Keeping A Trophy?

[croixeyes]

Ive read posts about keeping a trophy fish to mount verses taking a pic and getting a replica made,Im talking walleye on this one.Wanted to get peoples take on this and throw out a couple of thoughts of my own.I think that walleye and other species growth is genetic,not all fish grow to trophy size.That being said,when someone catches a trophy and wants to do a skin mount is it wrong?Is taking that fish out of the system a bad thing?

Alot of people will say yes,keep the eaters 16 to 18s and let the big girls go.Replica mounts are a great option and one I myself would probably go with.But some folks want to have the fish that they caught on the wall in their home.I really dont have a problem with that,cause of one thing that keeps running through my head.Of all the eater size fish that people keep,I wonder how many of those fish would have had the genetics to attain trophy status.Of course at specific times of the year we can tell the difference between males and females,but we dont know which fish is carrying the stuff hogs are made of.Different bodies of water is a whole other pot to stirr......Thoughts please..Oh yea and I do have a skin mounted eye,not my biggest but very nice and a fish that I could not revive.

[Team Otter]

My first walleye over 30", whenever that day comes, will be kept and put on the wall. Anything after that, will need to exceed 32" and/or 12 - 13# before it goes on the wall.

[Fish&Fowl]

Some of a walleye's size may come from genetics, but I have to believe that a lot of how big fish get comes from the particular body of water it came from (forage base, fishing pressure, overall size, etc.) If you take a big healthy walleye from a small lake that is full of forage like smelt or ciscoes and put it in another lake without that food, odds are they won't become as big as mama was. They may be perfectly healthy fish for the water they're living in, but getting to trophy size ultimately would mean just living long enough and having enough food to keep growing.

But enough rambling on about that opinion, which is certainly what it was. I have no problem with anyone keeping a fish that they want to put on the wall. It's perfectly legal and perfectly ethical. It would be nice to see the fish get put back, but surely the amount of true trophies harvested each year that are kept won't do much to the overall population (in most lakes.) This not only goes for walleyes, but any species of game fish. I personally would go with a replica because I have a good camera and with a couple of quick measurements, a near identical copy can be made. I have only started thinking this way after seeing so many replicas made that look great. If they didn't, I would keep the fish...why put it on the wall if it doesn't look right?

[TrophyEyes]

I kept my first two over 10 lbs and it was a huge mistake. I was 5 and 6 years old. They are true trophies, but I would never ever do it again. I have had them for 21 years and they are looking offly ragged, even though they were top of the line when they were done. I would get a graphite replica if I were to do another.

[Jim Hudson]

I think personally, with todays advancements in the age of replicas, we do not need to harvest these large fish for skin mounts. I do not condone anyone for doing it, but it is my personal view on this.

With more and more anglers and more and more pressure, if everyone were to keep their trophy fish (of any species), decline would be relevant on certain bodies of water. Some bodies can sustain this to some extent, but I always err on the side of caution as fish populations can crash big time due to a variety of reasons. So with more big fish with good genetics in the system, maybe if things were to crash, a few will survive to pass on the best genes possible. Just my view... And plus, I or someone else would have the benefit of catching and admiring such a beautiful fish..

[Scott M]

Is someone who keeps a skin mount bad? No. See explanation at end....

How big a role does genetics play in growing large fish? Little compared to other factors. Fishing pressure and forage are likely bigger determinants of how big a fish will grow. Look at Mille Lacs. It is now shifting to a trophy fishery. It has pretty strong fishing pressure at times, but with the slot there are lots of large fish that are protected. But once they reach 28", a lot are taken for the wall or to eat. The forage base on the lake is very strong; lots of cisco and perch, not to mention a sampling of a few other species.

Genetics can certainly play a role in how fast a fish grows, but with proper nutrition and avoidance of anglers that want to eat that fish over the course of its lifetime, its more likely to reach trophy potential.

The thing a lot of people don't realize is fish experience indeterminant growth. This means they will grow as large as their environment will let them. In other words, if there is fuel for the metabolic machine and leftover energy, it will go towards growth and reproduction. There really isn't a genetic "cap" to how big they can get. Their genetics are kind of like a coefficient of growth, determining their rate of growth rather than how big they can get.

So taking a walleye because one suspects it doesn't have genetic potential to reach a certain size isn't the strongest claim. If the lake you caught said walleye in had no spawning habitat or really weak forage (Lake X in Southwest Minnesota for example), then you shouldn't feel bad at all about harvesting a fish. Overall, if its legal, it's your own moral dilemma to keep a fish and no one can chide you for doing something within the legal limits.

Having said that, replicas are pretty nice. A memory for a fish of a lifetime and a fish that gets to swim another day. Doesn't cost much more than a skin mount, and often looks nicer and lasts longer.

[fisherking01]

Keeping trophy fish is fine. I've seen great mounts. Not always the biggest fish make the nicest looking mounts. Ive seen many mid range mounts that I'd rather display than huge ones. I like 8x10 pictures better with the catcher in the photo. they can be moved changed and passed on with little cost. they also can be great conversation starters.

My mounts don't hang in my home, they hang at local shops etc. I've got a lot of pics on my walls, as it takes a special place to hang a mount where people can see them and appreciate them. lots to think about.

I know of many trophys that were taken with good inten tions only to waste away in a freezer!

