world record trout or?

Very well can be an altered trout but he caught it and it wasn't caught in a tank he used fishing gear so i would think it should count.

But things like this the bozo's who are messing with changing things like this got to wonder what will it do to the other fish that haven't been altered after they escape and mingle with the native fish somethings are better left alone because never know what the repercussions will be messing with the laws of mother nature by altering things like fish e.t.c.

I have changed my mind it is a freak fish and only natural unaltered fish should be allowed not something like this that has been altered to be a monster.

I look at this closer again and seen these ones are sterile so these ones can't reproduce but what would happen if nature has a way of allowing them to become fertile again and can reproduce again?Things like that can happen look at some species if there isn't enough of the other sex around some can change.

That doesn't look like a rainbow, it looks like a damn salmon! But, it's got the "pretty" vague colors of a rainbow.

I don't know how I feel about a "manufactured" trout. To me, it's a trout, and I'm not a big fan of them. To me, trout are just forage for a largemouth bass. But at 48 pounds, it'd have to be a HUGE bass to chomp on that thing. Still... I dunno.

If it is in fact a manufactured or genetically altered fish, and it escaped from it's "cage" and the dude legally caught it, well then... it's gotta be a world record. But the dude's twin brother caught the previous record? That seems kinda, no pun intended, but kinda fishy.

what is to prevent ANYONE from manufacturing their own world record of any species?

Hmm... So you would have no problem with someone growing or genetically altering a largemouth bass to maximum record size?

Perhaps the IGFA should have a world record for both Natural Selection fish (big naturally) and manufactured or genetically altered fish?

Considering that it came from the same lake as the previous record gives you some doubt. He did catch it and it wasnt him that planted it, so I will give him credit for that. As far as the record I will have to say no or at least put it in another category such as genetically engineered fish. Just remember that most fish from bass to trout are hatchery raised and released into the wild and that is in a way it is selective breeding , but not genetic engineering because no gene , chromosome , or genetic material was altered. In California the record trout is 30+ pounds but it is not offical,why? It was caught in the Santa River Lake, which stocked genetically engineered fish and fish that was fed with steroids of some sort. I believe the offical state record was 20 pounds of so.

That looks exactly like a Salmon. But I'm sure one of those California bass could eat that. Swallow it in one bite. Probably have enough room for dinner ...

Jokes aside, the man caught the fish and I doubt he went out to catch a genetically altered fish. So put it in the record books!

A fish is a fish. As long as he caught it in open water and not out of a raised pond. But that was a nice trout. A new record in my book

the way i see it is a trout and he caught it,period.