World record bass..or is it???? 2024

GamblerFL reply :

Here is what I know from the Bassmaster magazine...

In 1959 California took 20,000 Florida large mouth bass and put them in a 20 acre reservoir. The off spring were gradually stocked throughout the region. They then found that the new Florida strain of bass were harder to catch than the native largemouth bass. They knew that the new strain would have a better change of growing larger because of this. Through the years these bass did get big because of the environment they were in. They were stocked in reservoirs that had clean water, very deep holes, and an abundance of forage. But one of the big reasons was because these reservoirs were stocked with thousands of pounds of hatchery-bred rainbow trout each week during the fall, winter and early spring. This is a quote from the article. "These high protein trout have an enormous impact on the growth of the bass". A 21 pound 11 ounce bass was caught on one of the reservoirs. They tested and found the bass was probably 12 or 13 years old. The same bass in Florida in 10 years would have been around 10 pounds. They feel that very soon the world record of 22 pounds 4 ounces will be broken from a bass out of one of the reservoirs.

Here is my question...

Do you feel that these bass should be recorded as a world record? We all know that the world record was caught in Georgia on Lake Montgomery in 1932. It was a native bass in a normal lake. Out of the 25 largest largemouth bass every caught, 22 have come from California. I don't know if all 22 came from these stocked lakes but I'm sure most of them were. In my opinion I think if and most likely WHEN the record is broken from that area, it should have an * telling the background of these bass. These bass aren't even a California bass. They also arent even eating what they would be eating if not for them stocking the lakes. By the way, The large bass being caught are being released back in the lake in hopes of the fish being caught again once it beats the record.

Stickling reply :

i dont think they should be recorded.

GamblerFL reply :

I feel the same way. On the one hand, they are in lakes, but I dont believe these bass would ever have been this large if left alone. Also as I wrote above, these arent even native to California.

bassinjack reply :

yes it should count as a world bass for the simple fact that those bass are in there natural enviroment

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
yes it should count as a world bass for the simple fact that those bass are in there natural enviroment

Their natural inviroment wouldnt be a Florida bass in California eating trout. Plus I bet if you went out tomorrow and fished your own local lake and were to bring in a 22 pound 5 ounce bass and once you got ready to be in the spot light as the new record holder a guy from one of those lakes brings in a 25 pounder and beats your record before it gets on the books, I bet you and most people would question it. But hey, this is what a board is all about, how you feel about it. Thanks for adding to it.

I found the 25 largest bass caught. 22 of the top 25 are from California and of the 22 only 1 of them was from a lake not stocked with trout.

Of the other 3 bass 1 is from Georgia, the world record, the other 2 are from Florida.

One interesting thing I found was the 2nd largest and 3rd largest were caught out of the same lake and believed to be the same fish. What I found was a write up that the bass had a black spot under the mouth that both bass had. The fish when it was 21 pounds 12 ounces was caught and let go. 7 days later a fish was caught that was 22 pound and a 1/2 ounce on the same lake with the same black spot. It was also let go. A few weeks later some guys fishing came across a dead largemouth bass. They brought the fish in and it had the black spot and was the same length. They took a scale off and it was believed to be the same fish that was caught twice before.

8 of the top 25 were caught on Castaic Lake in Ca.

3 of the 25 were caught on Dixon Lake in Ca.

4 of the top 25 were caught on Miramar Lake Ca.

2 of the top 25 were on Isabella Lake Ca.

Funny if you read the list the lakes with the largest have caught dates not too far apart. Makes you wonder if it isnt the same fish several times.

http://www.fishingnetwork.net/top25lmb.htm

Raul reply :

A 22 lbs 5 oz would not be recognized as a WR for shure, to classify as a WR it should be at least 2 onces more than the previous record according to IGFA regulations, any fish that weights less than those 2 mandatory ounces is recognized as a tie.

IGFA regulations do not specify that a fish has to have a certain diet to be recognized, even if we think that a recognition depends on what the fish eat or if they are or not in their native waters.

monarkman reply :

I have to agree with you Gambler, it should not count,they are not in there natural environment ,when you stock them or relocate them,that is not there natural environment,plain and simple!

bassmaster043 reply :

No, they shouldnt be counted. NO way

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
A 22 lbs 5 oz would not be recognized as a WR for shure, to classify as a WR it should be at least 2 onces more than the previous record according to IGFA regulations, any fish that weights less than those 2 mandatory ounces is recognized as a tie.
IGFA regulations do not specify that a fish has to have a certain diet to be recognized, even if we think that a recognition depends on what the fish eat or if they are or not in their native waters.

