Misinformation

[Daniel My Brother]

Ok, it's obvious that I doubt the Walbel record. It just seems so unlikely.

So here I sit in the comfort of my living room, hiding behind a screen name, calling a man I've never met a liar. Yes, his story seems unlikely, but aren't all record bass unlikely?

I guess the least I can do is sign my name to this post.

Dan Timpe

[Paul Roberts]

Without knowing how the bass was measured, the numbers can be misleading. The one thing a good formula does is validate the numbers within some reason.

It's been my experience that a NLMB can grow to nearly 28" length ( mouth closed to V in the tail, etc.).

My PB NLMB weighed 12 lbs 4 oz., was 27" long and 20 inch girth. If someone wants a picture, email me.

The facts are the facts and fact is NLMB rarely have a girth that exceeds 80% of the length. The Walbel bass in the photo looks to be close to 75% girth, it's not a heavy bodied bass.

Under ideal conditions, if the pit lake was deep enough, had year around running springs and a lot of forage and pre spawn, it's possible for a NLMB to grow to 28" length and weigh 13+lbs. However...there would be several NLMB close to this size caught in the same area, not necessarily the same pit lake.

The mount appears to be your average FLMB caught in Florida. This would be a skin mount and easy to verify via a lateral line scale count, as noted earlier.

WRB

You are talking about N LM in S CA, and rare fish there to boot, I assume. In the N, top LMs hit 23 to 25" (total length) -from what I've seen. Maybe others will pipe in. The one area of the N where more LMs seem to get big, is S coastal NE -CT to NJ. The largest N LM, in it's native range, came from MA -at 15+lbs. That fish had to have a long frame.

[WRB]

The northern strain largemouth bass were introduced to California about 1890, bass from Minnesota. The Florida largemouth bass were introduced in 1959, San Diego city lakes only. FLMB have not been widely or officially planted statewide outside of Southern CA, however unofficially transfers by fisherman have spread FLMB throughout the state. Lakes that freeze over or never planted with FLMB have NLMB and several bass lake fall into that category in CA.  NLMB in CA are not uncommon considering they have been here over a 100 years.

WRB

[nashontheriver]

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/04/bass_lead_weight_belly.php

this guy tried, and failed...

[Osprey39]

Personally, I don't think fish caught from some private pond should be eligible for records. They aren't really 'wild'.

That's a pretty tough call. First of all, there's no hard line that distinguishes a lake from a pond.

Furthermore, it's not likely that bass know or care whether they're living in a lake or pond.

The difference between 'public water' and 'private water' is essentially a political boundary.

The natural wildness of fish will not necessarily hinge on any political boundary.

In some southeastern states, there are private waters that stock and fertilize on a regular basis.

However, unless it's a "pay-lake", not many landowners will be motivated

to foot the recurrent cost of chemicals and restocking (I once owned a small pond).

Ironically, there are many public waters that receive excellent stewardship,

and many private ponds that are merely neglected mud holes, and some of them are pay ponds.

Roger

I realized I didn't word that very well. What I mean is that there are certain differences between bass in a private pond/lake/other body of water and bass in a public body of water.

First and foremost is fishing pressure. There is essentially none. I have heard countless stories over the years (the latest was just this last weekend) of guys that have gotten the opportunity to fish a private body of water and they talk about how you can catch a fish on nearly every cast. We all know that is not the case on public waters. Furthermore, odds are that the fish in private waters will not be removed from that water if they are caught thus giving them the opportunity to grow larger.

The second major difference is access. If you have a pond with state record size fish in it, I have no opportunity to catch them because I likely can't fish there. If the water is not open to all anglers, why should the fish from that water be eligible for a record that is for all anglers? There's no logic in that.

Personally, I don't fish for records so I can't say this really 'bothers' me. Nonetheless, that's the way I look at it.

[Paul Roberts]

The northern strain largemouth bass were introduced to California about 1890, bass from Minnesota. The Florida largemouth bass were introduced in 1959, San Diego city lakes only. FLMB have not been widely or officially planted statewide outside of Southern CA, however unofficially transfers by fisherman have spread FLMB throughout the state. Lakes that freeze over or never planted with FLMB have NLMB and several bass lake fall into that category in CA. NLMB in CA are not uncommon considering they have been here over a 100 years.

WRB

I don't mean that N LM are rare in S CA, but that N LM that long -27"+ are rare fish -even in S CA.

Will be interesting to hear from others, but I consider N LM in the N to top out at 23-24". I've heard of a couple 25ers, but those are freaks, or as you've rightfully mentioned Tom, that measuring accuracy is likely at play.

Would love to know more about how long N LM can get in different areas. I've personally held a 23" (7+lb) form NYS. I've seen a 25" in the IF Master Angler awards -from MA I believe. What have you guys seen?

[J Francho]

I suspect this fish is a hybrid.  Its from Northern VA, IIRC:

http://challengeseries.kayakbassfishing.com/challengeseries/uploads/25%20inch%20bass%20caught%20by%20Tina.jpg

Massive fish, for sure.

