# eating bass



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

My grandson loves to fish ( he is 8 ) and he LOVES to eat fish. I try to talk him in to turning bass loose but he insists on 1 or 2 to eat. Oh well he usally wins and they eat good. He seems to like bass better than saugeye,panfish etc. Any good ideas on steering him away from eating all the bass out of the faem ponds we fish? I already told him about the population issues in small ponds and he says thats why he only wants 1 or 2


----------



## Pike (Apr 7, 2004)

I guess the young man likes what he likes.


----------



## twistertail (Apr 10, 2004)

I dont think there is anything wrong with eating bass, especially from a farm pond where they could get over populated if selective harvest is not observed. Sounds like he already understands if he is saying he only wants 1 or 2. On the other hand if you dont want him to keep any bass at all, well he is 8 and you're the grandpa so you are the one making the decision.


----------



## NewbreedFishing (Apr 15, 2004)

nothing wrong with him eating largemouth as long as you explain the concept of selective harvest to him (keeping the smaller fish and releasing the larger ones to reproduce). we kept (50) 8-10" bass from a small lake (10acres) a few weeks ago. felt guilty as i was cleaning these tiny bass but they were tasty and i know i am helping the food chain a bit. smaller bodys of water quikly become stunted as most do catch and release which can cause negative results over time. i have noticed more healthy looking bass and the size has increased over the past 3-4 years as a result of thinning the heard.


----------



## CrappieTacos (Jun 22, 2010)

NewbreedFishing said:


> nothing wrong with him eating largemouth as long as you explain the concept of selective harvest to him (keeping the smaller fish and releasing the larger ones to reproduce). we kept (50) 8-10" bass from a small lake (10acres) a few weeks ago. felt guilty as i was cleaning these tiny bass but they were tasty and i know i am helping the food chain a bit. smaller bodys of water quikly become stunted as most do catch and release which can cause negative results over time. i have noticed more healthy looking bass and the size has increased over the past 3-4 years as a result of thinning the heard.


I understand keeping a few bass for the dinner table, I also understand keeping fish to avoid stunted growth factors, but *50* 8-10 inch bass?!?!?!?!? That's excessive. I dont know what the population numbers are for this particular body of water, but for all intents and purposes you singlehandedly decreased the bass population by 5 fish per acre. 

Im not looking to start another stupid internet fish fight, this was just shocking to me, thats all.


----------



## Joey209 (Oct 17, 2007)

This is gonna be awesome:bomb:


----------



## jonnythfisherteen2 (Mar 5, 2011)

i can hear the timer on the bomb, it's coming...


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

It's smarter to KEEP 2 5 pound bass and release 10 1 pound bass. 1 pound bass reproduce as well.... I think it's to the point that fishermen want every lunker released so THEY can catch them again.

_"Females average about 4,000 eggs per pound of body weight, but the number can be quite variable. Larger fish have larger eggs but fewer eggs per pound of body weight. Largemouth bass also spawn at 1 year of age if they have reached 8-10 inches."_


----------



## NewbreedFishing (Apr 15, 2004)

No worries...that's how over populated this lake is. We caught close to 30 in the 12-14" range as well. OSU determined that the lake was stunted heavily with Lmouth, Crappie, Green sunfish and rock bass. We hold a tourny there for kids every year and remove 200-300 crappie and green sunfish while teaching the kids some of the fundamentals of fish managment. Most people wouldnt understand the removal of bass that small but thats what it takes. No one keeps anything beside the crappie from this lake so i take em out and like i said it has helped raise the average size. Finally starting to see bass in the 3-4lb range again. Sbreech i totally disagree with that concept!



CrappieTacos said:


> I understand keeping a few bass for the dinner table, I also understand keeping fish to avoid stunted growth factors, but *50* 8-10 inch bass?!?!?!?!? That's excessive. I dont know what the population numbers are for this particular body of water, but for all intents and purposes you singlehandedly decreased the bass population by 5 fish per acre.
> 
> Im not looking to start another stupid internet fish fight, this was just shocking to me, thats all.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

There is a pond outside of Troy back in a wood lot a friend and I carried a small row boat and trollingmoter to. We must have caught 100 small bass and they all had big eyes and a big head. We told the owner about his problem and he said keep all you catch. There wasn't hardley any meat on em. Tom


----------



## CrappieTacos (Jun 22, 2010)

i understand. I fish a small lake from which Ive been told by the land owner that every bluegill we catch "just throw em on the bank." Its his estimation that the shear # of bluegill in the lake contributes to stunted growth of the fish he actually wants to catch. I have a problem with catching a fish and leaving it for dead; either keep it or release it, so I keep enough bluegill to eat as per his request. I guess the nonchalant nature of the post was a concern to me because I know how many meat hunters there are out there. Its good to hear from people who are dedicated to proper fish conservation methods to not only sustain a healthy fishery, but to improve it.