I think you missed the point. Ok it is a 22 pound 10 ounce bass...

But thanks for the info, I didnt know it had to be over 2 ounces.

Stickling reply :

Nice findings gambler ;D

John Cullum reply :

YES, it should count. It's a tough record to beat. People have been chasing this record for almost 75 years and haven't touched it yet. If the stocking program was a can't miss someone would have broken it already.

It'll be sad that science will beat that record not mother nature but thats how it goes.

Stickling reply :

its not the same tho john.

dodgeguy reply :

you guys have got to be kidding!!!if you went to italy and ate pasta untill you weighed 3000 lbs. shouldn't you count as the world's fattest human?as far as i know largemouth bass were stocked in plenty of states.they are bass that just happen to have a different forage than most.all reservoir fish are stocked when reservoirs are impounded.state fish and game departments decide what to stock and not stock.so what if california happened to do a better job than anybody else.if one of you guys went to california and caught the new world record bass you would be singing a different tune.

Stickling reply :

1. pasta is burnt off to easy and second, you dont get fat becouse of science, these bass are getting bigger couse of science. Pasta doesnt mess with your " Natural Habitat " while us taking bass hybrating them putting in diffrent home does mess with them. Its not natural.. Neither is eating pasta and being 3000 pounds.

John Cullum reply :

I agree it's not the same but thats not how the IGFA is set up. It's unfortunate that the record will someday be beatin that way and not natural but those are the rules.

GamblerFL reply :

I agee with the way they keep records but in the begining when the rules were set up did they know this was going to happen?

I agree bass have been stocked before, but I'm not sure they have been stocked in this manner.

Numbers tell the story and the fact that with all the lakes and rivers in this country, when 21 of the top 25 bass are coming out of a select few lakes in the same area with the same type of bass (Florida) eating the same type of trout, you have to feel there is something wrong with it.

When a record has held for 73 years and over a 20 year span it has been challenged and it is from the same area you have to feel there is something not natural about it.

Look at it this way. There have only been 12 bass ever caught over 20 pounds. Think of all of the people that have fished since 1923. Only 12 20 pounds or over have ever been caught. One was in Florida in 1923. One was in Georgia in 1932. One was in California in 1973. 8 of the final 9 have been caught in the same lakes with 7 being caught in the last 15 years. I have nothing against the people catching these bass but I have to feel there is one reason why so many big fish are being caught in one of three lakes.

If I had a pond and stocked it with bass and fed them with something that would make them really grow, would it be a record if I caught one over 22 pounds 4 ounces? How big would my pond need to be before it would be a record?

AricStoner reply :

Not in their natural environment?? What the heck are you talking about?!? Are you trying to tell me that there are 45 year old bass, ie. the original bass that were stocked? Heck no! Most of the fish in these lakes are fish that were born in these lakes. It may not have been their "natural environment" 50 years ago, but it is NOW, simple as that. And newsflash, unless I have read BS from articles, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most bass in most lakes accorss North America introduced as well? They were not indigenous to most the lakes that have them these days. Bass are adaptable to many different environments, and if they can adapt and thrive in any lake regardless of the reasons, they are in their natural environment as far as I'm concerned. Now as far as stocking of rainbows, their purpose is not to feed these fish, they are to keep the a steady population of trout. There are many stocking programs across the continent, do you really think they aren't having an impact on the bass in those lakes? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, we have too many rules as it is. Don't discriminate bass because of where and how they live and grow. A bass caught is a bass caught, simple as that.

abelfisher reply :