[J Francho]

Here are some more big NY bass, though I don't think there are any lengths: http://www.nybass.com/showthread.php?40787-The-NYBass-2010-Big-Bass-Board

[Paul Roberts]

John that first one IS massive. And it does have a floridanus look to it. It also portrays what looks like some measuring bias with the premaxillary being pulled out. But with such a fish who cares LOL. It's 28+"!!

I always measure from the top (premax) to the tail tip (not folded). I could get another 1/2-inch by measuring to the lower jaw (closed). I could get another 2" or more with the lower jaw open and the tail folded. Toms point is a good one, that measuring technique matters.

I like the board -mouth closed, tail open. But, I won't be hauling a board around. I suppose I should measure total length mouth closed, like in a board measure.

[J Francho]

The board is a requirement for the contest.... big prizes and $$$ involved.  I think you misread the measurement, its a tiny bit shy of 25".  I don't think she intentionally stretched the premaxillary process, and it probably didn't make a difference.  I wish she got a weight as well, but...

[Paul Roberts]

Here are some more big NY bass, though I don't think there are any lengths: http://www.nybass.com/showthread.php?40787-The-NYBass-2010-Big-Bass-Board

I don't believe the 7-10 weight on the first fish. At first glimpse I thought, that fish must be LONG, bc it's not THAT thick or fat. Very good condition, but not exceptional. Then I saw the post. At 22" and "good" body condition that fish would weigh about 6 to 6-4. To break 7 it would have to be fatter. To near 8 it would look like the third fish in the leader board. I also question the 2nd one, at first glimpse. Scale calibration? Excitement? BS? Or mine (and the AFS data) are off the mark?

[J Francho]

I know #1 and #3 personally, and would rule out BS and excitement.  I believe #1 uses an X-Tools scale, not sure what max uses.  They're both NYC Res fish, and after fishing there, they have a very different look to them, VERY well fed, and weigh out heavier than expected.

[Paul Roberts]

I'll accept that. (But.. 22" and 7-10?? :-? I bet it was 23+" and he measured quickly -or used my method -premax to open tail.

Another thing is that muscle weighs more than fat. I caught a bass a couple years ago that was about 19" long, and thick and so muscular I was surprised by it. I decided to weigh and measure it. I was out of my tube at the time and while walking over to the tube where my scale was it twisted so strongly I lost my grip and it dropped back into the drink. It was one dense fish. Always wondered what it weighed. I also caught the heaviest weighed 19"er I've ever caught, from that same pond. A 19-1/4" that weighed 4-14. But that fish was barrel fat.

[J Francho]

Maybe.  That lake gives up quite a few 7s every year.  Drives us WNY snaggers up the wall, LOL.  We worked our butts off to get on that darn list last year, and already a 6 won't even get you on the board.  There's always smallies though.....

[Paul Roberts]

Yeah, they are in that S coastal NE belt. I assume it's a combination of water chemistry (lotsa limestone) and the Gulf Stream current's effect on inland climate.

Oh yeah i modified above.

[J Francho]

Here's one that, based on references in the photo would have measured 22 to 23". It was a hair over 6 on my Chatillion.  Big shoulders, but fairly thin.

[J Francho]

Yeah, they are in that S coastal NE belt. I assume it's a combination of water chemistry (lotsa limestone) and the Gulf Stream current's effect on inland climate.

Oh yeah i modified above.

Or the bajillions of blue back herring trapped in those fishbowls, LOL.

[Tuckman]

I'll accept that. (But.. 22" and 7-10?? :-? I bet it was 23+" and he measured quickly -or used my method -premax to open tail.

Another thing is that muscle weighs more than fat. I caught a bass a couple years ago that was about 19" long, and thick and so muscular I was surprised by it. I decided to weigh and measure it. I was out of my tube at the time and while walking over to the tube where my scale was it twisted so strongly I lost my grip and it dropped back into the drink. It was one dense fish. Always wondered what it weighed. I also caught the heaviest weighed 19"er I've ever caught, from that same pond. A 19-1/4" that weighed 4-14. But that fish was barrel fat.

This NY Smallie was only 20.5" long and weighed 6.3 on the cull-em-rite. As the picture shows It was a true square. I caught her while she was putting on the feed bag for winter

[Paul Roberts]

Smallies can be square LOL -more commonly than LM it seems. Was that a Chautauqua, or Erie, fish?

I started a discussion about this a while back -not sure if it was on this board. Why do smallies get SO rotund? This was true pre-goby too. I believe it was Ralph Manns who suggested it was an artifact of living in lentic (lake) waters despite their lotic (riverine) ancestry.

I received some replies on the fish in my original post. Will share them later today.

[J Francho]

Tucker, awesome fish, man. My best smallie is 5-4, though I've been in the boat to witness a 6-4, which is the biggest I've seen caught.

Paul, I've talked to a few people as well, and noted the differences in river smallies and lake smallies.

A friend, a guide on the Susky, will repeatedly report 18, 19, 20, and 21"+ smallies. He's got photos to prove it as well. Asked him for weights, and a 19" fish was about three and a half.

