Misinformation 2025

Paul Roberts reply :

OK...I'm a little ticked again. I was going to title this post "BS", but since it's a family friendly site I toned it down.

Colorado has in it's C&R record book, a 28" LM from a water that is managed and known to hold some of the largest bass in the state. I also heard it weighed 13lbs. This would stretch what's possible in my neck of the woods. Turns out it's BS. > I talked with a Denver Bassmasters member who said one of the members saw the fish and it was "no more than 22" ". I hate that.

Back in my old home state of NY, there is a lake from which came a report that the state shocked LMs of 8 and 10lbs (state record is 11-4). The source was very good. BUT it turns out this source was mistaken. I contacted the fisheries staff there and they checked the records and said the largest bass were 18" to 20", with one 22incher.

The Colorado state record, also 11-4, was "only" 22.5" long! An obese trout gorged freak. A 28" frame would expand the possibilities for northern LM tremendously, but it just ain't so.

I hate the BS. I guess the real world is just too small for some people's egos.

Bass_Akwards reply :

Quote

Colorado has in it's C&R record book, a 27" LM from a water that is managed and known to hold some of the largest bass in the state. I also heard it weighed 13lbs. This would stretch what's possible in my neck of the woods. Turns out it's BS. > I talked with a Denver Bassmasters member who said one of the members saw the fish and it was "no more than 22" ". I hate that.

Back in my old home state of NY, there is a lake from which came a report that the state shocked LMs of 8 and 10lbs (state record is 11-4). The source was very good. BUT it turns out this source was mistaken. I contacted the fisheries staff there and they checked the records and said the largest bass were 18" to 20", with one 22incher. .

Don't ever trust any sources except those that actually matter. If you hear something insane like that, take it with a grain of salt and call the next person who'd know like you did in the case of the Denver Bassmasters member or the fisheries staff in NY. Otherwise you'll drive youself crazy. Never believe this garbage until it's honestly confirmed. If it's not absolutely 100% truely confirmed by the people who really are in the know, I consider it BS.

That's lame that our C&R record is bogus. Can't we get that taken off the books? Can anyone just BS and say they have the C&R record? Don't you at least have to have a picture or a witness or something?

Paul Roberts reply :

I'm not easily fooled. But I got suckered on those.

I don't know how the CO records work. But apparently no photo is required (not that that would help), but according to the Bassmasters member, there is no photo of that fish.

Dan: reply :

So the state keeps two record categories. One for fish that were released that only require a length. The other is for fish that were weighed on a certified scale.

That's stupid. I'd just disregard the "release" records because they are unverified. Jarrett Edwards has the record as far as I'm concerned.

RoLo reply :

Quote
I hate the BS. I guess the real world is just too small for some people's egos.

Well put

Roger

Glenn reply :

So you're taking the word of somebody who talked to somebody who said he saw the fish...and you're banking on that? Sounds like idle gossip to me. Remember, we fishermen..."embellish" every now and then too. So it makes for a juicy story if the fish is too short to be that heavy.

Just presenting another side of the story.

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote
So you're taking the word of somebody who talked to somebody who said he saw the fish...and you're banking on that? Sounds like idle gossip to me. Remember, we fishermen..."embellish" every now and then too. So it makes for a juicy story if the fish is too short to be that heavy.
Just presenting another side of the story.

Thanks Glenn. I am aware that this is ALL dock talk. I found the topic on another site and in it was the discussion about this bass. It was "supposedly" caught by a Denver Bassmasters member. So, I got in on the conversation since a member with a special interest in large bass was involved. He claims it's BS.

So, I dunno. I originally took the source (state records list) as legit, but that's in question now. Guess I should check with the state people and see if it's possibly true -they manage and oversee this particular fishery.

J Francho reply :

Everytime i see another angler at B-Ponds, or NPP, they tell me about the ten pounders that have come out of there.

Paul Roberts reply :

Well, I shot off a couple emails. We'll see what comes.

I also noticed that there is a C&R tiger musky listed at 58" . That would be a HUGE musky, much less a tiger. Do tiger's (hybrids) get that big?? The weight record was 53 inches and fully 40lbs. That's a huge tiger -and verified.

Quote
Everytime i see another angler at B-Ponds, or NPP, they tell me about the ten pounders that have come out of there.

I fish with a young guy occastionally -a good angler. When I first met him he told me he caught a 10lber out of a pond we both fish. I didn't comment. A few years ago, he caught a big one with me and blurted out, "6!!??, 7lbs!!!??". I said, "Let's weigh it." It was 4-1/2lbs. He had a hard time with that. I had to ask, "Should I have not weighed it?" It WAS a big CO bass, but the number just didn't jive with what he'd believed. He now owns a scale and appears happy now with his fish, regardless of the number attached.

Paul Roberts reply :

Well...this might turn out to be a Texas-sized lie, right here in Colorado ;D . Then again, it might turn out to be true. Wouldn't that beat all logic.

bilgerat reply :

You could have a certified scale in your boat along with a notary public, a priest and a rabbi and it still wouldn't satisfy some people.

Throw the scales and rulers into the water and just go fishing for the fun of it.

WRB reply :

Estimating a fishes length and actual measure is one reason information gets into question. Another is how the fish is measured; fish biologist for example tend to measure a fish with it's mouth closed, laying on a flat surface from the tip of the lower jaw to the base of the tail. This eliminates the tail irregularities.

Most casual anglers measure fish hanging by it's jaw and measure the fish from the opened mouth, tip of the lower jaw to the longest part of the end of the tail.

A bass for example measured both ways could easily be 4" different in "length".

The IGFA uses closed mouth, laying on a flat surface, down the center of the fish from lower jaw tip to end of tail. Just what is the end of a basses tail, it is slightly V shaped? Tips of the V or base of the V? can be about a 1/2" or so.

Sketch of the fish to be measured helps to resolve all these differences and it would be good to have a standardized length measurement when records are established for catch and release.

I have always measured LMB "length" from the tip of lower jaw with closed mouth, laying on a flat surface to the base of the tail V.

Just pointing out there is room for error .

Tuckman reply :

Paul,

The 10lbrs swimming around in the Waneta Lamoka Canal have reached legendary status up here.

Lamoka has been putting multiple seven pound(summer) bass on the Red Cross Reeling for Relief tournament board for the last 2 years though...and that same 7lb fish with eggs in the spring is getting up there

I have found that the Sanders Fishing Guide to be made up primarily of tackleshop banter that has been circling NY tackle shops for the last 3 decades and embellished accordingly.

That being said in one of the recent BASSMASTER magzines a NY angler is proudly hoisting his "11.7Lbs" "state record" NY bass in the lunker pages.

8-)

BassThumb reply :

Quote

Quote
I hate the BS. I guess the real world is just too small for some people's egos.

Well put

Roger

Who would want a fake record? I don't get it personally. How much is really to gain, other than a few congrats, from being the owner of a state record bass?

Daniel My Brother reply :

At least the official Colorado record is a Colorado fish. The Illinois record, caught February 15th, 1976 by Ed Walbel, was more than likely caught in Florida.

Ed had just returned from a Winter fishing trip to Florida the day before. While February is winter in Chicago, it's prime time for egg laden Florida fatties.

Still, Ed claims he caught the fish from a private strip pit near the Wisconsin border. Nevermind that Largemouth just don't get that big that far North...

Osprey39 reply :

Quote
At least the official Colorado record is a Colorado fish. The Illinois record, caught February 15th, 1976 by Ed Walbel, was more than likely caught in Florida.
Ed had just returned from a Winter fishing trip to Florida the day before. While February is winter in Chicago, it's prime time for egg laden Florida fatties.

Still, Ed claims he caught the fish from a private strip pit near the Wisconsin border. Nevermind that Largemouth just don't get that big that far North...

:

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

Dan: reply :

Quote

Quote
At least the official Colorado record is a Colorado fish. The Illinois record, caught February 15th, 1976 by Ed Walbel, was more than likely caught in Florida.
Ed had just returned from a Winter fishing trip to Florida the day before. While February is winter in Chicago, it's prime time for egg laden Florida fatties.

Still, Ed claims he caught the fish from a private strip pit near the Wisconsin border. Nevermind that Largemouth just don't get that big that far North...

:

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

I agree

RoLo reply :

Quote
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

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote
Paul,
The 10lbrs swimming around in the Waneta Lamoka Canal have reached legendary status up here.

Lamoka has been putting multiple seven pound(summer) bass on the Red Cross Reeling for Relief tournament board for the last 2 years though...and that same 7lb fish with eggs in the spring is getting up there

I have found that the Sanders Fishing Guide to be made up primarily of tackleshop banter that has been circling NY tackle shops for the last 3 decades and embellished accordingly.

That being said in one of the recent BASSMASTER magzines a NY angler is proudly hoisting his "11.7Lbs" "state record" NY bass in the lunker pages.

8-)

Hey Tuck. Hope you're having a good year. I know you know the myths of NYS, as we all did. In my mind, 7lbs is believable -I once held one. But beyond that through most of the north (but not all -S coastal NE) requires a notary, priest, and rabbi, etc...LOL.