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

A small pond is very different from a large body of water where other large preditor fish reside. I try to manage my pond but I do it the way I decide. My pond is only 3/4 acre and I take out several bass (mayby 50) each year. I also keep feeding minows, several hundred dollars each year and removeing all the large catfish. The bass I remove are usually 1-2 lbs. larger and smaller fish are released. I have introduced to other preditor fish channel cats and a few yellow perch. I have never caught a yellow perch I think the bass and cats have eaten them. Every pond is different and the owner needs to decide how what type of fishing they want to manage it for. I choose larger bass but I know it can only handle around 10 large bass even with the bait fish I supply. I thought channels would be good but they seem to be competitive for the bait fish and minnows. Yellow perch was most likely a bad idea but I think they are most likely gone. I did put in redears this year to clean up the snails.
Every pond is different, they all should have regular maintance for both fish population and weed control. The way they are maintained is purely the decreation of the owner and/or the person spending the money on the pond they all need attention and they all need something different.


----------



## CARP 104 (Apr 19, 2004)

sbreech said:


> It's smarter to KEEP 2 5 pound bass and release 10 1 pound bass. 1 pound bass reproduce as well.... I think it's to the point that fishermen want every lunker released so THEY can catch them again.
> 
> _"Females average about 4,000 eggs per pound of body weight, but the number can be quite variable. Larger fish have larger eggs but fewer eggs per pound of body weight. Largemouth bass also spawn at 1 year of age if they have reached 8-10 inches."_



It's not so much as to how much eggs they carry per body weight, but rather the big fish genetics inherited by the larger fish.


----------



## TDFleischer (Apr 5, 2010)

This osu extension bulletin is important. Also, Keeping a couple for your grandson to eat is fine!

http://ohioline.osu.edu/b374/

_Sent from my DROIDX_


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

Saugeye Tom said:


> My grandson loves to fish ( he is 8 ) and he LOVES to eat fish. I try to talk him in to turning bass loose but he insists on 1 or 2 to eat. Oh well he usally wins and they eat good. He seems to like bass better than saugeye,panfish etc. Any good ideas on steering him away from eating all the bass out of the faem ponds we fish? I already told him about the population issues in small ponds and he says thats why he only wants 1 or 2


sounds to me like he,s already got it figured out. the size of the fish in a pond is controled by how many fish are in that pond. it is actualy good to keep a few fish from a pond. now if alot of people fish that pond its another story. i have a friend who has a real nice pond. he doesnt allow anyone to keep any bass. the biggest bass i,ve seen is about 3 lb. im sure if they were thinned out alittle they would be larger fish. but its his pond and he likes catching alot of bass. me on the other hand would like catching a few less bass but bigger bass. catch and release is a great concept, but in a controlled pond you can over do it. just my opinion


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

you absolutely have to thin populations in some bodies of water to maintain a healthy population of quality fish. if you dont, the water will become overrun with small fish and thus the chain reaction begins. ponds and smaller lakes have to be managed to keep that from happening. newbreed is right, i, personally, just cant bring myself to intentionally kill any fish, its a job for others


----------



## dad3mc (Mar 22, 2011)

CrappieTacos;

I've got a 14 yr old daughter that loves fishing (as do I), no matter the size of fish. If you've got lots of bluegill that need thinning, and eating (in reference to the pond in your post, although it may not be your own), I'd love to help out, and my daughter would totally get into the fishing! PM me if you want, would enjoy the fishing opportunity (we are environmentally friendly, respectful fissher people, and just love fishing!)


----------



## ChrisB (May 13, 2004)

Large mouth bass, most over rated game fish in America.I never understood the obsesion, then again most people don't know why I love catfish. I apologize if I upset anyone but thats just my opinion. I do love smallies though. Hard fighting fish that look really good. So much money is put out on the Laremouth and speaking as a fish management guy they can be a nightmare to manage at times if your teying to get them to maximum growth. I had sucsess when my friend Denny and I built a Five acre lake from scratch and I had time to plot everything out from the first bucket full of dirt with the digger. His soil had a good ph and a small spring was pouring into it. We were hoping it could support cold water species, but he lived in northern Kentucky and even with the constant shade and spring water, cool or warm water species were the choice. We strated by fertilizing the water with a type of aquashade which also promoted the growth of photoplankton and zooplankton. Then we stocked fatheads and golden shiners. I feel the shiners were the favorite food of the bass. As a result we had to stock more than we initialy planed. The bass we stocked were yearlings however the hatchery we bought them from gave us some breeders as well which was nice. The yearlings ranged from 5-8 inches( it was from a southern hatchery with a longer growth season). I have to cut this short got to go to work. I
have been rushing this whole thing here so it may have gone off topic. I'll be home most of the day tommorow and I can get out my notes about my friend's pond and other laked and ponds I managed.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

