Question for Mr. Lusk

[Low_Budget_Hooker]

Thanks Bob

[Olebiker]

This is one of the most useful threads I have ever read.  I fish a lot in a fifteen acre reservoir and have seen dramatic changes over the years in the numbers and size of the bass.  I will start charting what I catch this weekend.

[Bob Lusk]

WRB, I put the relative weights in the text of the answer. Here's relative weights for largemouth bass. 10" should weigh 10 oz. 12" bass should be 12 oz. 14" is 1 lb, 7 oz. 16" is 2 lb 4 oz, 18 is 3 lb 4 oz and so on. As a matter of fact, if you guys will click on "Fishing Articles" on the tool bar on this website, then click on "Fish and Lake Management" you will find a number of good articles. One of those has the complete Length/Weight chart in it.

I choose not to evaluate FLMB differently than NLMB. There are several reasons I don't. First, when I evaluate the fishery of a lake, I am looking at the population as a whole. I see relative weights of bass as one piece of the puzzle. If I don't know the lake, the first thing I look at is habitat. Is the habitat conducive to all species we want or need? Then, I look at the fish population. Although body shape is different between pure strain Florida bass and native strains of bass, it's more important to me to see how the entire population lives in their respective communities. One important fact to keep in mind. The Wr, or relative weight, of any given fish is a percentile. If a bass has a relative weight of 90, that means it is within 90% of what it should be. But, when we see most of the fish in that 90 Wr range, we compare to the rest of the population, especially the forage fish. That's another key part of the puzzle. More to your point, though...the relative weight chart for LMB was generated from data of more than 300,000 bass from all over the nation, weighed and measured. It's more of an indicator of bass population and I use it more as a reference point for that sample "snapshot" for that data for that day. Let me explain what I mean by that. Let's say you want to analyze a 10 acre lake and you use this chart. You catch, weigh and measure 50 bass tomorrow and compare them the "standard." Of those 50, all of them are in the 10-14" size class and all of them are underweight for this moment in time. From that information, you decide to harvest bass. Since the bass are underweight (you don't need a chart to see this, by the way), you decide on an aggressive harvest program and take out 250 bass over the next six months. Then, next Halloween, you catch 50 bass. Of those, 15 are larger than 14" and look like a deputy sheriff. 25 are in the 12-14" size class and are right in line with the Wr chart. The other 10 look just like their cousins from the original sample and those which were harvested. Now, you compare the Halloween fish with those caught in April and you can see the changes. At that point you see that the chart is reflecting the entire population. Even if the chart is inaccurate, it still gives you information to make decisions as long as you have something to compare your fish.

I am from Texas...I don't work for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. I am a capitalist ...my job is to work with individual landowners to help them create and manage the lake(s) of their dreams. I do pay attention to the Share-A-Lunker program and I know Allan Forshage and David Campbell, the two key men who operate that program. I stay pretty busy and, although I should, I haven't paid enough attention to their genetic programs.

Regarding your length to girth question...from my experiences, Florida largemouth bass definitely have a different shaped head. It's more slender compared to a native strain bass. But, I have seen some pretty amazing length to girth ratios. If a five pound native bass just ate a one pound gizzard shad, its ratio will be different than a five pound Florida that ate a one pound gizzard shad yesterday.

Here's what I have learned. In a natural environment, the limiting factor in growth rates is always food. Always. It's not genetics, it's not the growing season, it's food. As a fisheries manager, a big part of my job is to make sure each size class of each species of fish has the food chain they need. If ever the food chain is lacking, bass don't grow. I have seen the same growth rates of bass in upstate New York that I see in Texas, once I figured out that food is the limiting factor. Here's one of "slap your self in the forehead" moments. I figured out that upstate New York has about 115-120 "perfect" bass growing days. "Perfect" is where the water temperature sits between 55 and 83 degrees. I came home to north Texas, looked at ten years worth of weather data and figured out that we, too, have about 115-120 "perfect" bass growing days. So, how was I, in Texas, able to grow double digit bass and my client in New York never saw a bass larger than 6.5 pounds? It hit me. In Texas, we have about 325 "perfect" bluegill growing days. New York has 115-120 and by the time the little sunfish spawn, it's halfway through that season. The main forage fish missed half their best time to grow! So, they make it up by growing exceptionally fast the rest of the year. That's a big reason why biologists in the north cuss bluegill. Bass grow slow due to a lack of food and bluegill grow so fast that they can quickly outgrow the mouth size of those bass. All that to say this...when we equalize the food chain, I contend bass grow just as fast anywhere on the planet within the bounds of the next limiting factor...water quality and temperature.