Gambler, I have to respectfully disagree. Many lakes around the country are stocked with forage fish. You have to have forage fish there first after a new lake is formed or you will not have the food to sustain the predator (bass) fish. It makes no sense to stock a new lake with bass if there is no food. You also mention that the Florida bass were supposed to be more difficult to catch (Hence the number of record breakerrs. If they were easy to catch, the fish would never get that large. Also, rememebr the lakes where these record fish came from is southern California. Warm weather year round ...good for the bass, and very deep lake....good for trout . If you want to only let record breaker fish come from "natural lake with no stocking....good luck! If someone is able to hook and land a 22# fiish that is supposed to be difficult to catch, why not allow them to be record breakers. Are you going to say no record breaking smllies can coe form stocked lakes in the north, or no record braking king salmon from the western rivers because they were stocked...you can see where this can go. I don't think we want to go there. Only my humble opinion. Nothing personal, but you asked )[tr][/tr] ;D

PS: I live in northern Calif. I moved from the midwest 8 years ago. I find these lakes are more difficult to fish than the midwest. The water is clearer and deeper. Overall , tougher water. So if you want to catch a record keeper...come on out!

Nick_Barr reply :

I dont think it should be recorded a world record, unless i catch it then it will be a record breaker....LOL ;D

GamblerFL reply :

If I filled my pool with lake water and stocked it with bass 10 years from now it would be a natural enviroment for those select fish. Thats a given. The point of this is that the record will fall. Thats a given. But I dont know if the way it will fall is the way it should. If you have the bassmasters artical read it. You will see this is the California "big bass program". They study these fish, they shock these fish, these fish were put in for one reason. To become very big fish. Yes I agree they stock other lakes with trout. I dont agree that these other lakes are used the same way as these lakes we are talking about. They have hours on many of these lakes, they shut these lakes down from time to time. They have times where these lakes can only be fished a few days a week. Some of these lakes only allow so many people fishing on them at a time. This is for the most part a controlled enviroment for these fish to grow. I live in Florida. I know people outside of Florida feel there are huge fish caught here year after year. It isnt that way. I would be more than happy to change my views if someone comes up with a true reason why these fish are "natural". I agree they are natural for the fish in those lakes but in the big picture they arent natural as far as why they are that big. Take away the Florida strain of bass and take away the trout if those fish get anywhere near the size they are I would be impressed.

bassin4life reply :

hey a bass is a freaken fish as long as its no robot count it.

GamblerFL reply :

The page I found wont let me copy and paste but they were talking to Jim Dayberry who is a Ranger at Dixon Lake. He was talking about a 21 pound 7 ounce bass taken out of the lake. It is a 70 acre lake that has 60 acres that can be fished. Here is what he 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"

http://www.seewald.com/california_state_record_largemouth_black_bass.htm

gamblerOH reply :

I'm with dodgeguy, I think if its big its big,we cant do anything about how it got big,just wish we would have caught it rather than someone else.If I go to cali and catch it I dont care what its been eating--LOL

abelfisher reply :

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

gamblerOH reply :

If this question is for me I think its any body of water that is open for the public to fish.If I stock my pond in the backyard thats a different matter. When the DNR stocks a public lake then we all have a chance to catch those fish.too bad they dont feed our bass in ohio farm raised trout!!!

Marty reply :

It should count.

It's a largemouth

It's living in the wild

It hasn't been genetically altered

roadwarrior reply :

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.

BD reply :

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.

earthworm77 reply :

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.

Fisher of Men reply :

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

Wormy reply :

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.

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
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.

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
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.

Chris reply :

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.

tie1on reply :

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.

abelfisher reply :

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.....

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
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.

TommyBass reply :

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.

Mattlures reply :

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.

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
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.

slapnuts reply :

I dont think it should count.

Mattlures reply :

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.

TommyBass reply :

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

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
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.

Glenn reply :

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!

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
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.

Mattlures reply :

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.

Big_Bass_Rich reply :

Yes, it should be counted. Period.

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
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.

Mattlures reply :

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.

GamblerFL reply :

You make some good points. First you will never get me on the live bait debate. I dont use and it if you look in another thread before this one was started you will see that I said any large bass caught on live bait doesnt impress me at all. Not that I think there is anything wrong with using live bait, I just feel an 8 pounder on a lure is harder than a 12 pounder on live bait.

About the size of the fish in other lakes. I agree their are some huge fish in California. Makes you wonder why they brought Florida bass to the state. That is still one question that I have never been able to read on the internet an find an answer to. Why did they bring the bass to a state that seemed to already have some big bass?