CARP 104 said:


> It's not so much as to how much eggs they carry per body weight, but rather the big fish genetics inherited by the larger fish.


That's not how fish work. Their size is controlled by growth season, size of the water, number of fish, and amount of food. Fish are very "simple" creatures controlled by their habitat. In perfect conditions, they will grow until maximum age. In bad conditions, they may barely grow until they die.


----------



## Having Fun (Aug 23, 2006)

As I am sure most here will agree with, keeping bass from ponds and lakes is completely different from taking small mouths from local rivers and creeks. It seems to me that they are too slow growing and precious a resource to eat. Eat bluegill, crappie and cats from rivers and whatever from lakes and ponds but don't eat river smallies, put em back. End of sermon.


----------



## CARP 104 (Apr 19, 2004)

sbreech said:


> That's not how fish work. Their size is controlled by growth season, size of the water, number of fish, and amount of food. Fish are very "simple" creatures controlled by their habitat. In perfect conditions, they will grow until maximum age. In bad conditions, they may barely grow until they die.


Sbreech,

You are correct in that fish size is controlled by all the factors you mentioned, but you simply cannot discount genetics from having a hand in producing big fish. 

Like all living things, parents pass traits to their offspring...and a bass that has grown to a large size is going to have different traits than one that has only grown to a smaller size. All bass do not grow to the same size because they are in the same habitat/body of water, a select few will grow to be larger than the rest.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

sbreech said:


> It's smarter to KEEP 2 5 pound bass and release 10 1 pound bass. 1 pound bass reproduce as well.... I think it's to the point that fishermen want every lunker released so THEY can catch them again.
> 
> _"Females average about 4,000 eggs per pound of body weight, but the number can be quite variable. Larger fish have larger eggs but fewer eggs per pound of body weight. Largemouth bass also spawn at 1 year of age if they have reached 8-10 inches."_


You obviously don't understand the concept that big fish produce big fish. Not all bass are destined to become lunkers. By removing the larger fish you wipe out their genetics from the dna gene pool of that particular body of water. Even under the best conditions not all bass in a body of water will reach lunker size and to eliminate them like you propose is illogical.


----------



## fontinalis (Mar 29, 2011)

sbreech said:


> That's not how fish work. Their size is controlled by growth season, size of the water, number of fish, and amount of food. Fish are very "simple" creatures controlled by their habitat. In perfect conditions, they will grow until maximum age. In bad conditions, they may barely grow until they die.


this is true, i have studied and currently work in the fisheries field. food+space=growth, genetics dont have much to do with it, the lunkers are just good hunters.

If you want proof, buy 10 goldfish of a similar size, give them some individual space, feed them the same amount, they will all be similarly sized in a year. Now take 10 more dump them in together, feed them together. a few fish will become dominand, eat more food and get bigger faster


----------



## fontinalis (Mar 29, 2011)

spfldbassguy said:


> You obviously don't understand the concept that big fish produce big fish. Not all bass are destined to become lunkers. By removing the larger fish you wipe out their genetics from the dna gene pool of that particular body of water. Even under the best conditions not all bass in a body of water will reach lunker size and to eliminate them like you propose is illogical.


you dont understand it either, take hatchery fish for example, lets say bluegill, the broodstock fish are generally very large impressive specimens of the species. They are fed pretty much all they can eat, and they are all similarly sized. When brooders get too big and old, they take a batch of smaller fish, and turn them into brooders. Then that batch will get big and old. 

Of course you might have certain fish that are better hunters, or prefer certain foods over others. but in general, any fish has the potential to be a lunker for its particular species. If you dont believe me catch a bluegill, keep it in a tank and feed it for a few years, let me know how it goes.

The best way to increase size is to reduce competition, whether that be by thinning a population, or supplemental feeding. I am no pro, but i know my way around a hatchery, just my 2 cents


----------



## Bonecrusher (Aug 7, 2010)

Sweet! entertainment for a Thursday at work. This is my favorite subject! 


