea. So stocking is the only way to have good sport fishing of what the lake can sustain.

The browns stocked were called German Browns, and in these waters they bottom fed, ate fish, and grew to 25-30lbs in extreme.

Well about 10 years ago a new strain of brown trout was tried out by the authorities. These are called Seeforellen strain, from Austria, and if you speak German that translates as "lake brown trout". The seeforellen were a big success, growing even larger than the browns already there.
The seeforellen feed pelagically, and hunt the massive midwater shoals of shad, a silvery herring shoal fish, which would behave like char in many ways. These new strain trout grow to excess 35lbs and state records are being broken.
Many US lakes are now being stocked with trout from the seeforellen hatcheries.
That sounds to me like they got themselves some Austrian ferox.

DryFlyFishing

coolwings wrote: »

I think they are being bred in the US.

The Great Lakes have always had large trout and salmon, not due to good spawning inflowing streams, but grown on from enormous quantities of stocked fry.
Only a few of the game fish in the Great lakes spawn successfully, and those are not enough to sustain a fishery on a water the size of an inland sea. So stocking is the only way to have good sport fishing of what the lake can sustain.

The browns stocked were called German Browns, and in these waters they bottom fed, ate fish, and grew to 25-30lbs in extreme.

Well about 10 years ago a new strain of brown trout was tried out by the authorities. These are called Seeforellen strain, from Austria, and if you speak German that translates as "lake brown trout". The seeforellen were a big success, growing even larger than the browns already there.
The seeforellen feed pelagically, and hunt the massive midwater shoals of shad, a silvery herring shoal fish, which would behave like char in many ways. These new strain trout grow to excess 35lbs and state records are being broken.
Many US lakes are now being stocked with trout from the seeforellen hatcheries.
That sounds to me like they got themselves some Austrian ferox.

well if the fish grow that big over many years????

or are they growing that big over a very short time... because of so much stocked food...

does that strain of brown trout grow like rainbows... they put on weight very fast...

coolwings

If you do a websearch for seeforellen and Great Lakes you'll find a lot of comment of them. They are chunky looking in photos due to being so well fed.
The shad are very numerous, in huge shoals, and these fish lunch on them.
The other big trout seem to feed on gobies, a small bottom loving fish, like a big stoneloach, and sculpins, another bottom oriented "minnow".
The comparison to ferox and char is striking, the increased size highly suggestive, but I have never come across a definite confirmation that ferox were selected intentionally for the introduction, or age comparisons. The name given to this strain shouts "ferox", doesn't it?

DryFlyFishing

coolwings wrote: »

If you do a websearch for seeforellen and Great Lakes you'll find a lot of comment of them. They are chunky looking in photos due to being so well fed.
The shad are very numerous, in huge shoals, and these fish lunch on them.
The other big trout seem to feed on gobies, a small bottom loving fish, like a big stoneloach, and sculpins, another bottom oriented "minnow".
The comparison to ferox and char is striking, the increased size highly suggestive, but I have never come across a definite confirmation that ferox were selected intentionally for the introduction, or age comparisons. The name given to this strain shouts "ferox", doesn't it?

so much bait fish it grown so quick...

human intervention...

USA supersize my fish....

young fish are huge... its like stocky land..

not into that...

rather catch a trout that grew slowly over many years and is large for its natural habitiat not all this fish farm engineering...

its not natural....