As far as me saying there was something wrong going on...I dont think I ever said that. You have to understand where I am coming from. I dont have a problem in the world with what California is doing. I think it is great. I think for people to be able to go after huge bass is great for everyone. The people fishing and the state itself. I am 100% for them doing what they are doing. Thats one part of it. The part I dont agree with is if a record is caught, I dont think it is the same as the old world record.

This is a little long but here is the way I look at it.

The top 25 bass ever caught has been re-writen since the 80's. You have to keep in mind that we know of two huge fish caught years ago. One was in 1923 and one in 1932. Now I have no way of going back to look before the 80's what the top 25 bass were. All I can do is look at the list as it is today. In 1973 there was a big fish caught in California. Now if you look at the top 25 biggest bass ever caught, and this goes back 83 years, 19 of the 25 have been caught from 1980 to now and all 19 are from California out of the same lakes. So I have to ask myself, with all the lakes through out this country why would 19 of the 25 biggest bass ever caught come from a hand full of lakes in California within the same area of the state. Well if I were to look to find out what was different, I would come up with the fact that all 19 fish are a Florida strain bass that are offsprings of the original 20,000 brought to California in 1959. Now as I said before I dont know what the sizes were before the list of the 25 at this time. I would almost bet that all of these 19 places werent held by bass from California. So it pretty much tells me that there are huge fish in California and there is one reason for all these 19 to be on the list. All are Florida strain bass and just about all are trout fed. Is there any problem with a state doing this? Not at all. Do I have a probleem with this? Not at all. The only point I have tried to make is that to catch a world record out of one of these lakes, and I will say this really is more for the trout fed bass, to catch a record there should be a note about the bass. The note should state how this fish was able to grow to the size it is. Now we all know they do release the bass. (I have no problem with that) We can all bet because they want the record and you wouldnt want to keep one close. But what it does is sort of throws the top 25 for a loop. I know the 22 pound 4 ounce would never have been caught again, because he ate it. But if you look at the top 25 there is a couple of strange things about it.

#2 was 22 pounds 1/2 ounce which was caught 7 days later on the same lake as( #3) 21 pound 12 ounces. (#6) was 21 pounds 1/2 ounce which was caught within 3 days of a year earlier on the same lake and was caught by the same guy that caught #2. (#8 was 19 pounds 14 ounces which was caught one month 4 days before #6 on the same lake. (#20) was 19 pounds 1/2 ounce which was caught 11 months before #20 on the same lake. So from what I have read most bass as an average will gain 1 pound a year. Give or take a few ounces.

So we have the same lake with

(#24)18 pounds 14 ounces caughtFebruary12,1988

(#20) 19 pounds 1/2 ounce caught January 8, 1989

#8 20 pounds, 14 ounces caught February 4,1990

(#6) 21 pounds 1/2 ounce caught March 9, 1990

(#3) 21 pounds, 12 ounces caught March 5, 1991

(#2) 22 pounds 1/2 ounce caught March 12, 1991

Now based roughly on a pound a year in growth, you have one pound and a year and 2 months between #20 and #6 and one pound between #6 and #2 in one year and 3 days. I'm not saying that it is the same fish but man it looks like it. By the way #6 and #2 were caught by the same guy and #24 and #20 were by the same guy.

Now #4 and # 9 are not from the same lake as above this but they are both from the same lake as each other. These are the two you were talking about that they know were the same fish. Both from California, Florida strain, trout fed.

The third of these same hand full of lakes has the #23 and #24 largest bass. One was 18 pounds 13 ounces and one was 18 pounds 15 ounces caught 2 months apart.

22 of the 25 largest bass are from California. Only one of the 22 are from a lake not stocked with trout.

So the above is why I wonder if it should be a record if caught out of one of these lakes. There is a reason 21 of the top 25 are out of these lakes.

Again let me say this is nothing against the guys catching them. That would be tough to do. This is nothing against California and what they do with their fish. This is about 2 fish caught years ago that were huge that were caught in lakes that were never messed with that will probably soon be off the record list by 25 bass caught in lakes in california that stocked bass and fed them trout.

Mattlures reply :

Another thing that you may not know about our lakes is that they go through cycles. The probability of those bass that you mentioned being the same fish is minute. Bob Crupie who has the #2 (which I believe to be the true world record) has caught many bass in the high teens from castaic, but that lake hasn't produced a big fish in a while. The way it works is like this. One or two lakes will kick out a few big fish and then they taper off. I beleive this is because they are of the same spawn or at least the same year class. Castaic continues to produce big bass but not huge ones. Our lakes levels are continually going up and down witch can destroy a spawn. Usualy when one of those 20lbers were caught several others in the high teens were also caught within a year or two. When Dickerson caught that 21 his partner caught a 19 the week before at the same lake, but it was not the same fish. I fish alot of these lakes so I kinda have an Idea witch lakes will kick out big fish each year.

You said you think that all are big bass are of florida strain, well of course they are or at least have some in them. Bottom line is , If the record is caught in a legal sporting manner in a public lake where it has lived its whole life. and it meets all of the IGFA reqirements than it will be the world record. It wont matter if the bass ate trout or anything else. Now if somebody were to raise a record fish in a aquarium or small pond and then catch it of course it shouldnt count.

One more thing you said all but two of the fish came from Cali and the others were from Georga and florida. I dont know anything about the Florida fish but I do know if George Perry were to submit his fish today without a picture or a carcass and have his brother in law as his witness the IGFA would reject it. I dont know if he caught it or not but I do know that based on the lack of proof it should not be recognized. Bob Crupie with a photographed and documented 22lb1oz bass should be the world record holder.

BCAlbin reply :

Guys....This is getting old...

JT Bagwell reply :

My thoughts are on the front page of this site, in my column for this week. ;D

JT Bagwell

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
My thoughts are on the front page of this site, in my column for this week. ;D
JT Bagwell

I just read your column. It was a pretty good write up. The only thing I would say is that I dont hope the 22 pounds 4 ounce bass record lasts forever. I would like to see it be broken. I just hope across the board people will have to face the fact that it has fallen. When one of those lakes in California breaks it, I can bet you the bass world as a whole wont agree it was broken. So many people dont know the background of those bass. When that record falls, you can bet there wont be a fisherman out there that wont know, as Paul Harvey says "The rest of the story"

abelfisher reply :

I'm with bcalbin...this is getting old.

Marty reply :

Quote
Guys....This is getting old...

Quote
I'm with bcalbin...this is getting old.

I don't mean to be rude by any stretch of the imagination, but then why are you still reading and posting to this thread? ???

Chris reply :

About maybe 15 miles from my house is a lake thats stocked every year with rainbow trout. (I live in Illinois)It also has bass, bluegills, crappie, perch, spots, smallmouth, and channel catfish. This lake has a 3 fish limit of 14 inches. Max depth of 50 ft. It has plenty of cover, flats, points, grass, and humps in it. It is also clear water. I have fished this lake hard for the past three years and I can count on one hand how many fish I have caught 5lbs or bigger in this lake. About a year and a half maybe two years ago In early spring I caught a bass that was 9 1/2 lbs on a spinnerbait. The fish had a crappie tail hanging out of its stomach. To my knowledge this is the biggest bass that has ever been caught in that lake.(It was released)I have talked to others who trout fish and they have told me stories of bass taking their trout when they where hooked. So its a good bet that these bass are eating the stocked trout. This lake is stocked every year with 20,000 trout. This lake will never produce a record bass even though a northern bass has a longer life span than a Florida strain. The genetics and the environment are not there to grow a 20+ fish. In Florida it takes a Florida strain bass to reach 9 to 10 lbs about 10 years that 9 1/2 lb fish I caught might have been 20 years old. Any native bass in California might take 20 years to reach 10 lbs. A Florida bass is different. The genetics are different. It has a faster growth rate and the genetics to grow big quickly. Thats why this is such a debate. Let me also add that even if you stock a lake with Florida bass it has to have the genetics and environment to grow big. Not all Florida bass are able to grow over 10 lbs. If you take a bass who has the genetics to grow big it passes that gene to its off spring. So even if the lake was stocked in the 30's or 70's the genetics are still there in the lake and thats a gene pool that California never had naturally.

