Is it Possible.

[RAMBLER]

Wasn't there a bass, in California, that had been caught a couple of times, but not hooked correctly, that was heavier than the present record?  I might not be remembering it right but I thought the locals called her Daisy.  I think she was found floating, dead and would have still been the new record had she been caught within the rules.  I just reread WRB's post.  I guess "Daisy"  might have been "Dottie".

If you ever read what Doug Hannon wrote about big fish, he figured that the nominal temperature, growing period, food available and other factors I can't remember made  north central Florida the prime area for a new world's record to come from.  But, he probably never figured in hand feeding bass with rainbow trout in California.

[Catt]

6 minutes ago, RAMBLER said:

Wasn't there a bass, in California, that had been caught a couple of times, but not hooked correctly, that was heavier than the present record?  I might not be remembering it right but I thought the locals called her Daisy.  I think she was found floating, dead and would have still been the new record had she been caught within the rules.

Dottie!

Was snagged outside the mouth, was once caught & weighed on uncertified scales, & a number of other problems every time she was caught.

California has had bass in the teens found floating on the water near death & entered as a state record. They have had bass entered for purposes of records with lead weights stuffed down their throats.

And they worry about Perry's bass

[Wayne P.]

Perry's bass was a dink compare to this one:

 

 

[Mainebass1984]

I think that Japan and South Africa have the best chance at a new world record. It is sad to think that it wont happen in this country, in the Largemouths native range. Without a significant amount of trout being stocked in California lakes I do not think it will happen there. I may be misinformed but, it was my understanding that the state of California isn't stocking Rainbows as it once did because they few it as an invasive species where it doesn't naturally occur ?

 

[J Francho]

14 minutes ago, Mainebass1984 said:

I may be misinformed but, it was my understanding that the state of California isn't stocking Rainbows as it once did because they few it as an invasive species where it doesn't naturally occur ?

Rainbow trout naturally occur in California...bass are the alien species.

[WRB]

Trout hatcheries in California can plant tripoloid (sterile) rainbow trout in waters that have native rainbow trout or steelhead trout populations since the late 60's. A law suit in 2006 stopped planting hactuary rainbow trout anywhere that historically had a steelhead trout population. The local DFW had to survey all the waters with trout populations for environmental impact if they resumed planting sterile tripoloid rainbow trout. The study period lasted until this year and some water are now being planted agian with hatchery trout. The bass population is a non native species in Califotnia and under attack by purist environmentalists to remove them in the Delta area, a world class bass fishery.

The reason a world record bass must be examined is to prevent cheating, a problem that dates back to the beginning of record keeping and bass fishing derbies. The Smallmouth bass (Hays) record was removed because of a claim the fish was stuffed with nuts and bolts. The Hays record was reinstated in 2006 based on measurements validate the weight.

Regarding line class records vs all tackle records, the all tackle LMB record is the holy grail of bass records and under intense scrutiny, line class records and other bass species tend to get less scrutiny.

Tom

[Mainebass1984]

1 hour ago, J Francho said:

Rainbow trout naturally occur in California...bass are the alien species.

I am aware of this. Largemouth Bass are invasive species in a vast majority of the waterbodies they are currently found.

 

18 minutes ago, WRB said:

Trout hatcheries in California can plant tripoloid (sterile) rainbow trout in waters that have native rainbow trout or steelhead trout populations since the late 60's. A law suit in 2006 stopped planting hactuary rainbow trout anywhere that historically had a steelhead trout population. The local DFW had to survey all the waters with trout populations for environmental impact if they resumed planting sterile tripoloid rainbow trout. The study period lasted until this year and some water are now being planted agian with hatchery trout. The bass population is a non native species in Califotnia and under attack by purist environmentalists to remove them in the Delta area, a world class bass fishery.

 

Are the post-survey stocking numbers comparable to the pre-survey stocking numbers ? I was under the impression that stocking allocations were far fewer then they historically had been.

Aside from protecting native steelhead populations hasn't stocking been ceased to protect the clear lake hitch ?

It seems a stretch to me for California to produce a world record given the current conditions. Extreme drought certainly has strained a large number of waterbodies. The presence of Landlocked Striped Bass. The number and occurrence of trout stockings is way down from 90s or even 00s levels when it seemed all but certain California was going to produce a anew world record. It is always a possibility that a new world record could come from California but I think that there was a far greater chance of that happening in the 90s and 00s.

I think Japan will produce the next record or perhaps South Africa.

[J Francho]

1 hour ago, Mainebass1984 said:

I am aware of this. Largemouth Bass are an introduced invasive species in a vast majority of the waterbodies west of the Mississippi they are currently found.

Fixed it for you.  I wouldn't call them invasive, either.  Most were intentionally and legally stocked.

[Derek Petter]

I think it will be beat in my lifetime (hopefully I do it lol).

[Mainebass1984]

4 hours ago, J Francho said:

Fixed it for you.  I wouldn't call them invasive, either.  Most were intentionally and legally stocked.

I shall disagree with your corrections, as would the vast majority of the scientific community.  You are entitled to your opinion.

[Raul]

9 hours ago, Wayne P. said:

Perry's bass was a dink compare to this one:

 

 

I catch fry like that all the time, such a nuisance.

9 hours ago, Mainebass1984 said:

I think that Japan and South Africa have the best chance at a new world record. It is sad to think that it wont happen in this country, in the Largemouths native range. Without a significant amount of trout being stocked in California lakes I do not think it will happen there. I may be misinformed but, it was my understanding that the state of California isn't stocking Rainbows as it once did because they few it as an invasive species where it doesn't naturally occur ?

 

Rainbows are native to Cali, actually Cali is home to a subspecies of rainbow more rare, Golden Rainbow Trout.

[contium]

2 hours ago, Mainebass1984 said:

I shall disagree with your corrections, as would the vast majority of the scientific community.  You are entitled to your opinion.

How can you have an invasive species that was intentionally (legally) stocked in a man made reservoir? Nothing was there before. There are no native species. Even if it was a stream that was damned up that had native trout, they would have died in the warm water lakes. By law, they have to stock warm water fish to maintain the biology of the lake. I don't think there were any native warm water fish in SoCal.

[OCdockskipper]

This^ brings up an interesting point.

I remember when Diamond Valley Lake (DVL) was impounded, there was quite a program run by Dave Guisti .  As the dams were being built (yes, dams - this lake has dams on the front & rear of the lake...Only in California), Gliebe built a small pond in a low lying area.  Fry of bass, bluegill & other species were introduced into this pond.  A year or so later, the impoundment was filled and this population of warm water fish were already available to roam the new reservoir.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-diamond-valley-lake-bass-anglers-delight-2003sep29-story.html 

So although the fish were not native to the tributary that created the impoundment, they were there before the impoundment.  Therefore, largemouth bass are indeed native to DVL.  Right?

[WRB]

Largemouth bass were introduced to California by Dr Henshaw who transported bass from Minnisota to California via railroad in the 1880's. Spotted bass from Alabama were introduced in 1930's to Friant dam lake Millerton. Not sure when or where Smallmouth bass were introduced,

Stripe bass where introduced into the San Fransico bay for the east coast. Florida largemouth bass introduced to San Diego city lakes in 1959, Upper Otay lake by Orvil Ball.

No Fresh water bass evolved west of the Rocky Mountains, they were introduced by profession biologist working for the State of California. Bass are not invasive specie, they are non- native.

Tom 

[J Francho]

14 hours ago, Mainebass1984 said:

I shall disagree with your corrections, as would the vast majority of the scientific community.  You are entitled to your opinion.

See Tom's quote above.  It's not opinion....

[Mainebass1984]

As defined by the American Fisheries Society:

Invasive species: non native species disrupting and replacing native species

As defined by NOAA:

Invasive species: An invasive species is an organism that causes ecological or economic harm in a new environment where it is non native.

[J Francho]

Bass aren't causing harm.

[Mainebass1984]

45 minutes ago, J Francho said:

Bass aren't causing harm.

Ask your local biologist. Any species effects the food chain and eco system they are introduced into.

[J Francho]

Yep.  And anyone that says bass are HARMING the system has an agenda.  They simply aren't.  Those species have been in trouble for a long time coming.  Has nothing to do with bass.

[Djf3864]

I think that it is very likely that the record will be broken in my lifetime.  You have a lot of people out there right now building high output, private fish factories.  They are honing the craft of creating big fish on private ponds/lakes and will likely get to the point that they can grow them in the 20's with ease and the right genetics line.

[Mainebass1984]

3 hours ago, J Francho said:

Yep.  And anyone that says bass are HARMING the system has an agenda.  They simply aren't.  Those species have been in trouble for a long time coming.  Has nothing to do with bass.

Its all a conspiracy ?

All fisheries biologists, state and federal, they are all wrong ?

Any species, plant, insect, fish, mammal effects the ecosystem it is introduced into. They compete for the same resources.

[J Francho]

I'm against anything that puts limits on fishing.  There's no way to eradicate bass from non endemic locales, and there's no proof that even doing so would help, so it is moot.  No one can win that debate.  I'm just not sure how you can call a fish invasive if it was included in the stocking plan, intentionally introduced, and managed.  It has a negative connotation that I will always question why the word is used.  Are you a bass fisherman or a trout lover?  Here in NY, trout get more support from local enviro agencies, even though brown, rainbow/steelhead, coho, and kings are all introduced.  Go figure.  No one refers to those species as invasive.

[WRB]

Out west we have 2 groups of anglers with opposed agendas. The cold fresh water group, trout, steelhead and salmon verses the warm water group, bass. The cold water group opposes dams and any change to free flowing rivers and streams. The warm water group promotes dams and reserviors. Cold water group opposes any non-native fish and considers them invasive including brown trout. Warm water group accepts nearly all fish except carp, we don't have snakeheads.

The cold water group is well organized with stated goals and unlimited funding. The warm water group has no organization, no stated goals, no funding. Warm water group gets support from self serving tournament anglers and recreational business support. 

Bass in California are stocked initially from existing lakes into new reserviors by the DFW to provide warm water recreational fishing, no bass hatchery exist, the bass are on thier own! Giant bass in California must fend for themselves.

Tom

[contium]

19 minutes ago, Mainebass1984 said:

Its all a conspiracy ?

All fisheries biologists, state and federal, they are all wrong ?

Any species, plant, insect, fish, mammal effects the ecosystem it is introduced into. They compete for the same resources.

Do you realize that the vast majority of lakes with bass in CA are man-made reservoirs? And that state fisheries biologist are the ones that stocked warm water fish into the reservoirs because cold water fish cannot survive? What fish should they have put in the reservoirs? About the only legitimate arguments regarding non-native bass is with the Delta and Clear Lake. 

[j bab]

On 12/2/2016 at 0:35 PM, Gilgamesh said:

Kurita has claimed to have hooked a bass he estimates to be 25+ on a mother a couple years ago.  He says that he still knows where she lives, just cant get her to bite again.

Yea I lost a 25+ once too