There's a new record? Another quarter pound more, eh. Chipping away at what a 24" frame can carry I see. Call me a curmugeon LOL -but a good natured one.

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote

Quote
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 a 'public water' and 'private water' is essentially a political boundary.

The wildness of fish don't necessarily hinge on any political boundary.

In some states like Georgia, there are private waters that stock and fertilize the pond or lake

on a regular basis. However, unless it's a "pay pond" few pond owner would be motivated

to foot the recurrent cost of stock and chemicals (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 including some pay ponds.

Roger

Yeah, I would disagree too. To grow such fish requires special circumstances, the least of which is age structure. This is less apt to be seen on hard fished public waters. But the right conditions do come and go in many waters, and those in the know follow this sort of thing. Where I would draw the line (if I had any say) would be intensively managed waters. Not all managed waters by any means, but those in which fish are artificially fed, and where genetic manipulations are involved. The Texas ShareLunker is pressing the envelope in my mind, but still within reasonable limits. I am not concerned about what's "fair". In my mind I care little about records except to know what's ecologically possible, and how that works. I DO want to know the circumstances such fish grew in. Some of the records many anglers would be upset about if they knew the real stories. Such fish are freaks, in many senses of the word.

I guess what this begins to touch on is the meaning of "nature", and holy moly that can get people riled. We live in a world where biological manipulations are common and becoming a norm. It's not grandpa's "wild" anymore.

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote
At least the official Colorado record is a Colorado fish. The Illinois record, caught February 15th, 1976 by Ed Walbel, was more than likely caught in Florida.
Ed had just returned from a Winter fishing trip to Florida the day before. While February is winter in Chicago, it's prime time for egg laden Florida fatties.

Still, Ed claims he caught the fish from a private strip pit near the Wisconsin border. Nevermind that Largemouth just don't get that big that far North...

:

DMB, how big was that fish? Was it mounted? That would be an easy one to prove/dis-prove.

RoLo reply :

Quote

Quote
At least the official Colorado record is a Colorado fish. The Illinois record, caught February 15th, 1976 by Ed Walbel, was more than likely caught in Florida.
Ed had just returned from a Winter fishing trip to Florida the day before. While February is winter in Chicago, it's prime time for egg laden Florida fatties.

Still, Ed claims he caught the fish from a private strip pit near the Wisconsin border. Nevermind that Largemouth just don't get that big that far North...

:

DMB, how big was that fish? Was it mounted? That would be an easy one to prove/dis-prove.

I was wondering the same thing.

I'd like to think that the DNR was conscientious enough to take a scale-count,

which would identify the fish as a Florida-strain, northern-strain or intergrade.

Roger

Daniel My Brother reply :

Quote

Quote

Quote
At least the official Colorado record is a Colorado fish. The Illinois record, caught February 15th, 1976 by Ed Walbel, was more than likely caught in Florida.
Ed had just returned from a Winter fishing trip to Florida the day before. While February is winter in Chicago, it's prime time for egg laden Florida fatties.

Still, Ed claims he caught the fish from a private strip pit near the Wisconsin border. Nevermind that Largemouth just don't get that big that far North...

:

DMB, how big was that fish? Was it mounted? That would be an easy one to prove/dis-prove.

I was wondering the same thing.

I'd like to think that the DNR was conscientious enough to take a scale-count,

which would identify the fish as a Florida-strain, northern-strain or intergrade.

Roger

Here's a link to a picture of Ed holding the mount:

http://www.prairiestateoutdoors.com/index.php?/fishing/article/ed_walbels_state-record_largemouth_bass/

Does the IDNR care enough to track down the 36 year old mount and verify it? I doubt it. Jeff Lampe of the Peoria Journal Star wrote an article on this fish a few years back, which basically brought up the same questions I repeated. That's the last I've heard of it.

Paul Roberts reply :

28"??? Hmmmmm..... :

Again, it would be easy to verify. If the guy caught it fair and square he would not object. But if it came from FL -he would probably decline.

WRB reply :

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

Daniel My Brother reply :

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 reply :

Quote
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 reply :

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 reply :

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

this guy tried, and failed...

Osprey39 reply :

Quote

Quote
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 reply :

Quote
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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

Quote
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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

Quote
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 reply :

Quote
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 reply :

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 reply :

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. reply :

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

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 reply :

Quote
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.

Paul Roberts reply :

I don't know the evolutionary history of centrarchids. Probably adaptation from SW occurred earliest. There's expertise out there though. I did see something a few months ago on bigindianabass.com. The bibliography from that piece of research would put someone interested on the right track. I'm sure it's an interesting story.

Goose52 reply :

Quote

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?