GamblerFL reply :

Quote
About maybe 15 miles from my house is a lake thats stocked every year with rainbow trout. (I live in Illinois)It also has bass, bluegills, crappie, perch, spots, smallmouth, and channel catfish. This lake has a 3 fish limit of 14 inches. Max depth of 50 ft. It has plenty of cover, flats, points, grass, and humps in it. It is also clear water. I have fished this lake hard for the past three years and I can count on one hand how many fish I have caught 5lbs or bigger in this lake. About a year and a half maybe two years ago In early spring I caught a bass that was 9 1/2 lbs on a spinnerbait. The fish had a crappie tail hanging out of its stomach. To my knowledge this is the biggest bass that has ever been caught in that lake.(It was released)I have talked to others who trout fish and they have told me stories of bass taking their trout when they where hooked. So its a good bet that these bass are eating the stocked trout. This lake is stocked every year with 20,000 trout. This lake will never produce a record bass even though a northern bass has a longer life span than a Florida strain. The genetics and the environment are not there to grow a 20+ fish. In Florida it takes a Florida strain bass to reach 9 to 10 lbs about 10 years that 9 1/2 lb fish I caught might have been 20 years old. Any native bass in California might take 20 years to reach 10 lbs. A Florida bass is different. The genetics are different. It has a faster growth rate and the genetics to grow big quickly. Thats why this is such a debate. Let me also add that even if you stock a lake with Florida bass it has to have the genetics and environment to grow big. Not all Florida bass are able to grow over 10 lbs. If you take a bass who has the genetics to grow big it passes that gene to its off spring. So even if the lake was stocked in the 30's or 70's the genetics are still there in the lake and thats a gene pool that California never had naturally.

I agree with you. It is sort of strange that last night on Hank Parker outdoors they were fishing Castaic lake. I didnt get to see the begining of the show but I believe he must have been fishing with a couple of the guys that were after the record. There was one other guy in his own boat that was also part of the show. That is one nice looking lake. I wish we had lakes here in Florida that looked like that.

While they were filming they showed the truck back up to the side of the lake and dump a huge tank full of trout into the lake. It was interesting that they seemed to be waiting for the truck and fishing where it dumped. They were using a huge 8 inch long swim bait rainbow trout. I was suprised and even Hank Parker was saying he couldnt believe the size of the lure. They of course didnt catch any 20 + pound bass but they pulled in a few 12+ pound bass.

This whole thread might not even matter. There is a lake that they feel will produce the next world record. It also has the Florida strain bass but the interesting thing about it is, bassmasters is part of it. If this does happen the world record will leave the united states. This lake is 10,250 miles from Lake Castaic. It is in Zimbabwe and thats where Ray Scott feels the record will come from.

To answer the subject brought up above about the world record that Perry caught not being a record if it were caught today because of not having the information needed. It was writen above that the size of the bass was taken from Perry and his brother. The pictures below is on the way to Lake Montgomery where he caught it. It shows the pictures of the bass and also seems to show it laying by a ruler.

squid reply :

This is one Topic that I have enjoyed reading....lots of humor in [glb]ALL[/glb] of it, if you don't take it seriously. Who cares where the record comes from....I just want to see it happen while I am still alive.

I just don't like the way the woman was treated when she had it beat....seems like they didn't want it beat just yet to me, or maybe by a woman.

bassmaster043 reply :

Yeah this is a great topic !!!!!!!!!

GamblerFL reply :

This has been a hot one. I thought it might change it up a little from other topics. I think it has been a good one. There is no right or wrong answer, it is just interesting to read about how most people would look at it. I think what would be real interesting is if the record did fall to a different country. Makes you wonder if it did fall to another country if people then would start saying it shouldnt count because the bass shouldnt have been there. ;D

Marty reply :

Quote
This is one Topic that I have enjoyed reading....lots of humor in [glb]ALL[/glb] of it, if you don't take it seriously. Who cares where the record comes from....I just want to see it happen while I am still alive.
I just don't like the way the woman was treated when she had it beat....seems like they didn't want it beat just yet to me, or maybe by a woman.

I recall when she and her son were a hot topic a year or two ago, but I don't remember the details. However, I seem to recall that there was some funny stuff and it wouldn't have been accepted regardless of gender.

I also would like to see the record broken. From what communication I've had with some of the California trophy hunters, the worst nightmare imaginable for them would be for the record to be caught by some guy who was drowning a worm looking for crappie. Ouch!