I think you nailed the biggest reasons that bass grow so large in California even when we discount the obvious boost from trout stockings. Diversity and availability of food when the fish need it. Threadfin shad live in a different niche as bluegill which lives in a different niche than redear sunfish which have different requirments than crawfish. But, the common thread among all of them is that, collectively, they give bass a better chance to have what they need to eat, when they need it.

I'll close this post with this thought. In the Share-A-Lunker program in Texas, most of the bass hover somewhere around the 13-14 pound size class. Does that mean these fish don't have the genetic propensity to have reached 20 pounds? No, I don't think so. If a baby bass is hatched, has the genetic potential to grow large and has all the other traits including a proclivity to be aggressive, was hatched in the first spawn of spring and survives astronomical odds against being eaten, the determining factor of its "final" weight lies strictly on what it has available to eat. For every day a bass goes without eating, there goes a day against its "potential." I believe those 13 pound bass may have reached their "real" weights because food was the limiting factor. So much for their potential. Remember, a bass grows every day of its life, until it begins its rapid decline, if that fish has all it needs in terms of habitat, food and genetics.

With that, we can do all the genetic engineering in the world and I don't think it will matter as long as the food chain for that single bass is exactly what it needs, when it needs it.

MUDDY...quite a few articles I have written are archived on this site. Other than that, I have written three books on different aspects of pond management and lots of articles for Pond Boss and other magazines. I took a quick look at the archives here and there's several articles written by different people which help define the concept of selective harvest. Selective harvest is a tool in the fish manager's tool box. That's all it is. We use it when we need it, then put it back in the box.

[Guest muddy]

Thanks Mr. Lusk, I have a lot to read and a lot to learn before I can make any kind of commitment to slots then. It is good to read some scientifically sound material, I am grateful for your input here.

[Bob Lusk]

One last point and I gotta go....I'll check back in when there's more time.

In order for a bass to grow to 14 inches, it MUST weigh 1 pound 7 ounces. It won't add bone structure without the flesh to support it. Therefore, if we are consistently catching 14 inch bass that weigh 1 lb 2 oz, it lost weight. If we are constantly observing bass which are obviously underweight, they are overcrowded for the available food chain.

The "cure" is to reduce the competition from that particular size class of bass, increase the food chain or both. If we think we can stock more fish to increase the food chain, it won't take long to see it doesn't work. But, we can fertilize (if it makes sense), start a feeding program or both. That increases the forage fish crops. But, if we reduce the numbers of big mouths while increasing the lake's ability to grow more fish, we are being good fisheries managers. That process works well, so long as you know how to read the fish. And, most everyone can look at a fat, healthy bass and know it is growing the same as we look at s skinny bass and know something is wrong. The days of "throw back the little ones and let them grow" is over in all but newly stocked lakes.

Have a great few days. I'm off to North Carolina for my regular consulting gig.

[WRB]

Bob, thank you for replying. I agree that food is a critical factor. Howver the lake Casitas comparison is a good example where genes are the key factor. The food supply being the same for both NLMB and FLMB, the growth rates should be similar, not 50% greater for the FLMB.

Yes, they fit a different nitch, they are also different bass that happen to look similar. I have a pitcure for comparison of these two bass, just don't know how to attach it.

C & R has created a almost cult following in CA and other states. What is ironic is I was a pioneer is trying to get BASS to adopt C & R, because the tournaments were removing tons of bass and that didn't look good to the public. Now tournament fisherman release over stressed bass that only provide food for the crawdads, turtles and birds.

Agian, thank you.

WRB

[jrhennecke]

WRB here is the photo you asked me to post.

[WRB]

WRB here is the photo you asked me to post.

Thanks!

The top FLMB was 28 1/2" long with 28" girth and 18 lbs 11 oz, lake Casitas, 2/81

The bottom NLMB was 27 1/4" long with a 20" girth and 12 lbs 4 oz, lake casitas, 2/71

Comparison between the two largemouth bass should be obvious why FLMB outweigh thier NLMB cousins. Both bass lived in the same lake with the same forage base.

WRB

note; Casitas was planted in 1968 with FLMB, the NLMB had a pore scale count of 58, the FLMB has 69 pore scales.

[Bob Lusk]

Ah, I follow your thinking. Here's what I hear you saying. You are saying that the FLMB growth rates must be faster because the fish are larger?

I agree with you to a point...and there are differences in the fish. One of the interesting things is to look at weight gain compared to actual weight to determine the rate. In other words, as a FLMB grows and ages, it gets larger, but its growth rate changes, as does a NLMB.

