World record bass..or is it????

[GamblerFL]

Here is what I know from the Bassmaster magazine...

In 1959 California took 20,000 Florida large mouth bass and put them in a 20 acre reservoir. The off spring were gradually stocked throughout the region. They then found that the new Florida strain of bass were harder to catch than the native largemouth bass. They knew that the new strain would have a better change of growing larger because of this. Through the years these bass did get big because of the environment they were in. They were stocked in reservoirs that had clean water, very deep holes, and an abundance of forage. But one of the big reasons was because these reservoirs were stocked with thousands of pounds of hatchery-bred rainbow trout each week during the fall, winter and early spring. This is a quote from the article. "These high protein trout have an enormous impact on the growth of the bass". A 21 pound 11 ounce bass was caught on one of the reservoirs. They tested and found the bass was probably 12 or 13 years old. The same bass in Florida in 10 years would have been around 10 pounds. They feel that very soon the world record of 22 pounds 4 ounces will be broken from a bass out of one of the reservoirs.

Here is my question...

Do you feel that these bass should be recorded as a world record? We all know that the world record was caught in Georgia on Lake Montgomery in 1932. It was a native bass in a normal lake. Out of the 25 largest largemouth bass every caught, 22 have come from California. I don't know if all 22 came from these stocked lakes but I'm sure most of them were. In my opinion I think if and most likely WHEN the record is broken from that area, it should have an * telling the background of these bass. These bass aren't even a California bass. They also arent even eating what they would be eating if not for them stocking the lakes. By the way, The large bass being caught are being released back in the lake in hopes of the fish being caught again once it beats the record.

[Stickling]

i dont think they should be recorded.

[GamblerFL]

I feel the same way. On the one hand, they are in lakes, but I dont believe these bass would ever have been this large if left alone. Also as I wrote above, these arent even native to California.

[bassinjack]

yes it should count as a world bass for the simple fact that those bass are in there natural enviroment

[GamblerFL]

yes it should count as a world bass for the simple fact that those bass are in there natural enviroment

Their natural inviroment wouldnt be a Florida bass in California eating trout. Plus I bet if you went out tomorrow and fished your own local lake and were to bring in a 22 pound 5 ounce bass and once you got ready to be in the spot light as the new record holder a guy from one of those lakes brings in a 25 pounder and beats your record before it gets on the books, I bet you and most people would question it. But hey, this is what a board is all about, how you feel about it. Thanks for adding to it.

I found the 25 largest bass caught. 22 of the top 25 are from California and of the 22 only 1 of them was from a lake not stocked with trout.

Of the other 3 bass 1 is from Georgia, the world record, the other 2 are from Florida.

One interesting thing I found was the 2nd largest and 3rd largest were caught out of the same lake and believed to be the same fish. What I found was a write up that the bass had a black spot under the mouth that both bass had. The fish when it was 21 pounds 12 ounces was caught and let go. 7 days later a fish was caught that was 22 pound and a 1/2 ounce on the same lake with the same black spot. It was also let go. A few weeks later some guys fishing came across a dead largemouth bass. They brought the fish in and it had the black spot and was the same length. They took a scale off and it was believed to be the same fish that was caught twice before.

8 of the top 25 were caught on Castaic Lake in Ca.

3 of the 25 were caught on Dixon Lake in Ca.

4 of the top 25 were caught on Miramar Lake Ca.

2 of the top 25 were on Isabella Lake Ca.

Funny if you read the list the lakes with the largest have caught dates not too far apart. Makes you wonder if it isnt the same fish several times.

http://www.fishingnetwork.net/top25lmb.htm

[Raul]

A 22 lbs 5 oz would not be recognized as a WR for shure, to classify as a WR it should be at least 2 onces more than the previous record according to IGFA regulations, any fish that weights less than those 2 mandatory ounces is recognized as a tie.

IGFA regulations do not specify that a fish has to have a certain diet to be recognized, even if we think that a recognition depends on what the fish eat or if they are or not in their native waters.

[monarkman]

I have to agree with you Gambler, it should not count,they are not in there natural environment ,when you stock them or relocate them,that is not there natural environment,plain and simple!

[bassmaster043]

No, they shouldnt be counted. NO way

[GamblerFL]

A 22 lbs 5 oz would not be recognized as a WR for shure, to classify as a WR it should be at least 2 onces more than the previous record according to IGFA regulations, any fish that weights less than those 2 mandatory ounces is recognized as a tie.

IGFA regulations do not specify that a fish has to have a certain diet to be recognized, even if we think that a recognition depends on what the fish eat or if they are or not in their native waters.

I think you missed the point. Ok it is a 22 pound 10 ounce bass...

But thanks for the info, I didnt know it had to be over 2 ounces.

[Stickling]

Nice findings gambler ;D

[John Cullum]

YES, it should count. It's a tough record to beat. People have been chasing this record for almost 75 years and haven't touched it yet. If the stocking program was a can't miss someone would have broken it already.

It'll be sad that science will beat that record not mother nature but thats how it goes.

[Stickling]

its not the same tho john.

[dodgeguy]

you guys have got to be kidding!!!if you went to italy and ate pasta untill you weighed 3000 lbs. shouldn't you count as the world's fattest human?as far as i know largemouth bass were stocked in plenty of states.they are bass that just happen to have a different forage than most.all reservoir fish are  stocked when reservoirs are impounded.state fish and game departments decide what to stock and not stock.so what if california happened to do a better job than anybody else.if one of you guys went to california and caught the new world record bass you would be singing a different tune.

[Stickling]

1. pasta is burnt off to easy and second, you dont get fat becouse of science, these bass are getting bigger couse of science. Pasta doesnt mess with your " Natural Habitat " while us taking bass hybrating them putting in diffrent home does mess with them. Its not natural.. Neither is eating pasta and being 3000 pounds.

[John Cullum]

I agree it's not the same but thats not how the IGFA is set up. It's unfortunate that the record will someday be beatin that way and not natural but those are the rules.

[GamblerFL]

I agee with the way they keep records but in the begining when the rules were set up did they know this was going to happen?

I agree bass have been stocked before, but I'm not sure they have been stocked in this manner.

Numbers tell the story and the fact that with all the lakes and rivers in this country, when 21 of the top 25 bass are coming out of a select few lakes in the same area with the same type of bass (Florida) eating the same type of trout, you have to feel there is something wrong with it.

When a record has held for 73 years and over a 20 year span it has been challenged and it is from the same area you have to feel there is something not natural about it.

Look at it this way. There have only been 12 bass ever caught over 20 pounds. Think of all of the people that have fished since 1923. Only 12 20 pounds or over have ever been caught. One was in Florida in 1923. One was in Georgia in 1932. One was in California in 1973. 8 of the final 9 have been caught in the same lakes with 7 being caught in the last 15 years. I have nothing against the people catching these bass but I have to feel there is one reason why so many big fish are being caught in one of three lakes.

If I had a pond and stocked it with bass and fed them with something that would make them really grow, would it be a record if I caught one over 22 pounds 4 ounces? How big would my pond need to be before it would be a record?

[AricStoner]

Not in their natural environment?? What the heck are you talking about?!? Are you trying to tell me that there are 45 year old bass, ie. the original bass that were stocked? Heck no! Most of the fish in these lakes are fish that were born in these lakes. It may not have been their "natural environment" 50 years ago, but it is NOW, simple as that. And newsflash, unless I have read BS from articles, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most bass in most lakes accorss North America introduced as well? They were not indigenous to most the lakes that have them these days. Bass are adaptable to many different environments, and if they can adapt and thrive in any lake regardless of the reasons, they are in their natural environment as far as I'm concerned. Now as far as stocking of rainbows, their purpose is not to feed these fish, they are to keep the a steady population of trout. There are many stocking programs across the continent, do you really think they aren't having an impact on the bass in those lakes? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, we have too many rules as it is. Don't discriminate bass because of where and how they live and grow. A bass caught is a bass caught, simple as that.

[abelfisher]

Gambler, I have to respectfully disagree.  Many lakes around the country are stocked with forage fish.  You have to have forage fish there first after a new lake is formed or you will not have the food to sustain the predator (bass) fish.  It makes no sense to stock a new lake with bass if there is no food.  You also mention that the Florida bass were supposed to be more difficult to catch (Hence the number of record breakerrs.  If they were easy to catch, the fish would never get that large.  Also, rememebr the lakes where these record fish came from is southern California.  Warm weather year round ...good for the bass, and very deep lake....good for trout .  If you want to only let record breaker fish come from "natural lake with no stocking....good luck!  If someone is able to hook and land a 22# fiish that is supposed to be difficult to catch, why not allow them to be record breakers.  Are you going to say no record breaking smllies can coe form stocked lakes in the north, or no record braking king salmon from the western rivers because they were stocked...you can see where this can go.  I don't think we want to go there.  Only my humble opinion.  Nothing personal, but you asked )[tr][/tr] ;D

PS:  I live in northern Calif.  I moved from the midwest 8 years ago.  I find these lakes are more difficult to fish than the midwest.  The water is clearer and deeper.  Overall , tougher water.  So if you want to catch a record keeper...come on out!

[Nick_Barr]

I dont think it should be recorded a world record, unless i catch it then it will be a record breaker....LOL ;D

[GamblerFL]

If I filled my pool with lake water and stocked it with bass 10 years from now it would be a natural enviroment for those select fish. Thats a given. The point of this is that the record will fall. Thats a given. But I dont know if the way it will fall is the way it should. If you have the bassmasters artical read it. You will see this is the California "big bass program". They study these fish, they shock these fish, these fish were put in for one reason. To become very big fish. Yes I agree they stock other lakes with trout. I dont agree that these other lakes are used the same way as these lakes we are talking about. They have hours on many of these lakes, they shut these lakes down from time to time. They have times where these lakes can only be fished a few days a week. Some of these lakes only allow so many people fishing on them at a time. This is for the most part a controlled enviroment for these fish to grow. I live in Florida. I know people outside of Florida feel there are huge fish caught here year after year. It isnt that way. I would be more than happy to change my views if someone comes up with a true reason why these fish are "natural". I agree they are natural for the fish in those lakes but in the big picture they arent natural as far as why they are that big. Take away the Florida strain of bass and take away the trout if those fish get anywhere near the size they are I would be impressed.

[bassin4life]

hey a bass is a freaken fish as long as its no robot count it.

[GamblerFL]

The page I found wont let me copy and paste but they were talking to Jim Dayberry who is a Ranger at Dixon Lake. He was talking about a 21 pound 7 ounce bass taken out of the lake. It is a 70 acre lake that has 60 acres that can be fished. Here is what he said.

"The lake is going to produce the world record bass, Dayberry said, We feed more trout to these bass than any other lake in the country"

http://www.seewald.com/california_state_record_largemouth_black_bass.htm

[gamblerOH]

I'm with dodgeguy, I think if its big its big,we cant do anything about how it got big,just wish we would have caught it rather than someone else.If I go to cali and catch it I dont care what its been eating--LOL

[abelfisher]

So Gambler, what do you think is a legitimate body of water for a world record bass?

                                                     

[gamblerOH]

If this question is for me I think its any body of water that is open for the public to fish.If I stock my pond in the backyard thats a different matter. When the DNR stocks a public lake then we all have a chance to catch those fish.too bad they dont feed our bass in ohio farm raised trout!!!