Paul, I don't know how far north you have to be to be considered "north" (I expect farter north than I am) but our lakes do freeze over in the winter here and we do have about 3 months of winter weather. Anyway, the bass in the photo was 7-12 and 26" - length was by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency measuring method of from closed mouth to closed tail. This was a skinny, and probably old, fish.

J Francho reply :

Quote
I don't know the evolutionary history of centrarchids. Probably adaptation from SW occurred earliest. There's expertise out there though. I did see something a few months ago on bigindianabass.com. The bibliography from that piece of research would put someone interested on the right track. I'm sure it's an interesting story.

Send me a link, I've got some time between reels tonight.

I would look at it the same as smoltification in rainbow trout. Simple access to certain dietary and environmental differences cause a physiological change in the fish.

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote

Quote

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?

Paul, I don't know how far north you have to be to be considered "north" (I expect farter north than I am) but our lakes do freeze over in the winter here and we do have about 3 months of winter weather. Anyway, the bass in the photo was 7-12 and 26" - length was by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency measuring method of from closed mouth to closed tail. This was a skinny, and probably old, fish.

Hey Goose. That's what I'd like to see -some input. I consider Tennessee south, but I don't know how that works biologically really.

Would be interesting to see the lengths of N LM across latitudes. Easy places to look would be state records and Master Angler awards, or other big fish records.

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote

Quote
I don't know the evolutionary history of centrarchids. Probably adaptation from SW occurred earliest. There's expertise out there though. I did see something a few months ago on bigindianabass.com. The bibliography from that piece of research would put someone interested on the right track. I'm sure it's an interesting story.

Send me a link, I've got some time between reels tonight.

I would look at it the same as smoltification in rainbow trout. Simple access to certain dietary and environmental differences cause a physiological change in the fish.

http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/research/page/5/

Scroll to: Living the Good Life, For the Past 20 Million Years

This may or may not get you to the right line of research, and researcher's. Also Google:

Micropterus phylogeny / evolution / speciation

Problem is, you'll get a lot of abstracts and not full text or biblio. But sometimes you can get them.

Enjoy your reading.

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote

Quote
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.

I assume, but dunno, that most if not all FW fishes we have came from SW stock -but at different times. Centrarchids are one of the most recent though. Will be curious what you find out.

Here's a pic I found https://webspace.utexas.edu/dib73/TheBolnickLab/page1/page18/page18.html :

The continents were pretty much as we see them today (tectonically) so we have to go back earlier. Some older lineages like Esocids are far older and go back to Eurasian stocks in the fossil record. But even then, the continents were not enormously different.

Here's another:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zo47TI_UUSsC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Centrarchid+Eocene+Montana+fossil&source=bl&ots=PvtjrVevzU&sig=TKyow_rrYvTjczp9vx_o3AYjLLA&hl=en&ei=DR_SS6qbL4vctgOx9ozMCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Centrarchid%20Eocene%20Montana%20fossil&f=false

Seems the earliest Centrarchid fossils come from the late Oligocene in Montana. At that time there was a sea running N-S. (My son and I have collected fossils of sea life here on the CO plains.) That earliest known Centrachid looks a lot like a crappie, which fits the diagram above.

Are we sufficiently off-topic yet???

Back to it: Regardless, our "basses" came much later and smallmouth are considered to have been a riverine species, according to Ralph. Maybe that's why they are more apt to get "square". That was his conjecture.

J Francho reply :

8-10, from Mass.

Paul Roberts reply :

Wow! Beautiful fish too. One of those NE monsters.

J Francho reply :

Yeah, I love spring bass, the markings are so pure, and the perfect finnage is something!

Another whopper, this time from Candy in Conn - Pat X caught an 8-5 to win lunker bonus. I'll try to find a picture.

FishinBama reply :

I've seen the same sort of thing on the New River, as compared to one of the great lakes. We caught smallies last year that were pushing 21 inches, but only weighed about 3.5 - 4lbs. A 21 incher from Erie would most likely be a completely disgusting looking pig.

Paul Roberts reply :

Quote
Yeah, I love spring bass, the markings are so pure, and the perfect finnage is something!
Another whopper, this time from Candy in Conn - Pat X caught an 8-5 to win lunker bonus. I'll try to find a picture.

Yeah, another coastal whopper. I think if most CO anglers ever actually saw an 8lber they'd need surgery to put their eyeballs back in their sockets.

There's big, then there's BIG, and then there's BIG, and then there's ...

The last categories apply to the CA, TX, FL, and JP, or uniquely managed waters.

10396

Misinformation 2025

related General Bass Fishing Forum topic

previous topic

next topic

most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic