Quote Originally Posted by bullmerc View Post
If the FISH is not native to the place it is caught IT SHOULD NOT COUNT. A species transplanted (and maybe even manipulated in a lab) and raised on a high nutrition diet for the sole purpose of making them RECORD CATAGORY fish has a huge cloud of being legitimate for the purpose of WORLD RECORDS in my book.

There should be a rule in the record book that says fish not native to the place where the fish is caught will not count as a record class fish.

The "current" world record bass was a fish in its native enviroment and had to go through all the perils of surviving in order to reach the size it did. The odds of Perry's bass even reaching adulthood let alone 22 plus pounds were beyond imagination. I am sure it never ate it's first trout.

On another point I have always felt that California bass that are transplants should not also count in the record books. Have fun catching the beasts but don't try to belittle an actual world record fish by species manipulation.

If they allow a bass caught in Japan to qualify as a NEW WORLD RECORD this will mean that being a WORLD RECORD has no standing and is just another example of outsourcing every thing we hold dear in this country. The same holds true for fishes native to other places. If they are transplanted into America they should not be considered as candidates in the record book.

Sounds like some one is butt hurt that the fish wasnt caught in the U.S. What I have in bold makes absolutely NO SENSE. I think my 2 yo has better logic skills then you.