I talked with Greg Binion at TPWD - 361-547-9712.

According to the published article on the first selective breeding program evaluation, age-4 is the best time for making growth comparisons. If the bass are younger, the differences in growth will be less distinct/meaningful, and if the bass are older/bigger it is harder to pick them up by electrofishing. Here's the article on the first study: http://www.seafwa.org/publications/journal/?id=402025.

I didn't hear about a different test.

Agree.

Makes one wonder why that lake was selected for OWR.

You'd think they'd have selected remote lakes far away from any metroplex, with good annual rainfall totals, and more southern locals (less chance of deep freezes)

Jaret's assertion made me want to look at some statistics and, sure enough, of the two lakes I researched, black bass were much more heavily harvested on Toledo Bend than on Lake Fork.

Why did I compare to Lake Fork? Well, I sort of thought that it might be considered more of a sport fishing lake, that, and being near D/FW. Toledo Bend, on the other hand, sort of ties back to the idea that more rural areas likely rely a bit more on lakes for a food/protein source.

Here, though the tables aren't exactly formatted the same (???), it shows that for legal fish (those you'd have a right to harvest based on their sizes) caught on Lake Fork, all but a percent or two are returned to the water. On Toledo Bend, the numbers of legal fish released are much lower across several different studied periods.

First chart is Lake Fork, second is Toledo Bend.

Brad

And Toledo has an 8 fish limit with a Louisiana license I believe also. Lots of 5+ fish go to the grease over there.

I have a hard time giving much credit to a table that has "basses" in the title. LOL

It does sound funny to most ears; but, it is technically correct when referring to two or more species of black bass.

Sounds to me like they may refer to all of them as "yummy" down near Toledo Bend!

Brad

That test was SL fish versus native fish, was it not?

It probably was but they didn't like the outcome so it got pushed to the side. They can't let go of all that sponsor money

The Naconichie fish wasn't pure florida but it was in a group that was release in 2009 that weighed 2.2 to 3.3 pounds. When I caught her in 2013 she was 12.54. So in 4 years she gain 9 to 10 pounds depending on her weight in 2009. Yes she was the first data point.

"That test was SL fish versus native fish, was it not? " - NoWeighers

The published study was about comparing age-4 selectively bred SL offspring with age-4 resident LMB. By resident fish, they meant any other LMB in the lake at that time, regardless of genetics. I believe most of these resident fish had some degree of Florida bass influence in their genetics because all the study lakes had been stocked with pure Florida bass in the past. They found that on average, the SL fish were about 1/2-pound heavier at age-4 then the resident age-4 LMB.

The ongoing new study is comparing the growth of age-4 selectively bred SL offspring with age-4 pure Florida bass.

Absolutely. I'd be ecstatic!

Some selectively bred bass can get to 8 pounds by 4 years old, so I don't doubt the very fast growth rate of the fish you caught (I'm guessing it was verified by genetic testing or had a pit tag, correct?). Also, as far as I'm concerned it shouldn't matter if it is pure Florida or not, it obviously was a special fish to grow that fast. However, in my opinion, when we're talking about the Marine Creek fish, it is the first data point because it crossed the 13-pound mark. That is a significant milestone according to many bass anglers (even when they don't submit the fish to the SL program). There was a 10+ caught from Marine Creek a few years ago and was confirmed by DNA testing to be a selectively breed LMB. It could be argued that this fish was a data point too. However, I don't think that counts because it was less then 13 pounds. You've got to set the bar somewhere and in my mind the frame of reference should be the ShareLunker qualifying weight.

The main goals of the Sharelunker program is to increase awareness of catch and release, caring for big fish, and spreading the popularity of bass fishing to boost economic output. Says it right there on their website.

All the science about genetics and whether or not this or that bass was a descendant of a SAL brood fish, along with the "Operation World Record" program are all ways to promote the program to achieve the above goals and they achieved them very effectively. Not to mention the free replica and lifetime fishing license incentives for donating. They achieved their goals whether or not the breeding program actually "worked" or "failed" or whether or not the program resulted in damage to the 13+ pound fish population. It drew attention to the sport and still draws attention and that is what TPWD wants. Attention to the sport is also what tackle dealers, fishing guides, gas station owners, and hotel/resort owners want.

There is certainly far more awareness now of catch and release in our state, fish care, and more money spent on bass fishing than there was 30 years ago and the Sharelunker program has played a part in that so in that respect, the program is a success irregardless of your standpoint on the science projects they conduct. And say what you will but the bass fishing in Texas is pretty damn good if you ask me.

AgSellers04^^^^+1

To those of us that have watched this program from its inception, it is clear to see that the goalposts have been moved on several occasions.

All programs evolve with time.. Rightly so.. This was an experiment after all..

SL has done a lot to promote fishing in the state of Texas. No one has said differently..

But when it comes to growing more big fish faster.. Well the facts are there.. It ain't happening..

It's all about having the most Florida genes in place possible when we get lucky enough to have good conditions for an extended period of time that leads to a batch of big fish.. That's a fact..

Mix in a few scandals, kill a bunch of big fish, blame the public for it, and suddenly it is easy to see why the program can loose popularity with the fishermen..

Especially when you look at the disappearance of truly big fish, mostly caused by the bounty on the thirteens..

I have spent hours looking at the data and the numbers.. And I hate math.. But the numbers don't lie..