I say eat a few! Don't care for the large mouth taste but you can't beat a good plate of smallies and morels!


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

fontinalis said:


> this is true, i have studied and currently work in the fisheries field. food+space=growth, genetics dont have much to do with it, the lunkers are just good hunters.
> 
> If you want proof, buy 10 goldfish of a similar size, give them some individual space, feed them the same amount, they will all be similarly sized in a year. Now take 10 more dump them in together, feed them together. a few fish will become dominand, eat more food and get bigger faster


Fontinalis, spfldbassguy is partially correct, probably some info that he picked up from bassin' magazine (which, by the was, would not have been an accceptable source for my masters thesis on this subject, albeit 20 years ago). There IS a phenome that can affect a fish to grow larger - myostatin - which can affect the over-production of muscle mass vs fatty tissues. This can occur in any mammal or fresh water fish. It has even been applied to amphibians in gene therapy, causing abnormally shaped, muscle-head looking frogs. This was observed as early as probably 30 years ago, but wasn't actually sequenced and defined until the late 90's/early 2000's. 

This can occur naturally, and does, as a defect in development across dna strands affected by mutated mRNA. The fish/frog/human/whatever will appear to be freakishly shaped when this occurs, being overly massed yet not super-strong, usually being sluggish in speed and a diminished strength. SOME scientists are actually trying to synthesize as to create higher ratios of muscle mass / food intake to increase the world's food source, but I'm not a big proponent of that. One other side affect of this mutated gene is often sterility, and usually on the female side, due to protein and muscle blockage not allowing the eggs to flow during spawn.

Outside of THAT, there is no lunker bass gene, no matter what Bill Dance may say in his 30 minute program after the Daytona 500 race.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

fontinalis said:


> you dont understand it either, take hatchery fish for example, lets say bluegill, the broodstock fish are generally very large impressive specimens of the species. They are fed pretty much all they can eat, and they are all similarly sized. When brooders get too big and old, they take a batch of smaller fish, and turn them into brooders. Then that batch will get big and old.
> 
> Of course you might have certain fish that are better hunters, or prefer certain foods over others. but in general, any fish has the potential to be a lunker for its particular species. If you dont believe me catch a bluegill, keep it in a tank and feed it for a few years, let me know how it goes.
> 
> The best way to increase size is to reduce competition, whether that be by thinning a population, or supplemental feeding. I am no pro, but i know my way around a hatchery, just my 2 cents


Makes sense to me. Plus if that lunker has reproduced over several years would not those offspring have lunker genes? When you are catching a 12-15 inch bass how would you know if its mother or grand mother was a 8 pounder?


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Some of you need a serious lesson in genetics. 
Heaven forbid someone keep a bass to eat.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

fontinalis said:


> If you want proof, buy 10 goldfish of a similar size, give them some individual space, feed them the same amount, they will all be similarly sized in a year. Now take 10 more dump them in together, feed them together. a few fish will become dominand, eat more food and get bigger faster


Wouldn't you have to use the same ten fish the second year to see if there were any change in growth. Otherwise there could have been a different factor that actually affected any difference in growth.

This thread stinks. Come on bass men. You can do better than this! I surely thought with all the rain this thread would be better by now. Here's your second chance.


----------



## NewbreedFishing (Apr 15, 2004)

the lake i am speaking of has very little cover so the bass are on the move to eat the fatheads that are stocked yearly and i would imagine the large ones hunt small crappie and green sunfish. i wouldnt normally keep a bass because thats mostly all i fish for and they dont taste that good. the landowner association wants to improve the size of fish availible and removing 50 in the spring and 50 in the fall has quickly benifited the overall size and health. i am waiting to be approached by one of the homeowners and expect to get reamed for keeping a basket of babys because most folks dont understand the negative effects of overpopulation. they just want to keep dumping 100'$$ of fatheads into the system which is basically a wayste.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

M.Magis said:


> Some of you need a serious lesson in genetics.
> Heaven forbid someone keep a bass to eat.


I have no problem with people eating small bass but I do have one when it comes to eating the bigger ones. What he suggested is ludicrious to me,keep 2 5lbers and leave 10 1lbers. To me that's asinine but it's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

I have to admit when I first came across this thread I didn't give it much chance at survival but it's been very interesting and I've learned a lot from it.I am still confused because there are so many opinions and it's hard to get a fix on who is right and who is wrong as the theories make sense each way.It's made it this far because all you are trying hard to keep it civil with your posts & comments,let's keep it going and we all can learn something from each of you.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

spfldbassguy said:


> I have no problem with people eating small bass but I do have one when it comes to eating the bigger ones. What he suggested is ludicrious to me,keep 2 5lbers and leave 10 1lbers. To me that's asinine but it's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it.


I guess I was referring more to the original question and how this thread morphed. I dont completely disagree with you on that point, though I dont think theres a definite answer


----------



## eyefish22 (Jun 18, 2008)

Next time you take him fishing bring along a panfish rod. Keep a bass and a few blue gills or crappie and have him do a side by side comparison, he will likely never want to eat a bass again. Worth a try


----------



## CARP 104 (Apr 19, 2004)

Sbreech,

Would you still happen to have a copy of your thesis or the sources you used? I would be interested in reading into this further. I find it difficult to believe that big bass don't have characteristic traits that can be passed to offspring, which will increase the offsprings chance of becoming a big bass. 

If a large fish is aggressive and smart, which enabled it to become that size, then the offspring would likely inherit these same traits and thus their chance of growing into a big fish increases.

I don't have facts to back this up, but I would like more factual information on the subject if anyone has any.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

CARP 104 said:


> If a large fish is aggressive and smart, which enabled it to become that size, then the offspring would likely inherit these same traits and thus their chance of growing into a big fish increases.
> 
> .


this was something i was wondering. it was earlier stated that big fish get big because they are superior hunters and or have more of an apetite. isnt it possible that those traits were passed down from parents to offspring. 


i think it would be foolish to assume that bass do not pass genes to offspring when it seems as though all living creatures pass their traits on to their offspring whether is superior hunting skills, mass appetite, or just "fat bastard" dna.

i do however agree that the proper habitat has to be in place as well. i think all things are considered and you cant point to just one thing that creates a trophy.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

lordofthepunks said:


> this was something i was wondering. it was earlier stated that big fish get big because they are superior hunters and or have more of an apetite. isnt it possible that those traits were passed down from parents to offspring.


Just because someone says it doesn't mean it's always true. Genetic traits may or may not be passed on. Maybe the male was a dink. 
Ask any cattleman if certain traits can be guaranteed from one generation to the next. He will tell you absolutely not.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

I really wish I did have my research. Unfortunately, a house fire back in 2005 decided otherwise. To be honest, I don't know how it survived the trip back to ohio in my POS car I had upon graduation...It really was an interesting subject. I, by all means, am NOT the difinitive expert on this subject, but I do know a bit about the root genetics behind the things. After college my education in the biological sciences took a wayside to my interest in computers (fueled by the increased market for jobs in latter stated field.) There are plenty of books out there on the topic, many newer than what I learned from, and plenty of information on the web.

Thinking about lower-level organisms in the sense of genetics is a lot different than in higher-level mammals. For us (humans) we have a multitude of differntial options for characteristics - hot-headed, timid, weak-minded, yadda yadda yadda. Each of those characteristics are nurtured or partially suppressed by surrounding & environment.

Lower-level organisms, like fish, cockroaches, etc, are pretty much hard-wired for environmental response to help them survive. Barometric pressure changes, they bite/don't bite. Temp changes, bite/don't bite. A splash in the water will trigger 1 of 2 responses - eat or flight, depending on other environmental conditions. For the roach, light/dark. Put 1000 roaches in the center of a dark room, turn on light in center, and all will scatter to the perimeter - the closest ones to the walls will normally make it there first, meaning the ones in the center will be the last to hide, first to get squished by the "homeowner." The survivors will grow bigger than the one squished.

Bass are aggressive. They will eat. They will spook. They will eat other bass. They can "learn" feeding patterns. But outside of genetic mutation, we saw nothing to favor any concept of big bass passing on big-bass genes, recessive or dominant. If I had found such, I would very much like to name it for LOTP's phrase, "fat bastard" dna.

And for the record (WAY back on topic), I don't eat bass. Crappie, catfish, and bluegill taste much better.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

i honestly dont know, im as curious as anyone and sbreech seems to know more about it then most people. 

if he says that traits and "fat bastard" dna are not passed down then i would have to beleive him. all im saying is it is tough for someone like myself (un-educated in biological science) to accept that fish do not pass on genes like most of the animal kingdom.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

lordofthepunks said:


> i honestly dont know, im as curious as anyone and sbreech seems to know more about it then most people.
> 
> if he says that traits and "fat bastard" dna are not passed down then i would have to beleive him. all im saying is it is tough for someone like myself (un-educated in biological science) to accept that fish do not pass on genes like most of the animal kingdom.


Don't feel bad. As I said, I'm no expert. I got my BS liberal degree (entomology) and turned focus on marine bio for my masters, neither of which I have used since. New data may have risen. Fish DO pass on genes, but in the same way that other lower organisms do. But they focus more in a sense of fight/flight characteristics. They don't "learn to hunt." They just do.

And to sum up my studies in marine bio, we had 100 holding tanks, each with 1 male and female. Each from a distinct brood from a hatchery (not brothers and sisters). Each tank same size, same amount of daily food, same sunlight, same oxygen level. A 10% sampling was placed into much larger tanks, more food, better "conditions." The 200 test subjects, after 1 year, were all within an ounce of each other. Of the 10% sampling, in a large single container (a pond, environment), the sizes were scattered across the board, but the following year, as the test subjects were contained and maintained, the fish in the "pond" started to equalize out in size. Pretty neat stuff. I'd be willing to bet that any of our local fish hatcheries could verify similar results.  

Big fish have gotten lucky, not gotten eaten, and been released by you and I. They are territorial, lucked into the safest place in the pond next to the freshest, tastiest bluegills, out of the reach and mind of the average fisherman - until a WILLING, DETERMINED fisherman - say a pro guy - pitches into it, and snags that hog. Then, guess what? He gets released, and swims back into his log. Lucky again.


----------



## NewbreedFishing (Apr 15, 2004)

Nice read Sbreech!! Thanks!


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm not so sure you would neccesarily need a "big bass gene" as much as you would need a mix of good genes per habitat requirements. Which is found in the larger fish in an ecosystem. Thus a good reason to let some live. It's evolution. As stated before you can't guarantee a trait is passed on, but if you load the probability in your favor, your chances of the trait showing up increase accordingly.

Obviously in controlled environments things come out cut and dry. Mother nature never follows these same rules.


----------



## eyefish22 (Jun 18, 2008)

Off the topic of genetic traits, if you have two 5lbers and ten 1lbers and are tring to grow large fish, there is no way you convince me you would be better off keeping the two 5s. The large fish will be the desired size much sooner than the 1lbers and the forage base will be better if you were to take 10 small fish over 2 large ones. Part of the reason a pond will have stunted growth is because with a large number of small preditors the forage is less likely to reach maturity and grow to the size where they are a substantial meal for the larger preditors. My 2 cents.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

If big bass genetics aren't passed on and doesn't play some sort of role then I suppose those people down in Texas running that Lunker program are just wasting their time.


----------



## Pigsticker (Oct 18, 2006)

spfldbassguy said:


> If big bass genetics aren't passed on and doesn't play some sort of role then I suppose those people down in Texas running that Lunker program are just wasting their time.


BAM! 

I just read umpteen comments and that one nailed it IMO. Texas wants to be the biggest and best in anything they CAN control. I'm thinking They didn't spend decades and multi millions on bad science on the Lonestar Lunker program. Not With the biologist on their team.

Its all documented in a favorite book of mine titled Sowbelly. If u fish and maybe if u don't you'll find it an interesting read.


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

Pigsticker said:


> BAM!
> 
> I just read umpteen comments and that one nailed it IMO. Texas wants to be the biggest and best in anything they CAN control. I'm thinking They didn't spend decades and multi millions on bad science on the Lonestar Lunker program. Not With the biologist on their team.
> 
> Its all documented in a favorite book of mine titled Sowbelly. If u fish and maybe if u don't you'll find it an interesting read.


Man I just checked that book out of the library for like the 5th or 6th time. Like you said it's a really good book and a very interesting read. Two thumbs up!!!


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Pigsticker said:


> BAM!
> 
> I just read umpteen comments and that one nailed it IMO. Texas wants to be the biggest and best in anything they CAN control. I'm thinking They didn't spend decades and multi millions on bad science on the Lonestar Lunker program. Not With the biologist on their team.
> 
> Its all documented in a favorite book of mine titled Sowbelly. If u fish and maybe if u don't you'll find it an interesting read.


Thanks for the pointer Pigsticker! I just found that on Amazon for $6 and will order it when I get off work. The one by Monte Burke, I'll assume? I'll be curious to see what all they did to create big fish - genetic altering, environmental conditioning, natural selection, phermone therapy,...and hopefully it explains in the book their processes of difinitive isolationism to weed out what works and what doesn't. Maybe they've found the 105th chromosome for the largemouth bass.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

sbreech said:


> Thanks for the pointer Pigsticker! I just found that on Amazon for $6 and will order it when I get off work. The one by Monte Burke, I'll assume? I'll be curious to see what all they did to create big fish - genetic altering, environmental conditioning, natural selection, phermone therapy,...and hopefully it explains in the book their processes of difinitive isolationism to weed out what works and what doesn't. Maybe they've found the 105th chromosome for the largemouth bass.


They, Texas Parks and Rec., are not doing any genetic altering or phermone therepy. They are just flooding their gene pool with what traits work in Texas waters to grow big fish. Kindof an enhanced by human hand natural selection. Again, all the lab work in the world does not trump Mother Nature.


----------



## loves2fishinohio (Apr 14, 2011)

Just my opinion, there are much better eating fish than largemouth, and ones that would keep a youngster much happier in the catching process, like panfish or even catfish.


----------



## Pigsticker (Oct 18, 2006)

I usually see Sowbelly at bargain bookstores for as little as $2-5 and yes its by Monte Burke. I wont spoil it for u but its mostly about the foggy, mysterious details surrounding the former world record largemouth caught by George Washington Perry (great name IMO) back in the 1930's. It also profiles some colorful characters in pursuit of the record. A whole chapter is devoted to the Texas program of selectively breeding monster bass.

It inspired me to start using bigger lures and focusing on big bass myself. I don't use live bait like they do though. I guess the new record was caught on a bluegill so they're onto something.


----------



## RiverDoc (Mar 12, 2010)

sbreech said:


> But outside of genetic mutation, we saw nothing to favor any concept of big bass passing on big-bass genes, recessive or dominant. If I had found such, I would very much like to name it for LOTP's phrase, "fat bastard" dna.


Sbreech: I'd like to add to your comments, if I could. Just like any population of any given organism, you are going to have a normal distribution in lengths, weights, and metabolic rates. And in regards to population fluctuations, I suspect like many insects, etc., that there are boom-and-bust cycles that no one can really explain. Thank you.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

I guess I opened a can of worms


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

Saugeye Tom said:


> I guess I opened a can of worms


hey
worms do catch fish.LOL.

just have a couple of things i,d like to say. even tho i really dont target bass, i really do like the taste of smaller bass in the 1 to 2 lb range. to me they are as good as any fish i,ve eat. real sweet tender flakey white meat. if im fishing a pond that i know isnt over fished i,ll keep a few.

when i was a kid we use to sneak into this huge pond in tenn. about 5 or 6 ac. the owner would give us permission to fish but then if his dad caught us here he came on his horse with his shotgun. our best bass bait was small bluegill. one day i was trying to catch some small gills to use for bait. i had this stick about 3 to 5 inches long, about a 8 ft line tied to it with a small hook and just about a 1/4 piece of worm, just pitched it out by the lily pads. here come this huge bass took my worm i jerked and pulled this huge bass out before he had a chance to fight. she turned out to be 23 inches. thats a big bass for a 8 or 10 yr old kid with a string. we never had any way to weigh fish back then. i guess thats the biggest bass i ever caught. but we caught plenty with baby gills. youall have a fishy day.LOL.
sherman


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

What a memory. I don't target bass like I did when I was young We try to multi species and the kid gets pretty lucky with bass and saugeye. He picked up not one but 2 smallmouth last July in the great miami outside of Huber. They were both over 5 lbs and he got em on rubber craws. The real craws were shedding and the temp outside was over 90. I hope that made a memory for him. he was 7 at the time


----------



## BottomBouncer (Jan 20, 2005)

M.Magis said:


> Some of you need a serious lesson in genetics.
> Heaven forbid someone keep a bass to eat.


Yeah, I'd rather attach one to an 8/0 and let the flatties fight over it.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

BottomBouncer said:


> Yeah, I'd rather attach one to an 8/0 and let the flatties fight over it.


well we dont have to worry about that, since your trying to catch them with 2oz lures


----------



## spfldbassguy (Mar 23, 2009)

Saugeye Tom said:


> I guess I opened a can of worms


There's always a few issues posted on here that will that. It doesn't bother me at all if people keep bass to eat,it only bothers me when they take the bigger ones. I appauld you for getting him out there and trying to pass along the "fishing fever".


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

Thanks, He likes reading all this too


----------



## treytd32 (Jun 12, 2009)

Did they mention what strain of lm they used in their lunkers program?

As with nearly all organisms environmental factors play a much larger role in the survival and growth than any other single factor. While I wouldn't discount genetics entirely I know that environmental factors do affect the growth and development of organisms before, during, and after they are born. Forage, competition, habitat, temperature, AU, interference, pH and HU are a few of these factors that affect aquatic organisms. These factors are much more likely to affect the "personality" and physical make up of an organism as it develops, enabling it to better thrive in its specific habitat than say its parents developed "traits" being passed on. There is no way to say that because the parent generation was especially aggressive or overly cautious that the offspring will be either of these. Specific environmental conditions generally dictate this. I would attribute how large a fish grows to these environmental factors before I would trace it to genetics.

Even in people the environment plays a major role in how we develop from the time of conception up until the time we die. Specific traits and disorders can be triggered by any number of environmental signals at any time during development. Two completely regular parents with no medical histories of ds could give birth to a child with the developmental disorder. Two parents who have a history of ds in their family, the mothers diet is high in folic acid and iron, and give birth to a completely normal child. This is not to say that this is only reason for this, because mutations occur and are corrected naturally by the human genome constantly, but as an example, in this case environmental factors played a part in insuring the health of the developing child.

The environment that an organism develops in plays a large part in how it develops whether that be physically, chemically, or with specific character traits.


----------



## teknical 1tch (Sep 7, 2008)

Saugeye > Bass.


----------



## bopperattacker (Sep 12, 2008)

I like my bass (river smallmouth only) with a side of Bald Eagle BBQ Wings with a couple Panda Steaks. Nothing beats it.


----------



## viper30j (Jan 15, 2010)

Genetics don't determine size of bass, oh really?

Does this include Florida/Texas/Cali bass? If brought to ohio, the would be limited to 10-12 lbs?

There is a reason state record bass are tested. There was a case I read about on here yesterday where a state record bass was disqualified becuase it was determined to be a Florida strain fish.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

viper30j said:


> Genetics don't determine size of bass, oh really?
> 
> Does this include Florida/Texas/Cali bass? If brought to ohio, the would be limited to 10-12 lbs?
> 
> There is a reason state record bass are tested. There was a case I read about on here yesterday where a state record bass was disqualified becuase it was determined to be a Florida strain fish.


There are 2 subspecies of LM bass...Northern and Florida. The Florida subspecies has been introduced to almost all of the Southern US & most of California. They can cross-breed.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't think a fla straine would attain a large size here because of the short growing season and lack of forage that they have in fla


----------



## treytd32 (Jun 12, 2009)

the fl strain grow faster but are less tolerant of harsh conditions from what I have gathered..organisms who have longer periods of optimal metabolic conditions will grow faster. Thats why I asked about the lunker program


----------



## Hatchetman (Apr 13, 2004)

Welcome back !! Missed your posts. Do you like your eagle off the grill or from the oven ?? I go for the grill and BB sauce....


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

Saugeye Tom said:


> I guess I opened a can of worms


I have caught my biggest bass on worms.


----------



## ML1187 (Mar 13, 2012)

Talk about brining a post back from the dead


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

ML1187 said:


> Talk about brining a post back from the dead


Omg...help me


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

I'd say biomass limitations dictate the size and quality of bass in a pond over genetics. An ecosystem can only take so much input and produce so much output. You can have 5000 bass of 1 lb or you can have 500 10 lbrs. However, with all variables remaining the same that same pond won't be able to produce 501 bass at the 10 lb mark. 

I'm sure genetics plays a role, but not substantially like some think. There's no such thing as a big boned fish.

Ha, just noticed this is an old thread. lol


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Flathead76 said:


> I have caught my biggest bass on worms.



And your biggest flatheads on bass?


----------



## NCbassattack (May 5, 2014)

Some recent genetic evidence shows the florida bass may be a distinct species unto itself, not a subspecies of micropterus salmoides.

Read down the page about Dr Phillippe.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...ck-bass//RK=0/RS=lgw4VfLRx.8nGboGcb6muUlA0Hg-


----------



## 9Left (Jun 23, 2012)

Tom... You started a war here! Lol! If there's anybody I know that is more than knowledgeable enough to take a kid fishing and teach him good sportsmanship and ethics... It'd be you my friend! Keep on taking him out, eat a few for dinner and keep stuffing him with knowledge.. It's a good thing.


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

9Left said:


> Tom... You started a war here! Lol! If there's anybody I know that is more than knowledgeable enough to take a kid fishing and teach him good sportsmanship and ethics... It'd be you my friend! Keep on taking him out, eat a few for dinner and keep stuffing him with knowledge.. It's a good thing.


I totally agree.


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

M.Magis said:


> Wow, this one was out of the blue. But you’re talking apples and oranges. EPDs listed in AI catalogs are based on the family history of that bull, and his/their known progeny. They also list the accuracy percentage of each trait. In this case, we were discussing two wild animals. There’s just no way to predict what traits will or won’t be passed on.


I guarantee the genetic trait of being delicious and nutritious was passed along.


----------