What I noticed, is these river fish are long, lean, and have huge fins. Contrast those with Oneida footballs. I think the difference is environmental and diet. My friend on the Susky reports that they feed primarily on crayfish, not a super high protien forage. Lake smallies seem to key in on Alewife and gobies. Yeah, they'll eat craws, but when there are a million Snickers bars on the bottom....

Anyway, here are some pics:

River smallie, 19"

Lake smallie, probably less than 18":

[tyrius.]

First and foremost is fishing pressure. There is essentially none.

Not necessarily true.  If it's a small pond one or two anglers who fish it regularly can put more pressure on it than a lot of lakes.

I have heard countless stories over the years (the latest was just this last weekend) of guys that have gotten the opportunity to fish a private body of water and they talk about how you can catch a fish on nearly every cast. We all know that is not the case on public waters. Furthermore, odds are that the fish in private waters will not be removed from that water if they are caught thus giving them the opportunity to grow larger.

Growing up my dad got us permission to fish a tiny farm pond.  We'd catch fish ALL day.  If we didn't catch one within 5 casts something was wrong.  The reason that happened was that the pond was GROSSLY overpopulated and the fish were basically constantly starving.  They'd hit anything you threw at them.  We caught hundreds of fish (likely the same fish multiple times) but never really anything over 12 inches.

My current favorite place to fish is a public pond.  If the conditions are right I can light them up, but there are days where I only catch one or two.  No one really ever fishes it though.  My PB came from that pond and the reason I am able to catch larger fish there is that it is not overpopulated.

I've seen a few people taking fish from the second pond.  The first we weren't allowed to keep a single fish.  So, even though the first pond is strictly catch and release no large bass exist there (we fished it a ton so if there were big ones in there we likely would have caught one once or least hooked into one). 

Given the choice now, I'd fish the second pond over the first everytime.  Catching dinks all day is boring.

The second major difference is access. If you have a pond with state record size fish in it, I have no opportunity to catch them because I likely can't fish there. If the water is not open to all anglers, why should the fish from that water be eligible for a record that is for all anglers? There's no logic in that.

If the record is for the largest bass caught in a defined geographical area then what is the logic in restricting that record to only certain bodies of water in that geographical area?

[Paul Roberts]

John, Just to be clear: Yes there is a notable diff between smallies in current and those in lakes. Ralph's thought was that smallies are ancestrally river fish, as are spots, and he wondered if the ability of SM to pack it on was an artifact of their riverine physiology put in a lentic environment.

[Paul Roberts]

OK, I received some responses from the CO DOW, and from a Denver Bassmasters member with experience in the particular water the 28" LM came from in CO:

My Question to DOW:

There is some talk that the length record largemouth of 28" from RMA is a hoax. I would really like to know if CO has truly produced a northern

largemouth bass of this remarkable length.

Some say that there are no photo's of the fish. But to apply a photo and witness are required.

Can anyone shed light on this remarkable fish?

Paul Roberts

Division: Division of Wildlife Reply:

Paul, There are rules and then there's fishin' talk. We have to go by the rules and accordingly here it is.

From the DOW website www.wildlife.state.co.us , Fishing, awards and records.

My Question to Bassmaster member:

To be eligible for entry a photo and witness are required -so there must have been one. I had heard the angler was a Denver Bassmasters member. Any ideas who he is? Is he still around to ask?

I'd like to know if CO can grow bass with a 28" frame.

Bassmaster's Reply:

Dont know him and never herd of him? I dont know if you saw my post a couple of years ago but I had 2 fish over 7.6 out of the RMA and I was fishing next to a Guy fishing a Fly Rod and he Caught a 9.5 he weighted it on a Boga. I have seen fish pushing 10lbs and the biggest I have seen was one close to 11.0. One of the Rangers I use to know told me he knows a place every year that he see's a 13 that beds but he wont give me exact location he just said in the cattales.

[Paul Roberts]

So...what I take from the above is:

The DOW is standing by it's process -a photo and witness. Would love to see that photo and see for myself.

The water in question DOES produce outsized CO bass -this is not news. And a 9.5 is up there. But I wonder how long it was. Was it 24" and square?

Anyway, I guess my point is that frame size is critical to what bass can possibly weigh. And N strain LM do not get as long as floridanus, nor as long as they might in southern waters.

Mebbe the 28" LM from CO is true? Mebbe it's an exaggeration? Again, the state record (weighed) was 11-4 and "only" 22.5" -a trout stuffed freak.

Anyway, the myths about big bass live on, and are fun to imagine. Most (esp newb) hold leviathan stories, assumptions that there is an old monster living in the bottom of every other pond. Kindof like the myths we grew up with that some ponds are bottomless. Fun stuff, and a motivator. But, I guess the peeve that prompted this thread is: What's wrong with reality?

[J Francho]

John, Just to be clear: Yes there is a notable diff between smallies in current and those in lakes. Ralph's thought was that smallies are ancestrally river fish, as are spots, and he wondered if the ability of SM to pack it on was an artifact of their riverine physiology put in a lentic environment.

That goes against the conventional wisdom that Centrarchids are secondary freshwater fish, meaning they descended from ocean dwellers.  I'd say river life was a more recent adaptation.