World record Bass

[Fish Chris]

Personally speaking, I wouldn't really say "any" of the factors mentioned {genetics, environment.... oh, and let's not forget, the good fortune of not being caught / killed} are "the most" important.....

But rather, "all" of these things need to come together perfectly, to create a truly huge, world class bass.

Oh, and early in the thread ir was asked, "If a huge bass has already passed on it's superior genes to thousands of offspring, then why worry about killing it" ?

Well, that simple really, "Because that one, huge bass, has already beaten incredible odds to have gotten as big as it has, and even if it has produced 100,000 offspring in it's long life, their is no guarantee that "any" of those will ever reach the huge size that it has". From this point of view, this 1 huge fish, could be worth more, than ALL of those 100,000 offspring combined.

The odds of this huge fish living another year, maybe getting a little bigger yet, and possibly being caught {and hopefully released} again, very well could be greater than "any" of those 100,000 offspring growing all the way up to the size of it's huge mother, and then being caught.

In a nutshell, it's not about the baby bass that "might" get huge one day, but rather, it's about this 1 bass that has already gotten huge !

Oh.... big male bass.... {without going into a long explanation why I believe it was a male} I caught one that went 5.4 lbs.

Fish

[J Francho]

Yep, its that fish over 6 or 7 lbs. that stands the greatest chance of getting huge.  Makes catch and release of larger fish critical.

[Jaheff]

I have heard from a reliable source (someone I would believe), That dottie has some offspring in lake dixon that are over 15+lbs already.

[Bass_Akwards]

Why the big font? And prove it. Show me a study. If you mean genetics, as in Florida strain vs. Northern strain, then OK. Fish grow until they die. Environment (and I include forage in that) is key.

I put the big font there because as I'm typing my post, the font is super super small for some reason. Not sure why. So I just made it bigger thinking I was making it normal size. Same thing is happening as I type this post as well. I made a couple other posts today and just left it alone, and it was normal font after I hit "post message. So I guess I'll just leave it but Ive never seen it this small when I type.

Anyway, you guys know way more on the subject than I do, but my thinking is just that. It's me thinking. I have no studies or proof of anything. I just thought that if you take your favortie, dream body of water, with the perfect "environment" and then you take a sample of all the oldest bass in that body of water, I thought you'd find that there are bass within each age group, that are larger than the rest of the bass in that same age group.

I assume this would hold true for the oldest/largest bass in that particular body of water. The environment and forage base is the same for all the fish in that body of water. I figured the reason one 8 year old Florida strain is larger than the other 8 year old Florida strain in the same great "environment" is not because of forage base but because of genitics.

The reason that 8 year old fish is larger than other 8 year old fish with the same indeterminate growth is because genetically it is superior to the other fish. It is more aggressive, it has better hunting grounds closer to deep water AND a massive forage base. These giants get the best spots to hunt and the best spots to hide from prey etc. because genetically they are more in tune with their environment and surroundings than other fish of the same age. This is why I figured some 8 year old bass get to be 15 pounds while another 8 year old might only be 9 or 10 pounds, even though one lived and hunted in the same body of water. All things being the same in any given body of water, I just assumed it all comes down to genitics. If I'm wrong, I think it will be the 675,098th time in my life so no biggy.

[Redlinerobert]

Santa Dan...

[Raul]

BA, it 's not just genetics, it 's a combination of the 3:

1.- genetics

2.- enviroment

3.- nutrition

Let me put you an example, in this bass fishing paradise I live called Mexico many years ago in an attempt to create a larger milk industry some genius in the government had this great idea, ok so we need cows to produce lots of milk, right ? well, in the southern part of the country ( Veracruz; tabasco, Chiapas, Guerrero ) we have  extremely nutritious grass fields that can stand 3 animal units per hectare ( 1 animal unit = a 450 kg cow and it 's calf ) so we got the food source we don 't even have to grow it, it grows alone; we have cows breeds that produce a lot of milk ( Holsteins ), genetically they have superior milk producing qualities, so why don 't we create the infrastructure ( dairy farms, milk processing plants n 'stuff ) and create a program where we are going to populate those states with Holsteins rather than with what is populated which is hybrids better know as criollo cattle.

Somehow to some high ranking officials this idea sounded awesome, so they send people to Canada to purchase pregnant cows ( not a bad idea taking into consideration that it 's a double edged sword, as soon as the coe gives birth it produces milk and also you gain a genetically suprior calf ), meanwhile the governent prepared the infrastrcture needed to process the milk and so, mllions of pesos were drained from the budget to start the plan that in paper looked great.

Everythin went fine, the farms were built, the infrastructure to collect and prcess the milk were established, the cows traveld all the way from Canada down to Mexico, and as I said everything looked great in the paper. What the morons didn 't take into consideration were the environmental conditions, see ? Holsteins ain 't from warm humid climates and can 't stand heat those states are hot and humid, under that conditions Holsteins can 't sweat enough to cool their bodies ( don 't have enough sweat glands per sq cm of skin ), so they were stressed and don 't produce milk as they should. Food ? oh yeah, Holsteins can graze, but they can 't graze enough nutrients to fill their energetic requiremts to produce the ammountof milk they produce when you feed them supplements, besides that, in those places it 's tick paradise so Holsteins having a thinner skin became victims of the tick, they were literally sucked dry by ticks, also, Holsteins are not genetically resistant to a parasitical disease transmitted by ticks called piroplasmosis, to make the story short, the great idea after a couple of years became an economic disaster.

All that just because somebody simply focused on the genetics. Genetics is only a part of the equation, genes can 't express unless they have the hutrition and the environmental conditions.

Another example, Florida strain may grow large, but ..... there ain 't no gators ( eniromental condition ) in Cali, so a bass in Cali has for starters one reason to live longer and grow larger than the same bass in Florida, there isn 't a predator to shoerten it 's life.

[South FLA]

BA, it 's not just genetics, it 's a combination of the 3:

1.- genetics

2.- enviroment

3.- nutrition

Another example, Florida strain may grow large, but ..... there ain 't no gators ( eniromental condition ) in Cali, so a bass in Cali has for starters one reason to live longer and grow larger than the same bass in Florida, there isn 't a predator to shoerten it 's life.

Cali and Japan have the perfect environments, lack of predators, reasonable water temperatures without the excessive heat we have down here in the shallow lakes, and plenty of forage, stocked trout and such. So there is no right answer of which is more important, but I think it can be argued that we as humans can manipulate environmental influences such as forage and stocking areas, better than creating the perfect genetic monster bass although the State of Texas is trying.

Once again, can I get a shout out from my Texas and Cali forum members thanking FLORIDA for the genetic potential for your pen raised bass ?

[WRB]

The gauntlet a bass must survive the 1st year is traitorous; adult size bass and other predator fish, birds like cormorants, grebes, herons, gulls etc. Ounce a bass gets to be over 4 lbs it is relatively safe from everything except man and disease.

Any LMB that grows over 15 lbs is a giant and extremely rare anywhere. For every pound over 15, the rarity becomes exponential. A LMB over 20 lbs is so exceptionally rare in nature to be considered nearly non existent, until the FLMB stain was exported to California and now Japan.

The Perry record bass was not ever documented properly, we must take George W. Perry for his word*.

The fact that the Perry bass came from a small oxbow lake without a good food supply violates all the above arguments of genetics, food supply and deep water sanctuary. Genetics; north of the FLMB range at that time period? Food supply; limited to bream and crawfish in a 100 yard wide 1 mile long shallow oxbow lake.

The Weakly/Dottie bass was officially weighed at 21 lbs 15 oz, Weakly weighed the bass on his unofficial scale at 25.1 lbs. Kurita's 22 lb 5 oz bass is the world record until someone somewhere catches a heavier LMB and that may be a very long time.

WRB

* Remembering George W, Perry by Bill Baab.

PS: added note on genetics; before FLMB were stocked onto California lakes the state record bass was 14 lbs 7 oz. 14 years after the FLMB were stocked, Zimmerlee set the CA record at 21 lbs 3 oz. Same lakes were stocked with planted trout before the FLMB were introduced, the only change was FLMB grow larger due to 1 factor; genetics.

[indymusky]

I caught a 7 lb male largemouth from San Vincente lake in San Diego area, CA, back in 1971.

Larry Bothroff, SD biologist, was at the lake and examined the fish, took a scale to study. Larry told me at the time the bass was the largest male* he had examined at that time period. The bass was about 24" long, big head and thin body.

I will look at some old photos and believe there is one of this bass.

WRB

* the fish was leaking milt.

If your going to get a male over 5lb san v is where its at. To bad the lakes closed til 2017 but its going to be great when it reopens.  And the comments on fishing pressure leading to a world record sized fish sounds like it would make sense but look at lake dixon. Where dottie was last caught at 25lbs on a 70 acre lake than rents out all of its boats daily and has a fisherman every 5 feet of shoreline and on the lake. Doesnt get more pressured then that.  I was at dixon lake when dottie died and i saw the floating fish. She had just got done spawning and she was a very old fish. And talking about genetics. Just about every lake it southern california got their florida strain stock from upper otay lakes and where distributed to lake hodges, mirimar, wolford, dixon, lake murray, san v, lake poway, lake jennings,etc and acount for the majority of fish on the top 20 list. 70 percent of the bass on the all time 20 big fish list came from the same stock at upper otay lakes in san diego county.

[rboat]

I think you are all on the right track with this. It does take all factors to produce the really large fish.

genetics (strain & purity)

environment (water quality,weather, parasites, disease)

nutrition (types of food & caloric content available)

predators (types & abundance)

The older the fish gets, it becomes more susceptible to the negative influences in its home range.

[Bass_Akwards]

BA, it 's not just genetics, it 's a combination of the 3:

1.- genetics

2.- enviroment

3.- nutrition

Isn't it obvious though, that all of those things are needed?  Everyone knows it takes a whole host of things to create a huge bass.  Everyone knows that if you just have one of the things you listed the chances of creating a huge bass are much lower.  I think people are missing my point however. 

I'm simply stating that if you take ONE amazing body of water, that happens to be a world class bass growing environment, and stock it with bass that were all hatched yesterday. (We'll call them "group #1.") You'll notice that in 6 years, SOME of the bass from "group #1" are larger than others in the same group.  Since they ALL started with the same "environment" and "nutrition" and everything else, I would ASSUME that the largest bass from "group #1" got that way because of their genitics, and nothing else.  The biggest bass of "group #1" were, I'm GUESSING, genitically superior and predisposed to aviod danger better, eat better, hunt better, swim faster, understand their surroundings better, and simply grow faster and bigger than the other smaller bass of the same group.  Just like I'd probably grow bigger than you if my Mom was 6'0'' and my Dad was 6' 8''  and your Mom was 5'1'' and your dad was 5'5'' tall.

Just a thought.

[WRB]

BA, it 's not just genetics, it 's a combination of the 3:

1.- genetics

2.- enviroment

3.- nutrition

Isn't it obvious though, that all of those things are needed? Everyone knows it takes a whole host of things to create a huge bass. Everyone knows that if you just have one of the things you listed the chances of creating a huge bass are much lower. I think people are missing my point however.

I'm simply stating that if you take ONE amazing body of water, that happens to be a world class bass growing environment, and stock it with bass that were all hatched yesterday. (We'll call them "group #1.") You'll notice that in 6 years, SOME of the bass from "group #1" are larger than others in the same group. Since they ALL started with the same "environment" and "nutrition" and everything else, I would ASSUME that the largest bass from "group #1" got that way because of their genitics, and nothing else. The biggest bass of "group #1" were, I'm GUESSING, genitically superior and predisposed to aviod danger better, eat better, hunt better, swim faster, understand their surroundings better, and simply grow faster and bigger than the other smaller bass of the same group. Just like I'd probably grow bigger than you if my Mom was 6'0'' and my Dad was 6' 8'' and your Mom was 5'1'' and your dad was 5'5'' tall.

Just a thought.

Yao Ming from China; giants can happen regardless of their parents size. Nazi Germany tried to create a super race based on genetics and given several centuries it may work.

The reason FLMB grow larger is they are a different species from NLMB.

WRB 

[WRB]

BA, it 's not just genetics, it 's a combination of the 3:

1.- genetics

2.- enviroment

3.- nutrition

Isn't it obvious though, that all of those things are needed? Everyone knows it takes a whole host of things to create a huge bass. Everyone knows that if you just have one of the things you listed the chances of creating a huge bass are much lower. I think people are missing my point however.

I'm simply stating that if you take ONE amazing body of water, that happens to be a world class bass growing environment, and stock it with bass that were all hatched yesterday. (We'll call them "group #1.") You'll notice that in 6 years, SOME of the bass from "group #1" are larger than others in the same group. Since they ALL started with the same "environment" and "nutrition" and everything else, I would ASSUME that the largest bass from "group #1" got that way because of their genitics, and nothing else. The biggest bass of "group #1" were, I'm GUESSING, genitically superior and predisposed to aviod danger better, eat better, hunt better, swim faster, understand their surroundings better, and simply grow faster and bigger than the other smaller bass of the same group. Just like I'd probably grow bigger than you if my Mom was 6'0'' and my Dad was 6' 8'' and your Mom was 5'1'' and your dad was 5'5'' tall.

Just a thought.

Yao Ming from China; Chinese are normally short, Yao's parent were tall; 6'7" & 6'3". Nazi Germany tried to create a super race based on genetics and given several centuries it may work; Darwin theory of natural selection.

The reason FLMB grow larger is they are a different species from NLMB.

WRB

[Glenn]

It's funny how this exact, same conversation comes up every 6 months here.  I wish I could make money betting on when it will come around again, because I'd win every time.  ;D

One thing that's true, is that a lot of folks always have their differing opinions, but everyone thinks they're "right".  That's fine folks.  Just keep an open mind and be civil about it. Know when to say "when".

In the mean time, why not check out a video by the man who knows what he's taking about when it comes to this subject?  You might learn a thing or two. 

http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-videos/bass-fishing-fish-biology.html

Enjoy!

[South FLA]

Great video Glenn!

Doug Hannon should start playing the lottery, cause he has caught 800+ over 10lbs and most from Florida so he has a 1 in 16,000,000,000 to do that. Either that or he is fibbing

[Glenn]

Actually, I know Doug Hannon quite well (not bragging here), and I can vouche that he's not lying.

Funny how people just can't marvel in one's accomplishments.  Instead they have to try to discredit them.  How sad.

[bilgerat]

Actually, I know Doug Hannon quite well (not bragging here), and I can vouche that he's not lying.

Funny how people just can't marvel in one's accomplishments. Instead they have to try to discredit them. How sad.

Is it true he got many of his DD's on a 7" worm ?

[South FLA]

Actually, I know Doug Hannon quite well (not bragging here), and I can vouche that he's not lying.

Funny how people just can't marvel in one's accomplishments. Instead they have to try to discredit them. How sad.

Not trying to discredit "The Professor" here just stating what Mr. Lusk said about catching a double digit bass and extrapolating the results.

Numbers are numbers and Bob Lusk said in the video Glenn posted the chances of a bass getting to double digits is 1 in 20-25M. So if the chances of a bass making it to 10lbs or more is 1 in 20M then Doug Hannon has had a 1 in 20M chance come up 800 times correct or am I missing something?

Therefore, its one of two possible outcomes as I stated according to Bob Lusk's assertion,

A. Doug Hannon's a mighty lucky (skilled in my book) angler to catch 800 bass that only have about a 1 in 20-25M chance of making it that big

or

B. Doug did not catch 800 bass in the double digit, since the probability is so low.

Seems to me that a double digit bass although rare when looking at bass fishing as a whole, is not so rare if you have access to the an environment i.e. Ocala National Forest areas and such, that Doug Hannon had/has. Nevertheless, it is quite an accomplishment, I have only one in the double digits and I have been at it pretty hard since about 5 years of age ;D and Doug Hannon is still admired by me one of the "people"

[Glenn]

Thanks for the explanation.  I admit I was a bit defensive because I consider Doug a friend of mine.

I haven't caught a double-digit yet, so I admire anyone who has. 

[Deleted account]

Did you hear that? That was every statistics proffesor in the country banging his/her head against the wall. Scary!

[WRB]

I do not know or have never met Doug Hannon, however do know people who vouch for his honesty and successs.

There is a big difference between FLMB and NLMB growing over 10 lbs and a bigger difference for smallmouth and spots growing to double digits. If you fish where double digit bass are common, your chances of catching them is better. Doug Hannon is a highly skilled bass angler that fishes small isolated lakes with big bass populations, his numbers over a lifetime could easily be what he claims.

If you add 5 lbs to a FLMB it is about equal to a NLMB; how many 15 to 17 lb bass has Doug caught? I believe Mike Long may have more in that weight range.

The reason for a high interest in giant bass or world record bass peaks during winter when everyone has time to ponder and pre-spawn is approaching where these big bass live.

Good luck to everyone.

WRB

[Dalton Tam]

http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=2352

nuff said.........