If you have the desire and finances to do a mount there is nothing wrong with it at all.

for old mounts, there are many taxidermists that will make them look like new again. You don't need to toss em out when they get ratty looking. Just a thought. Brent

[lookincalifornia]

my eye mount was kinda a knee jerk reaction. there were acouple of guys fishing nearby and i called them over to show em'. they said they knew a guy with a certified scale so i drove over and weighed my giant. it was only 7 1/4#'s.

i still have it on the wall, and it will be my only eye mount. i have no need for more. it will likely be the last skin mount too. when i got my first mount, the replicas looked pretty bad, but they are really nice these days.

and i really like the 8x10 photo idea. maybe them my wife would let me put it in the house

[Hammer Handle]

Some people like the skin mount for anyone can get a replica...even if you didn't catch the fish.

So, how do you feel about keeping the big fish to eat it??

[Scott M]

Quote:

---

Some people like the skin mount for anyone can get a replica...even if you didn't catch the fish.

So, how do you feel about keeping the big fish to eat it??

---

Keep a nice picture with your replica. Good replica makers want that picture for detail purposes and it looks really nice next to your replica....proof if you will.

Big fish to eat question...Why? All those bioaccumulated toxins? Aged flesh?

Fresh fish is too cheap to get elsewhere, either bought or captured in the form of smaller fish. Why take all that spawning potential out of the lake, and make no mistake, when you catch walleyes above 20", the majority are female.

I can't rip someone for keeping a legal fish, but why would you want to do that when there are easier and better options out there?

[Nate McVey]

Quote:

---

I like 8x10 pictures better with the catcher in the photo. they can be moved changed and passed on with little cost. they also can be great conversation starters.

---

This is what I do. It started when I fly fished in CO because the guys I fished with were all catch and release. After one trip I went back to one of the guys house and he showed me his trophy wall. There must have been 100's of 8x10's of his fish as well as friends he had made over the years. They were in his office, hallway and bathroom (obviously he lived alone) as well as some in the living room. I started my own "wall of fame" in our guest room. I have probably 50 or so and I am very proud to show it off and tell the story behind almost every picture. There are pictures of my fiance, dad, friends, and a few of the members on this site. It is a great conversation starter and my fiance loves it when my buddies comment on her fish instead of mine

Don't get me wrong, there is something to be said about seeing the real thing on the wall, but if my pictures become faded or get messed up in a move, I can go to the computer and print a replacement.

[PikeBayCommanche]

I mounted my 32' eye this last year. Probably the only eye i will ever mount and it came from very fertile waters. Have thrown back many that are in the 29-30 range so I know i didnt take a loaner pig.

When eyes get that big they get caught very little and when the 22-27 inchers get taken is the real breeding stock for walleyes.

When i caught it i was afraid that after that long fight and it being so huge it would be a shame to let her go not knowing if she would go belly up under the ice. I think my decision was one of a personal choice. One a lot of people have to make choice. This time it was not gonna happen.

[croixeyes]

Thanks for the input folks,makes for some good reading.Da-chise31,are you saying that if you have say, 10 walleyes in the same water,same forage and all,that those 10 fish will grow to be the same size?I am of the belief that some fish grow bigger because of their gene pool,kinda like people.I am leaving out factors such as lake size,fishing pressure etc.Of course those things factor in to the equation and probably are the biggest reason for fewer truly giant fish.

[Kyle Sandberg]

Most species of a fish in a lake that has natural reporduction have very similar genetics. With the breeding population limited to whats in the lake, the fish, over time, start to cross breed. Thus, they take on the same traits and genes.

So really, depending on sex, all the fish should grow to the same length if they all eat the same.

I would have to agree that the biggest factor affecting how big a fish can get is the availbility of food and water space.

[PikeBayCommanche]

Myself I have one word for large walleye growth.

Tullibee.

[Scott M]

Quote:

---

Thanks for the input folks,makes for some good reading.Da-chise31,are you saying that if you have say, 10 walleyes in the same water,same forage and all,that those 10 fish will grow to be the same size?I am of the belief that some fish grow bigger because of their gene pool,kinda like people.I am leaving out factors such as lake size,fishing pressure etc.Of course those things factor in to the equation and probably are the biggest reason for fewer truly giant fish.

---

Under that set of conditions, you are perfectly right. You are describing the conditions for comparing quantitative genetics of Mendelian inheritance, and a particular continuous trait in this instance (growth, although length and weight also qualify).

If you hold forage, fishing pressure, mortality, temperature, basically every factor in a lake constant for a year or in the case of large walleye, 10-12, then you'd see the effects of genetics. However, more often than not, actually almost never, those things just don't even out or ever get applied as a constant, so they are tough variables to pin down. Thus I make the point that genetics are often a small consideration into how large a fish will grow. That fact and the fact that fish grow indeterminantly really mean that genetics won't play such a large role in trophy walleye growth.

There are exceptions to every rule though I imagine if a strain of Ozark walleye were kept in a lab with say Kabetogama strain walleye under the ideal conditions you described, then you would see some huge differences in growth on genetic differences alone. I would qualify my statement by saying amongst Minnesota fish and Minnesota strains there wouldn't be much difference genetically accounting for growth differences, even in vacuum conditions.

[croixeyes]

I guess it would depend on the water temps those two strains were kept in as to which one would grow quicker Thanks for the insite..

[Team Otter]

Now this is information! You don't go to just "any old forum" and get access to quality information like this. Great post! Thank you for the idea and thanks to all for sharing in what they know and/or believe.