Would you like to explain what genetic strain or strains that you are looking for? Are they different than the general genetic of those of general blue catfish population?

The genetic argument is essentially the same argument as the big spawners argument. The root of this argument is from the extrapolation of pairing two big and tall man and woman together their offspring will be big and tall, it's kind common sense isn't it? So you need to save those big spawners to preserve the superior genes, etc, etc. So goes the logic.

Well then, may I ask how many eggs did an 80lb female blue catfish lay last year? And the year before that,... and how many of her offspring from 5 years ago are now also laying more eggs this year?

Lake Lewisville blue catfish record of 63 lb caught back in 2000 must have laid millions of eggs before she was taken out of the water. So we know the "gene" is there, but 15 years later, the 2000 lake record still stands. Does genetic explain anything in LL ??? I don't think so.

Weather blue catfish are native to Texas or not is beside the point . There are a lot of misinformation going around nowadays, be it online or on guides boats to a point of outright hostility towards other fishermen who harvest fish larger than 10 lbs. The purpose this thread is to inject facts and scientific studies into the mix to separate facts from fictions.

I've included several paragraphs of excerpts that contains general information on blue catfish that are helpful in providing better understanding why high harvest of blue catfish in tawakoni contribute to fast growing of blue cats and the abundant population of large fish in that lake.

On the other hand, without high harvest of large and small fish, blue catfish will certainly reach the 75% of all biomass in tawakoni you will have what biologists call inter_specific competition for food amongst different species which will eventually lead to intra - specific competition within same species of blue catfish... a recipe for very slow growth rates.

Below article by Kim Graham research article published in 1999 American Fisheries SYMPOSIUM. Excerpts will further explain...

Blue catfish in the Rio
Grande River, Texas, grew at a faster rate than
fish in the 3-year-old Amistad Reservoir, Texas
(Henderson 1972), however, fish from different
sites within the reservoir grew at different rates.
Jenkins (1956) attributed decreasing growth rates
of blue catfish through 9 years in Lake Texoma,
Oklahoma, to inter-specific competition that oc-
curred as the fish community reached carrying
capacity. Intra-specific competition caused slow
growth of blue catfish in Kentucky Lake, Kentucky
(Conder and Hoffarth 1965), whereas growth im-
pairment of blue catfish in Kentucky Lake were
believed to be caused by both intra- and inter-spe-
cific competition (Freeze 1977). The fastest
growth rates for Kentucky Lake blue catfish are
believed to be in areas where intra-specific com-
petition was reduced by high harvest (Hale 1987).

Just because a l fish grows to be a big fish doesn't mean it has good genes..you can take 2 fish of the same size and have like a 10 year difference or more between those 2 fish and obviously the younger fish has the better genes being that it grew to that size much quicker than the other one...and to be honest I do not know how many eggs a 80# blue laid last year nor does it matter because it varies between fish. Age effects the amount of eggs a blue lays, not it's size...the older a catfish gets, the less eggs it produces directly affecting how efficiently it spawns...I never said preserve the genes by throwing the big spawners back because a giant catfish at the upper end of its lifespan may actually not even spawn efficiently enough to produce healthy enough eggs that aurvive and the number of eggs produced will be a smaller amount than another fish of the same size but younger age.. but just like I said at the beginning of this post...a big fish doesn't necessarily mean it has good genes...it's growth rate and it's overall size at a certain age as a combination is what reflects good genes or bad genes..the 63# lake record blue caught on lake Lewisville may well have been at the upper end of its lifespan or it could've been in the middle..we will never know...

So I have seen every conservation info thread get ruined by one to two individuals,if you stated your opinion bank fisher 50 now let others add their 2 cents without you adding anymore. You joined joined 3-5-15 and you have 48 post and its 100 percent anti conservation. I know I'm on a fishing forum but it looks awfully fishy!

Mad_Carter, below is the purpose of this thread.

You can't tell a whole lot from the lake records. I have personally seen two fish out of Lewisville recently that would have broke the record if the people would have chose to turn it in.

I have caught about 20-30 catfish in the last 4 months that would have surpassed a current lake record. Not everyone that catches a record, gets it certified. I also have certified scales in my boat at all times.