https://www.facebook.com/share/p/D3v7AoM5buLcPQN3/?mibextid=ox5AEW


Someone brought this up a few months ago, there is a new category for largemouth, now it’s Florida strain and Northern strain. The George Perry bass is labeled as a northern, so that record will now be completely impossible to beat. I’m not sure why the Japanese bass didn’t get this new category record, it’s obviously a FL strain also. I would think Barry St. Claire’s Fork bass could be the new world record FL strain if they submitted it, then I suppose you could do any of the big California bass. Odd times and I doubt this record last all that long.

That has to be an error. What does "the largest fish to be genetically verified this year" have to do with the record?
The state record for largemouth bass in Florida is 17.27 pounds.
Lots of larger Florida strain bass have been caught in Texas and California.

The catergory was just opened by the IGFA, it was talked about on Ken Dukes podcast. But to your point, that’s what I’m saying, I would think the record could replaced with any DNA sample from any fish that’s larger. Hopefully someone knows more about this.

Back in the late 70s or very early 80s, i well remember seeing a list of records for Lmb, and it had Florida's record at 19lbs, and a few ounces. If I'm not mistaken it was 2nd, only to Perry's world record. Dave Zimmerlies 20+in California had'nt been caught yet.

They sure cling to that George Perry fish don't they.

I'll give George the benefit of the doubt and say Perry's fifteen pounder was Florida strain......but I find it impossible to believe that a fat, lazy big Florida bass would expend enormous amounts of energy swimming upstream to the colder Georgia waters.

The IGFA got it wrong this time.

It isn’t a complicated topic if you read and listen to what is available out there about this topic. But you should try to at least listen to Ken Dukes podcast if you’re interested in this topic. It will clear a lot of confusion you might have.

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/live/EkcOfgFOE_g?si=oAZFlR2kez10nhua[/video]

It’s completely fine if IGFA wants to accept what academia has decided, in terms of the new subspecies of black bass. It’s also okay if IGFA wants to follow suit and make new record categories for these new fish.

However, there never was and never will be a PURE strain northern bass that weighed over 20 pounds. California and Japan started growing these big fish after they put Florida strain fish in their waters.

It should be the exact opposite of what they did, if anything. Make the existing world record the Florida strain record. Open up the northern strain record and let that be claimed. Californias record before they introduced FL fish was 14 and change. I think a northern strain tops out right around there, maybe up to 18,19 but not 20 or above.

At the end of the day the world record bass is the biggest bass, to most, whether it’s a Florida, northern, or hydrid of the two. As long as it comes from public water IMO. Private water science projects, just aren’t as prestigious to me.

Agreed, keep the high fence fish out

Perry's bass doesn't get close to meeting requirements for IGFA submission. For an organization that is such a stickler for minutiae, the fact that they hold onto this "record" diminishes their reputation and authority.

I’m in favor of a “modern era” record.

Denial of Bailey’s massive spotted bass (or is it Alabama bass now? Can’t remember) at Bullards bar because it was weighed in a boat, comes to mind.

There is arguments against the validity of a lot of old records.

Smallmouth, Perry’s share of the largemouth record, walleye, and Muskie to name a few.

Wipe the slate clean

Agree.

When is IGFA going to recognize the two completely new species of bass that TPWD created in their labs?

This is kinda ridiculous

What are those?

I know.. But it's slow around here and I'm bored..