West Boggs Fish Story

[MikeAxsom]

I thought some of you might enjoy seeing a story about an 11 pound plus bass from West Boggs. It is up on the westboggs dot com website and moving around in some local/regional newspapers.

[GeoFisher]

I thought some of you might enjoy seeing a story about an 11 pound plus bass from West Boggs. It is up on the westboggs dot com website and moving around in some local/regional newspapers.

Nice............REALLY NICE fish.............

BUT...............don't call it close to 12lbs without WEIGHING it.

NO formula is worth a crap...............

Later,

Geo

[MikeAxsom]

Geo,

I agree that formulas are at best only a guideline. If this weight estimate were being used in some way to set an official record, or receive any sort of prize money, the guidlines woudl not be sufficent to prove anything at all. But for nothing but bragging rights, I'm still fine with letting Shawn have all the bragging he can stand.

I have persoanlly witnessed some 9 and10 lb. bass on scales here, and this one beat any that I have seen. Maybe it was 12; maybe it was 11. Maybe it was 10.6. I would not swear to any of that in an court. But for the same reason that a formula might have it come out over the formula's average, it might also come out under. Might it have been 13? I doubt it but I don't really know that either.

The main point of the story was that the fish was caught by a tournament angler who was fishing for fun at the time, so proof is not really a requirement.

[fishNnut]

That is a heck of a fish. Congrats to the feller.

Heck, they even caught three small fish (one keeper and two 13"), does that mean there is a future for Boggs?

[MikeAxsom]

Well, no... and yes.

The lake currently has some very large bass, and still in sufficent numbers to be very attractive for bass anglers. But the sever lack of recruitment (new fish being able to survive to adulthood) is not a good sign for the future. The big ones have to die off at some point and with the abundance of Gizzard Shad it is a forgone conclusion that things will get worse instead of better.

On the other hand, all this, including the massive growth of shad, show that the lake is highly productive. That means if we can get to another renovation, i.e. killing it out and restocking, the bass and pan fisheries will rebound rapidly. The trick then will be to avoid another reintroduction of shad.

That is a mixed sort of thing with this big fish story. The reason this monster got this big is because of the abundant shad forage. Bass that get big enough do thrive on that food supply. But what is good for those individual bass is a slow and sure death to a fishery overall. People who want to see a fishery stay healthy, balanced and provide good fishing for many years would never participate in a shad introduction. People who only care about the chance to catch a few really big bass tend to see things differently.

[GeoFisher]

Again......that is a MONSTER of a fish.

I've caught some nice ones there, and KNOW there are others.

I cannot wait to get up there again, but that will prob have to wait until fall........

Thanks,

Geo

[shane2480]

I am going to start by saying that is a GREAT FISH. My next is a downer. I punched the length and girth into 3 different BASS calculators and got a weight in the 9 pound range on all 3 calculators. If the measurments are put into a "general fish " weight calculator you get 11+ pounds. I will end with again GREAT FISH but I very seriously doubt that fish to be over 10lbs.

[MikeAxsom]

I also tried to find fish calculators online to see how the measurements might stack up for the weight possibilities. I know Fishin.com does not like links to be posted, but I am going to give you a couple that seem to agree with the idea of this fish being in the 11 lb+ range.

http://www.fishdreams.com/calculator.all_species.html
Be sure to check the catagory for freshwater bass.

http://www.myoan.net/fishing/weight_calc.html
This one does seem to disagree, and places the fish at under 10 lb.

http://www.mepps.com/fish_weight_calculator/
This one seems to be in the middle, but does not have a variable for fish body type.

Bottom line again is that we have to remember that there is no such thing as an official weight for a fish that was not made on certified scales. Estimates of fish size from any other criteria is all speculation, and has long been the subject of fishing jokes and the proverbial fish story. But having seem a lot of West Boggs bass, I willing to leave my own guess stand that this one is as big as Shawn thinks it is. If anyone can show me a better one frmo here, I'll be happy to tell folks about that one too.

[shane2480]

Like I opened with, I'm not trying to shoot the guy or fish down, even a 9 lb bass a great fish in anyones book. I am also going on recent experience of my own on saying how off the "fish calculators" are. Last month I caught a 23.5" long 16.5" girth fish that weighed on a scale 7.24 and according to the calcs that I found that same fishes measurements said that it was 8.59. That is a pound and a half off. Where I work I see alot of fish and people that exagerate the size(especially bass) It may very well have been an 11+ not trying to deny that, either way great fish and congrats to the angler on a fish of a lifetime from the southeren Indiana area.

[HOGMONSTER]

One issue regarding recruitment of bass and panfish is the issue of aquatic vegetation in the lake or lack there of. One downside of the drawdown the last few years is that it all but wiped out the vegetation that was in the lake. I understand why they did the drawdown and maybe it did help reduce some of the shad in the lake, but it also eliminated vegetation that is vital in many ways for recruitment of bass, bluegill, etc. This is very evident at lake monroe where back in 95 and 96 the lake was up extremely high and pretty much wiped out the vegetation in the lake. At the time it was one of the top destinations in the country for crappie and regionally for bass. Fishing really fell off the next few years and every time the vegetation starts to make a comeback we end up with extended periods of high water that puts us back to square one. That being said Monroe is first and foremost a flood control lake, but it still stinks.
I read a article in a magazine a while back that talked about this issue and its main point was that a lake with the right mix of vegetation can support up to 10 times the fish than a lake without vegetation. The resurgence of Kentucky lake over the past few years has been credited to the resurgence of vegetation in the lake.

Just something to think about.

[Stevens]

Your right hogmonster, if the lake had vegetation there would be a stronger recruiment of young bass. Almost all of our pits in southern indiana have gizzard shad, but they also have grass and you still have pretty good numbers of bass and panfish in alot of the lakes. I've noticed in lakes without shad that have grass, you get HUGE numbers of bass and panfish but if there not managed correctly youll get a bunch of stunted fish that wont grow and you might have a handful of big bass that by chance got big enough to eat the small bass and panfish. Its all about managing each lake and situation right and i think west boggs is being managed the best it can be for the time being. It doesnt surprise me at all that with the gizzard shad and absense of grass your gettin huge bass but no young fish are making it, it really explains why it was such a top notch fishery before the shad, since there still wasnt any grass we probably got the perfect equation for numbers of healthy bass

[fishNnut]

I tried Boggs last week. Caught several nice fish early. Had a good time, but definitely not worth the $13.20 launch fee. From now on I'm just going to have to stop at Patoka instead of driving by it on my way to Boggs