Mattlures reply :

That picture of Perry must be of another large fish. he was a good big bass fisherman and caught other big fish, but the record was never photographed.

The Lady who claimed to have caught the record was not belevable. Her story was very inconsistant and the fish in the photo was at least 5lbs under the record. She and her son claimed they thaught the world record was 24lbs and thats why they released the fish. Her son who was with her when she caught it had submitted entries for line class records and also had his boga grip scale certified by the IGFA before they caught that fish. They only had one photo were she stuck her arm all the way out and her fist was bigger than her head. The fish was no were near 23lbs. also it had a huge sagging bulge in the lower part of its belly. They also didnt turn the fish into the ranger. they had one witness who was a guy camping. The IGFA apropriatly threw it out. When somebody does break the record they will keep the fish and get it certified. That show with Hank Parker is funny. He had no idea how to use the big baits. also an 8-9in bait out here is a medium bait. I know guys who throw 15inchers. This thred is very interesting to me. I am suprised at the diferent opinions. YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE RECORD FALLING TO A GUY FISHING FOR CRAPPIE(or using playdoe for trout) I would be crushed!

tie1on reply :

It should count.If you go to basssmaster.com right now they have a story called growing big bass in small ponds.This topic is fun and is getting old though.Let me just say that I live in Texas but I think if the record is caught in California it should count.Just my personal opinion is that the best genetics do come from Florida.The Florida strain bass is the bass that everyone wants in their state.That I know of the Florida strain bass is the largest. No matter which state the new world record comes from it should count.But Florida will always get credit because thats where the really big bass came from origanlly.Except for that monster caught in Georgia.

Tom reply :

I personally think it should count. A fish is a fish is a fish. If most of you guys would have caught that fish, I guarantee most of you would argue for the record, simply because it is a fish, it's a record, and you caught it. If someone would put a bass on steroids, have it become a world record by far, and put it in a local lake around you that only a few people fish, again most of you would probably take a shot at it because it a fish. If you were in that guy's shoes, you would be thinking what I'm thinking. If you catch a fish, no matter where you get it, just so it is in water, everyone else had a fair shot at it. Someone is eventually going to get it, and it is like winning the lottery. Do you argue if someone wins the state lottery in Rhode Island just because it is small? No, because everyone in Rhode Island has a fair shot in it. Same with the fish, it was in the lake, and anyone could have caught it that fished the lake and I bet a ton of people fished there. No matter who caught it, they deserve it if they caught it and it was in the water (in my opinion).

Stickling reply :

words biggest bass pic, here :http://www.fishing-worldrecords.com/

Go to photo Gallery then:

Its at the top of page 7

GamblerFL reply :

Look at the nile perch at the bottom. Man oh man!

Mattlures reply :

Stickling, That is a picture of a replica. not a replica of the actual fish but one that was built to fit the measurements. Perry and his family ate the bass that night for dinner.

Fisher of Men reply :

World record caught by a crappie fisherman? It was here in Texas (well the state record). Barry St. Clair, the guy who caught the current state record of 18.18 lbs. caught it on a minnow in deep water on Fork. He now (or did four or five years ago) works at the Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center in Athens, Texas. When I was there a few years back, he'd talk about the catch in front of the dive show theatre, but never mention how he caught it. Of course he didn't lie, he just left the part about crappie fishing out. Of course I wouldn't like it if someone crappie or trout fishing caught the world record, but a catch is a catch. I know if I was crappie fishing and caught it, I'd feel different about it. That's not what any of us bass anglers want, but then again, it would be kind of funny if some granpa or some five year old drags it in on a crappie rig.

chefxian reply :

Yes the record should count. I just moved from Southern California a year ago to Florida. I lived an hour a way from Castaic. Bob Crupi is the man. Someone previously mentioned that California bass are tougher to catch, that is the truth. If you think your going to California on a bass excursion and that these lunkers jump into your boat. Good Luck.

Stickling reply :

Quote
Stickling, That is a picture of a replica. not a replica of the actual fish but one that was built to fit the measurements. Perry and his family ate the bass that night for dinner.

Still a picture of what it looked like.

10213

World record bass..or is it???? 2024

related General Bass Fishing Forum topic

previous topic

next topic

most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic