Jump to content

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


GamblerFL

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Global Moderator

Well, I'm never going to catch the world record largemouth in this region, they just don't get big enough around here. However, I fish every weekend for the world record smallmouth and it does live here. The current world record, as recognized by the IFGA is 10 lbs 14 oz caught at Dale Hollow in Tennessee (the "other" world record was supposedly 11lbs 15 oz also caught at Dale Hollow but on the Kentucky side of the lake). The next world record will probably be caught on the Tennessee River, either Pickwick Lake or Kentucky Lake in Tennessee.

Now here's where we get back to the discussion in this thread: Smallmouth are NOT native to the Tennessee River or this region in general. They were introduced throughout most of the country over one hundred years ago. So my point is, "native" is not the criteria, it's size that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should count.

Most fish are brought from other areas to other states. For example hybrids, and also stripers aren't native to Oklahoma.

It grew that big and was still alive, someone caught it, so I feel it should count. It would be no different if that fish was left in a huge pond IN the original state, and someone caught it there. The fish still got that big, and no one cheated to catch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a consideration, originally before bass fishing was even thought of as a sport, the native range of the fish was very limited. It had been stocked in the 1800's by railcar....essentially guys smuggled a few dozen fish in the water tender and dropped them into ponds. It's distribution throughout much of the South, all of the West and Midwest and some of the North was the result of illegal intoductions. So judging by what some guys are saying, the real world record fish should only be recognized in an area that this fish is truly native to??? OK, this means that the 22-4 might not be the true record and one from say, Ma. at about 12lbs should qualify???

I think not, as long as a fish isn't genetically altered, and is not reared in a tank it should count if caught by rod and reel. I highly doubt that the current record is even accurate as well. 1932, no fish had come close to it until the mid 80's??? C'mon, Georgia and not Florida or Texas??

Those trout fed California bass are not native yet take advantage of a trout stocking program and get very big. I'd lover to spend a year fishing those small waters. I fish here in NY just like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, this is a [glb]HOT[/glb] topic!!

I can see both sides of the argument here and it sure does sound that California is in line to stake a claim to a new world record.  Here in Texas efforts are constantly being taken through the "Lone Star Lunker Program" where 13 + lb'ers are donated to the fish hatchery to use for brood stock.  I'm sure other states are doing all they can to "create" big bass since bassfishing is such an economic boom for a state.  It sounds like California just has an edge on others based on location, climate, and forage source.  I'm sure if we could release trout in our lakes here we would.  As much as we "Non-Californians" would like to argue, I think the record should (and will) stand based on IGFA standards.  It will always have the state of California next to it, which allows the rest of us to judge its credibility as we will.  We can accept or deny it as we choose.  That's what makes this country we live in so great!!

God bless,

Fisher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Funny you all are talking about this. I just finished reading the article in the February Bassmasters magazine about "The Quest for the World Record" and don't really know what to think. I guess first off, More power to the guy or gal who catches a largemouth this big in a lake whether it is natural or not. So, I guess I am leaning more towards the side to where it should count in the record books. I see the point though and it is valid but what a can of worms it opens up. Secondly, if you managed to read a little further you would have seen the article about creating the Superbass. What are your thoughts on that subject? The biologists intent is making the fastest growing, like Florida strain, mixed with a very aggressive northern bass in hopes of making a large fish that is easy to catch. Personally, I like it!!!! Guess what, so would tournament fisherman. Yeah, in all, I think California has got the rest of us beat, but you know what, from what I have read about this in other books. THose guys go for days without even getting a bite sometimes. I like catching all fish, big and small, and that is why it means so much to me when I catch one over 5 or 6 pounds. Its merely a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Good question.

