World record bass caught

[bullmerc]

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.

[F16ENGMGR]

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.

I'd much rather had seen the fish caught in the U.S. but the record saying WORLD constitutes throughout the globe unless you would have preferred to see previously caught state record fish beaten ?!?!?!

[bassfisherman99]

Bullmerc,
If something is a world record would that not include the whole world? What places could the fish be caught and count as a "world record"? Its hard to understand your logic on this.

[slowjamcdub]

A Japanese television clip featuring Kurita and his catch recently surfaced on YouTube.com. To see it, click here. At the time of the video, the fish was alive, but it is now reportedly dead and frozen. In the video, Kurita says, "I knew it was big fish, but I didn't think it was this big. I did not know if it was a new world record or not."Kurita has experience with big bass. Last year he reportedly caught an 18 1/2-pound largemouth from Biwa on a large swimbait.
The video also notes that Kurita has been fishing for 18 years and will submit an application for world record recognition to the International Game Fish Association. If Kurita's catch holds up, it would be the biggest legally caught certified largemouth in history (Perry's fish weighed 22-4) ... and a tie with Perry's catch as the IGFA's all-tackle world record.
A tie? That's right. According to IGFA regulations for record fish weighing less than 25 pounds (such as all of the black bass subspecies), the replacement (record applicant) must weigh at least two ounces more than the existing record. The Japanese fish that is subject of such interest and inquiry today outweighs Perry's fish by less than an ounce.
"A catch which matches the weight of an existing record or exceeds the weight by less than the amount required to defeat the record will be considered a tie," according to the IGFA.

[JD7.62]

In a country such as Japan where keeping fish is more popular then keeping dogs, its a shame they couldnt keep it alive (now I know not EVERY one there knows alot about fish keeping, Im just saying). Too bad, that fish would be AWESOME to see swimming in a giant aquarium.

[smljaw]

Bullmerc's post doesn't make any sense to me either... Anyway, this big toad was caught on a large body of water. It's not like it was a pet fish raised in a pond or something. IMO, this new potential record appears much more legit than the 25 pound snagged bass caught in CA a few years ago.

[rbcrawdaddy]

I agree!!!!!

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.

[JD7.62]

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.

[Tim_T]

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.

Would that count on all of the Texas bass as well? Their Share-a-Lunker program is pretty similar to what you are talking about.

[bullmerc]

Bullmerc,
If something is a world record would that not include the whole world? What places could the fish be caught and count as a "world record"? Its hard to understand your logic on this.

My logic is simple. When a species is taken out of it's native enviroment and removed from the obstacles it has been subjected to for thousands or millions of years does this not create a "freak of nature"????????? A prime example is kudzu. Where it comes from there are NATURAL controls to keep it in check, here in America these controls don't exist and it runs rampant.

A largemouth bass transplanted to Japan does not face the same conditions that the species has to endure in it's native area. This in my opinion gives the transplant an unfair advantage to fish raised in their native lands.

If your reasoning is correct why does someone not build a special pond and breed only record class bass to inhabit this pond and then feed them a steady diet of trout and other highly nutritious foods. In a few years a 25 pound largemouth bass is caught. Do you think this should count as a new world record????????????

[bullmerc]

I'd much rather had seen the fish caught in the U.S. but the record saying WORLD constitutes throughout the globe unless you would have preferred to see previously caught state record fish beaten ?!?!?!

Are largemouth bass native to Japan???????????? If they are and this is a native species then by all means if it is large enough it should be considered. If the largemouth bass is not NATIVE then it should not count.

If WORLD RECORDS are allowed to be broken by fish species transplanted into other enviroments where they don't face the same perils that the species has had to face in the normal range then this gives the transpant and unfair advantage.

We all have seen how introducing any non-native species into a habitat that they are not native and without natural controls gives the non-native species a distinct advantage over the native species.

If a fish caught anywhere in the world regardless of the circumstances is to be considered a RECORD then hopefully ever fish on record now will be wiped away by commercial manipulation and introduction. This possibility should require all records to be held to a stringent set of conditions in order to be considered as a world record.

[Webby709]

It really is sad to see Americans still whining about Japan doing it better. In the 70's-80's we whined about them do a better job of building a car and now we suffer. If instead we had done less whining and more pulling up the boot straps and doing something about it maybe we could figure out how to do it better again.

Instead of putting up excuses maybe we should just work harder at improving.

Just my 2 cents.

Congrats to Japan at created such a great fishery.