World Record Largemouth

[Wayne SW/MO]

Well then are you saying that just about every record fish should be deleted from the books? Take a look at the post by Sam earlier, he made a good point. If you are complaining about fish being caught in non native waters, then technically every fish caught in a reservoir should be scratched out. A reservoir is what? Man made. Man created them, thus altering nature's normal growth patterns for bass. And I am sure if you will look, there are non native shad that now habitat these reservoir's water that the bass now feed on. I guess we altered them again. So from your point of view most every bass that inhabits a reservoir is technically a "hybrid". All these fishing tournaments on Table Rock, Lake of the Ozarks, there are bass being weighed in that I guess "shouldn't count", and all the big tournaments should be on the original rivers of the nation? Sounds kind of silly to me.

Sorry, good argument, but I still think they should be separate .

[fishgypsy]

IMO, if the fish is biologically a largemouth bass, it should count. Whether it was caught in Florida or Texas or Michigan or Japan is immaterial- it doesn't change the fact that it's a largemouth bass, Micropterus dolomeieu. Same with browns- doesn't matter if it was caught in the Black Forest of Germany, or Ireland, or Iceland, or the Little Red River, or Tierra del Fuego, or Lake Michigan- they're all biologically the same species, regardless of where they come from.

Same with bait vs. artificial- it doesn't matter that the guy caught it on a bluegill, that doesn't change the species.

I figure you can either split it up into a ton of different categories (by variety- lake run vs. sea-run vs. resident, steelhead and rainbow trout separate, etc), as well as method of capture (lure, bait, other), or you can just go by the largest fish of a given species is the world record, regardless of where it was caught and what it was caught on. I prefer the latter, it's simpler.

Genuinely though, I really don't care. It makes no difference to me. Just my thoughts, though.

[Wayne SW/MO]

What strain was the fish?

[getfished]

This thread has some interesting perspectives mentioned. I enjoy seeing a trophy sized specimen of any species. I don't like the sacrifice of an animal for wall art. The really large largemouth like 20 lbs and up really look more like an unhealthy obese example of a species. I prefer those in the 8-15 lb range.

If I remember correctly some of those world class bass from California were caught using sight fishing techniques and exerting long periods of persistence. This doesn't really measure up to what I call fishing even though it may be legal.

[ness]

What strain was the fish?

I think it was a Pisces maximus

[redbud]

This thread has some interesting perspectives mentioned. I enjoy seeing a trophy sized specimen of any species. I don't like the sacrifice of an animal for wall art. The really large largemouth like 20 lbs and up really look more like an unhealthy obese example of a species. I prefer those in the 8-15 lb range.

If I remember correctly some of those world class bass from California were caught using sight fishing techniques and exerting long periods of persistence. This doesn't really measure up to what I call fishing even though it may be legal.

you mean like ripping fish off spawning beds? It is illegal in many states ,so spawning bass should not be included in record books either.