I feel that most lakes and rivers are stocked and I dont have a problem in the world with that. I think any body of water that is stocked with bass and are fed trout, not for that sole purpose, that there should be something that says these were bass from that area. I think there is a difference between fish being stocked in other waters and fish that were brought in for the purpose of them getting big. As I said before, there is a reason this record has stood all these years. There is also a reason that three lakes in the same area have come close to breaking that record. Above there was a comment about them not being in a pond. To be honest, these fish are in a pond. The only difference is a couple of these are huge ponds but they are man made areas that were stocked and closed for years and years then they allowed people to fish them. It isnt a pond that you or I would own but it is a large scale state run pond. You can read my quote above from the Ranger, dont think for a second that they dont know what they are doing. They know they are growing some huge fish with the purpose of breaking the record.

Here is what a California Florida strain bass is:

In the last twenty years the Florida strain has been introduced in southern California reservoirs and at Clear Lake in northern California. The Florida strain grows at a faster rate and lives longer. Most record fish caught are Florida strain.

What is writen above to me wouldnt be a world record. These were fish taken and bred to be a different type of bass. This isnt about putting down anyone that catches one of these because they must be pretty good fisherman. What I still dont understand is that when the record is broken it will be broken by a bass that has been bred to get large. To me, I just dont feel this is the same as some guy going to his own lake and pulling in a record fish that has grown up like 99% of the other bass in this country.

Just a side note: Last year there was talk that California was going to close down Dixon lake for two years. One was because of the money it takes to run the man made lake the other reason was to allow the fish to grow without people fishing for them. They feel it would give the bass a better chance to reach much larger weights. I read where they might just do that this year. So I guess if after a couple of years of feeding these bass a steady diet of trout and then allowing some fisherman to go after the record is what it will take for it to be beaten then so be it. I would still look at Perry's bass in 1932 as the real world record. I think maybe a bass boat company, line company, reel company, rod company and lure company should be right there to give these guys their products so they can advertise that the record came from their products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Funny you all are talking about this. I just finished reading the article in the February Bassmasters magazine about "The Quest for the World Record" and don't really know what to think.  

I'm glad to see you read it also and as I thought you said you didnt know what to think. I'm sure you probably read it like me that even though it would be great to see the record beaten you just arent sure this is the way it should go down.

The super bass they are thinking about trying out gives me mixed feelings. One the one hand it would be cool to be able to catch large bass pretty easy but on the other hand I'm not sure after a while it would be as fun.

A few years ago I went to a river here in Florida where the mangrove snaper had moved in. The river was full of them. We started catching them and had a blast. After about an hour to tell you the truth we moved on down the river because we got bored. To be able to catch a fish on every cast for over an hour after a while just didnt seem to be that big of a deal. We where throwing small bombers and over the hour 9 different times we pulled in the lure where we had a fish on both hooks. Like I said, it was fun for about an hour then just became boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a fools mistake to have sold Florida bass to any of the other states to begin with. The high protein diet of trout or in the case of Florida tolopia isn't the only factor that grows bass big. Its the genetics, water quality, food source, and tropical temperatures. But the MAIN factor is genetics. Other bass species do not have the genetics to grow as a Florida stain does. Florida bass are their own species. It would be like catching a redfish in the St Johns river and having a new record because it was caught in a body of water where it didn't belong. The fish was in fresh water and is the biggest ever caught but it still didn't belong there. The same would be true for a Florida stain bass the name should say it all. Its a Florida stain bass that was transplanted. Should it count as a new record if it breaks the old record? Yes because its Florida's stupid mistake for selling the bass to other states. They missed out on keeping a possible record in Florida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off I cant see how many of you say its not natural habitat.If its a bass and its in a lake its natural.It might not be fair for the world record to be beat that way.But nothing is totally fair in life.I think no matter what it should count because regardless of where its caught or what its been eating it is hard to catch a fish that big.The only thing that I think is not fair is that I will never get  a chance to go to FLORIDA or CALIFORNIA to catch one of these monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, enough already.  

Question:

If I caught a bass from a "natural"lake in the bass's natural environment, and decided to take it to my local lake, then  a year later that bass was caught and happened to be a world record size, should it not be considered a world record?  If not, why not?  Because the forage fish might be differnet?  Taking that "don't count" argument to it logical conclusion, you would never be able to count a fish a world record.  Just keep taking the argument back to the beginning of time.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, enough already.

Question:

If I caught a bass from a "natural"lake in the bass's natural environment, and decided to take it to my local lake, then a year later that bass was caught and happened to be a world record size, should it not be considered a world record? If not, why not? Because the forage fish might be differnet? Taking that "don't count" argument to it logical conclusion, you would never be able to count a fish a world record. Just keep taking the argument back to the beginning of time.....

I would be happy to say you just broke the world record if you did that. What you would have done is nothing like what has been done in California.

Now if you took that fish to your local pond and fed it trout after trout until it was 24 pounds and then let it go in the lake again and then caught it, I would say you had caught the worlds largest bass*this was a home grown fish released back to a lake and isnt recognized as a world record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a tough question.  IF they stalked it with bass and fed them trout, with only a select few to fish it, then no, shouldnt count.  Theres no difference in that and growing one in an aquarium.  Would you count a world record buck that some dude shot while it was eatin at a feeder he had on a food plot that gave it super protein for 5 yrs? Its not fair chase, and any of you that bass fish should know that.  Now, if the trout are natural to the lake, not stocked in hopes of larger bass, and the bass simply eat them because they are there and are a natural forage, that is a different story.  But by the sounds of some of the stories, for example the one in bassmaster recently about the quest for the superbass or what not, they sure werent talking about your run of the mill old school bass, and yes they are starting to mix genes on these things, dont know about there  yet but it will happen soon enough.  A record bass should belong to someone who earned it out of a natural setting, where NO feeding or stalking is done to encourage it.  Your shootin fish in a barrel.  I dont care how long you sit over a 20+ pounder trying to catch it.  If they have had fish fed to them that are trout, and you use a bait that looks like that and drop it in off the dock where that feeding occurs, go fishin in one of them little tubs with a bare hook like they set up for the little kids at basspro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks that a record bass from Cali shiouldnt count is just plain WRONG!. That has to be one of the most rediculous things I have heard.

First off these bass were stocked as fingerlings decades ago. None of the original bass or even their original offspring are alive. Thse bass have grown up in the most presured lakes in the country.

Most of our lakes are at least 100ft deep. It doesnt matter if they are only a 100 acers. These fish live in super clear water and are extremely hard to catch. There are only a handfull of guys who can catch them with any kind of consistancy. These bass were not grown somewhere and then stocked. The trout are stocked in the lakes in the winter monthes to be caught by trout fisherman. The fact that they eat trout just means they are ating what is available to them. In Florida they eat giant shinners, in Mexico they eat Talapia.

In Texas they stock share a lunker fingerlings all the time. Should the record only count from Florida or Georga? Of course not! Perries record shouldn't even count. If he submitted it now with as little proof as he had it would be denied. Also who ever said that the Dixon bass was #2 is wrong. It was #4 and #10. If you think its fishing in a barrel, I invite you to come out here and try it. I garantee you will leave with a diferent opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks that a record bass from Cali shiouldnt count is just plain WRONG!. That has to be one of the most rediculous things I have heard.

First off these bass were stocked as fingerlings decades ago. None of the original bass or even their original offspring are alive. Thse bass have grown up in the most presured lakes in the country.

Most of our lakes are at least 100ft deep. It doesnt matter if they are only a 100 acers. These fish live in super clear water and are extremely hard to catch. There are only a handfull of guys who can catch them with any kind of consistancy. These bass were not grown somewhere and then stocked. The trout are stocked in the lakes in the winter monthes to be caught by trout fisherman. The fact that they eat trout just means they are ating what is available to them. In Florida they eat giant shinners, in Mexico they eat Talapia.

In Texas they stock share a lunker fingerlings all the time. Should the record only count from Florida or Georga? Of course not! Perries record shouldn't even count. If he submitted it now with as little proof as he had it would be denied. Also who ever said that the Dixon bass was #2 is wrong. It was #4 and #10. If you think its fishing in a barrel, I invite you to come out here and try it. I garantee you will leave with a diferent opinion.

Castaic Lake is 2nd and 3rd.

You are off a little on the facts about the stocked bass. The 20,000 bass from Florida were stocked in the 20 acre Upper Otay Reservoir which was the Fish & Games hatchery. The offspring were then taken and stocked. As far as the trout go all I can do is go by what the ranger at Dixon 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"

I wont debate for a second that it isnt hard to catch one of them. Hats off to anyone that can get a 20+ out of any lake, stocked or not. The only problem I have with it is these bass are offspring of a bass that didnt come from California. Their main food which is allowing them to grow as big as they are isnt even a fish that lived in the lake. As far as them growing up in the most pressured lakes in the country, I dont know about that either. I think if I read it right, only one of the 3 lakes that these big fish are coming out of is open year round 24 hours a day. I dont believe it is one that has come close to the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upper Otay was stocked with Flrida fingerlings in 1959. The other San Diego lakes were stocked with them in the 70'S. We do not stock bass in our lakes. They have lived thier whole lives in these lakes. castaic lake has 29 miles of shoreline. Is that shooting fish an a barrel? Our lakes are only open  3 to 4 days a week but there is usualy close to a thousand people who fish them each week. The smaller lakes dont get as many fisherman but they still have around 100 guys on them each day. You try fishing a 100 acre lake with 100 guys. Its extremely pressured! florida strain bass are all over the world. acording to your argument the ONLY place they should count is in the south east.

I dont think so. Funny thing is the IGFA doesnt agree with you either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one said they werent pressured overall.  And you do have to be decent to catch them.  >75% of the people that fish that lake dont even matter cause they dont catch those fish. And which are you talking about matt when you say 29 miles of castaic shoreling or 100 acres with 100 guys on smaller lakes.  Theres a difference there in pressure, and they are still probably less pressured then lakes like lake fork and ochy.   And they werent pressured originally, as gambler stated they were stocked then closed for years to allow growth, and dixon even thought of closing just to let em get bigger, probably while the DNR guys behind the fence  were going to sit there and feed em tons of trout.  And you are right, people do trout fish, and thats fine.  We have a strip  pit 10 miles from my house where they stalk trout once a year.  You can sit and watch huge bass swim up and nail them for weeks to come. But if someone caught a record there doing that I wouldnt want it counted.  I said if a lake naturally contains both then fine, its a record. I said shooting fish in a barrel to mean that if you sit there and throw in a trout looking lure on top a bass's head, like one youd all use at castaic, while they are throwin in live trout that month, anyone in the world can do that.  Point is, if the lake is shut down and or people behind the scenes are sitting back, trying to make their bass bigger and better just in hopes of a record by anymeans possible, its just stupid.  I dont know who keeps bringin up  the age of the fish, it dosnt even matter.  Stalked fingerling or not, they are the same strain by now and in most part will be the same generation after generation.  No ones sayin they are droppin in the 20+ lbers as is from somewhere else.   Giant shiners in florida live in florida waters, no one stocks them off the dock in hopes they will get huge, with exception to some lakes im sure.  We got large shiners hear in the midwest too.  I really dont know the answer or  what to say now that its been awhile since this lake has oppened, but definately to begin with nothing should have counted.  If the lake is left alone now and continues to have large bass, keeping equal with a trout population not being stocked then yea its fine, and maybe someone will get the record, and thats the only reason IGFA lets it stand.  But the continuation of trout stalking and limited fishing.......... were not gonna change how it is arguing over it.... but people that dont live there and are nonpartial to those lake for the mosst part agree with me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upper Otay was stocked with Flrida fingerlings in 1959. The other San Diego lakes were stocked with them in the 70'S. We do not stock bass in our lakes. They have lived thier whole lives in these lakes. castaic lake has 29 miles of shoreline. Is that shooting fish an a barrel? Our lakes are only open 3 to 4 days a week but there is usualy close to a thousand people who fish them each week. The smaller lakes dont get as many fisherman but they still have around 100 guys on them each day. You try fishing a 100 acre lake with 100 guys. Its extremely pressured! florida strain bass are all over the world. acording to your argument the ONLY place they should count is in the south east.

I dont think so. Funny thing is the IGFA doesnt agree with you either.

I dont know if you have the February issue of Bassmaster but thats where the write up is. It only says that the fish were brought to California in 1959. I believe the bass you are talking about in the 70's were the offspring of those fish. I think you need to read the entire thread about the stocking. There isnt a debate if a stocked bass should count, it is about the way it is being done. I have never read anything about another state doing it the way California did, as far as not only the stocking but also the trout. I dont know of any other lakes in the country that are producing the size fish that these 3, but really two lakes are.

Since you live in California and seemed to have followed this, why were Florida bass brought to California in the first place? I know California seems to be a pretty good place to bass fish, even outside this area we are talking about, why did they go through the trouble for this?

I have read the rules from IGFA, it will be interesting to see what happens if these questions come up if the record goes down to one of these bass. I dont know if they have ever had to face questions about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BassResource.com Administrator

Well guys, this is turning into a "who's right" / "who's wrong" debate.

As we can see, everyone here has an opinion on this topic.  And that's just what it is, opinions.  Whether 1 person or a 1,000 people agree with you is besides the point.  It's you're opinion.

Let's not try to prove who's "right" or who's "wrong".  Let's listen to, and respect, everyone's opinions here, because that's just what they are - opinions.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guys, this is turning into a "who's right" / "who's wrong" debate.

As we can see, everyone here has an opinion on this topic. And that's just what it is, opinions. Whether 1 person or a 1,000 people agree with you is besides the point. It's you're opinion.

Let's not try to prove who's "right" or who's "wrong". Let's listen to, and respect, everyone's opinions here, because that's just what they are - opinions.

Thanks!

I agree Glenn. But you have to admit, it is an interesting thread with no name calling!!!

The reason I started the thread was because I have a feeling the record in the next year or so will fall to one of these few lakes. I also have a feeling it is going to be a big debate about the record. For me or against the way I see it, I like to read the different views about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of our lake records are over 17lbs. We only have a few lakes that are under 500 acers. All of our lakes get pounded every weekend. We have tounaments on just about all of our lakes every weekend. Not all of our lakes stock trout. hodges doesn't and a 20lber came from it. Only one lake stocks trout year round because it is the only one cold enough to. All the other lakes stock trout in the colder monthes. Alot of the trout stocked are to big to be eaten by the bass. The trophy hunters out here can go days with out bites. to say that any body in the world can come out here and throw a trout swimbait and catch them shows ignorance. I would estimate that less than 1% of all california bass fisherman have caught a 10lb+ on a swimbait.

It would be far easier to go to Florida and pay a giude and use shinners to catch a big fish. The IGFA has recognized several line class records from Cali.

Dixon lake has not closed. If it did close the Department of fish and game would not stock the lake with trout. I dont care waht the ranger said, THE FACT IS IT HASN"T HAPPEND!!!.

When you guys see all the big fish caught out here dont think that every body is catching them. There is only a small group of guys that are consistant. If you realy want to know why are bass get so big its pretty simple. We release them. All of the guys that consistantly catch 15lb+ fish let them go. If we went around killing the big fish every time we caught them we would not ever come close to the record. I had to re type my first response twice because I got mad after reading the all the posts.

Every body is intitaled to thier opinion. Dont hate us because our bass have the wright genetics, climate and food source to get bigger than your state does. Nobody out here is fishing some stocked pond were they are growing some stupid unfished world record.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of our lake records are over 17lbs. We only have a few lakes that are under 500 acers. All of our lakes get pounded every weekend. We have tounaments on just about all of our lakes every weekend. Not all of our lakes stock trout. hodges doesn't and a 20lber came from it. Only one lake stocks trout year round because it is the only one cold enough to. All the other lakes stock trout in the colder monthes. Alot of the trout stocked are to big to be eaten by the bass. The trophy hunters out here can go days with out bites. to say that any body in the world can come out here and throw a trout swimbait and catch them shows ignorance. I would estimate that less than 1% of all california bass fisherman have caught a 10lb+ on a swimbait.

It would be far easier to go to Florida and pay a giude and use shinners to catch a big fish. The IGFA has recognized several line class records from Cali.

Dixon lake has not closed. If it did close the Department of fish and game would not stock the lake with trout. I dont care waht the ranger said, THE FACT IS IT HASN"T HAPPEND!!!.

When you guys see all the big fish caught out here dont think that every body is catching them. There is only a small group of guys that are consistant. If you realy want to know why are bass get so big its pretty simple. We release them. All of the guys that consistantly catch 15lb+ fish let them go. If we went around killing the big fish every time we caught them we would not ever come close to the record. I had to re type my first response twice because I got mad after reading the all the posts.

Every body is intitaled to thier opinion. Dont hate us because our bass have the wright genetics, climate and food source to get bigger than your state does. Nobody out here is fishing some stocked pond were they are growing some stupid unfished world record.

I think you missed the part about the ranger. The ranger didnt say the lake was closed the ranger said they feed their bass more trout than any lake in the country thats why he feels the next record will come from that lake.

This thread isnt about anyone being mad your bass are bigger. This is about breaking the record out of those few lakes. I did see that 20 pounder caught out of hodges. I feel had it broken the record, it should have gone to the guy that caught it. One heck of a fish. Why is that lake only open Saturday and Sunday?

There is no reason for you to get mad or upset about this thread. I live in Florida. If we had lakes stocked with a California strain of bass and fed trout, I wouldnt think it should set a record either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Let me clairify things for you. First off you said that I had my facts mixed up. The fish with the black spot that was 21+ and 20+ was the same fish. It was from Dixon. It is #4 and I think #9 or 10. Mike Long caught it and then 2 years late Ged Dickerson caught it. this fish was found floating and verified by Mike. This is not the#2 and#3 from castaic. I highly doubt those were the same fish.

Now in an earlyer post you said that all the 2olbers come from a small area. That maybe true but what you dont realize is that there are probably 50 lakes from San diego up to the middle of the state that have lake records over 17lbs. They may not be 20 but they are close. So its not like its only a couple lakes. Its all most all of our lakes. Also there are several of these lakes that do not stock trout but there lake records are still in the very high teens.

One interesting thing that you posted earlier was You thought something WRONG was going on out here. That is a very negative way to look at it. I would think something vwery WRIGHT is happening.

There are many factors that make our bass big. We have deep clear water. We have good Florida genetics and we have the perfect climate for these bass to get big.  Add to that good food sources and a group of freaks that hunt these giant bass and release all of them and you have a winning combination. Instead of thinking that we have it wrong maybe you should try and get your state to stock trout into some of your lakes. Would that mean your state would start producing 20lbers? probably not because there are many other factors but i bet your fish would get a little bigger. The reason I got mad was because by questioning the legitimicy of a record from Cali you would be trying to take away the acomplishments of the guy who catches it. I contend that even though our fish get bigger I think it is easier to catch a double didget in Florida or Texas or Mexico. Why? because our lakes our usualy open only on the weekends and they are so crouded. Our big bass are old and smart and have seen every lure imaginable.

Another thing to consider is this. In our state we cant use the basses natural forage for bait like you can in Florida. We cant use live trout or bluegill. our live bait is limited to crawdads and shinners. Our stores jumbo shinners are only about 6-7 in long and they do not live in our lakes. So should a Flrida record count that is caught on a live shinner? Out here if we used trout we would get a ticket. I think those shinners are cheating. How do you like that!!!  actualy I dont but I am trying to make a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




  • Outboard Engine

    fishing forum


    Outboard Engine

    Outboard Engine

    fishing tackle

    fishing

    fishing

    fishing

    fishing

    bass fish

    fish for bass



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.