One of the big factors...FLMB live considerably longer than NLMB. In the first two years, NLMB grow much faster than FLMB. But, in the third year, FLMB catch up and then pass the NLMB for a few years. Then, they are about even, although the FLMB has a distinct advantage by then. It has a bigger mouth. Bigger mouth extrapolates to bigger food.

That 12 pound NLMB is huge, so it had everything it needed for its life. Did anyone age either of those fish? It would be interesting to know how old each one is. Also, is there any way to measure mouth size of both those fish? I would like to know.

My experience has been that FLMB are finicky eaters, but eat much larger meals as they grow. In the lakes I manage, NLMB are more aggressive but are genetically limited as to how large they can grow. And, they don't live nearly as long. In my mind, that's not necessarily a reflection of growth rates as it is their genetic limitations for age compared to maximum size.

Side by side, Florida bass will grow much larger. Another thing to keep in mind...once a bass reaches 16.5 inches in length, its world changes. At that point, a 2.7 pound bass can eat a 9 inch bass. It's food chain changes.

The two fish you show are evidence that those two fish are exceptional..and different.

Good stuff.

On another note, I would love to hear your story about catch and release and BASS. Ray Scott and I are good friends and I have heard his story about it many times. I want to hear yours, too. Let's visit some time.

[Guest muddy]

Mr. Lusk: sorry to be a pest in the middle of you fellas who know so much more about all this, but before I start reading. Is there ever a case where you can target fish for removal. What I am getting at, our lake is a PA  big bass  program lake, 15 inch minium . I have had some sucess the last 2 years in finding and catching larger fish. The lake is overrun with 14 and 3/4 inch fish, A LOT OF THEM. If they were to open, for let say a month after the spawn a 14 inch minimum, and have a harvest, could that help matters. I apologize up front if this is not enough info, I am just getting into all this,

[Bob Lusk]

No apology necessary. It's absolutely easier to make a case to target removal of a particular size class of fish than it is to make general harvest rules, especially minimum length limits, such as the 15 inch one you are dealing with. No fishery is static. They are dynamic.  That means a dynamic management strategy is a good idea.

There does need to be more information to make the decision to open a temporary season to selectively harvest a size class of fish, but it would be cutting edge thinking and the results would be something to share with the rest of the nation. I think the biggest problem with selective harvest in public lakes is selective enforcement. Game wardens have plenty to do and don't need to deal with different rules for different lakes.

So, I bet the fisheries decisions there are rendered more out the practicality of enforcement more than for the biology of that fishery.

[Guest muddy]

This lake has the same 2 fishery agents there all season. They really do a great job, however one of them thinks he is ROBO GAME WARDEN , on certain days. I really thank you, because I am seeing now that a buch of guys with very little scientific knowledge can actually hurt the lake instead of improving it. I like the slot idea, but in reality I have to read more. You are a great addition here, Thanks.

[Gatorbassman]

That's great stuff BOB. Thanks for coming on here and shareing.

By the way. Did you get a chance to give that guy in ATL my info?

[Bob Lusk]

I did...when you get a minute, check your email. I sent him one, he responded. If you want his phone number, drop me an email and I'll send it to you.

[Gatorbassman]

Will do.

[key chain bass guy]

Please pardon me if my question is naive, I am very new to all of this.  You wondered if anyone had aged those two fish.  Is there an anecdotal way to age a bass or does it need to be done "scientifically"?

Thank you in advance.

[WRB]

Lake Casitas was initially stocked with FLMB in 1968 as I recall and the planting included several thousand fingerlings and a few hundred 10" to 12" bass. In 1980 a 21 lb 3 oz FLMB was caught and is the current lake record. My 18 lb 11 oz bass did have a lateral line pore scale studied by biologist Larry Bothroff and he thought the bass was around 12 years old, but needed the bass to age the fish accurately. I don't know the age of the NLMB, no scale study was performed.

I have never thought of measuring mouth open data and could make a measurement of the mouth perimeter of the two bass.

Ray Scotts initail reaction to releasing the bass caught alive was something like; "sport fishing can't damage the bass population"and "If I thought skilled bass fisherman could harm the lakes population of bass, we wouldn't be giving the bass to church charities". Ray did implement C & R in the early 70's to his credit. I believe Ray did that more as a result of PR, instead of having photos of stringers of dead in Bassmaster magazine generating negative images.

WRB

PS; Bob, I have photos of both the subject bass alive, if they are of interest.

[SPAZ]

For someone who eventually wants to have their own lake/pond down the road like me, this thread is simply very informative. Thanks to everyone.

[Guest muddy]

Let me be the first to ask: CAN I GET PERMISSION TO FISH ON IT? ;D