Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations What makes exceptional trophy lakes different?

Snipe, I use a formula that I regressed from a length weight chart that was representative of Northern LMB. That said, all LMB are bass of the same species with some regional variation. IOWs the samples will vary by region from which the charts are derived. But when you think about it all LMB are similarly shaped and I think as long as one's yard stick is consistent then one can gain an understanding of how "fat" or how "lean" a bass is relative to the yardstick.

You mentioned:


So the question is ... which is cart and which is horse? I figure you have kids and have watched them go through growth spurts. When I observed this, I noticed that coincidentally their appetite to consume food also increased. So did they grow just because they spontaneously started eating more? OR did they eat more because they spontaneously started growing? Here is what I think about it. I think hormones are released at different stages that stimulate growth and when more of these hormones are present the greater the demand for consumption will be to support growth and this will be evident as increased consumption and correspondingly greater growth in weight. Furthermore, I think RW gets high because fish are consuming more than required to grow as much as their genetic predispositions allow them to in length. If length was simply a function of weight gained ... then fish wouldn't have very high RWs ... they would just grow in length more in line with the standard weight charts. We may not be able to agree, that is OK, I respect your opinion. If shared by your KS biologists, I respect that too.

A couple of years ago saw the Texas top 50 LMB at the TWPD website. I copy and pasted the contents of into excel and looked at it statistically. The data showed an average weight of 16.27 lbs, an average length of 26.57" and an average RW of 1.43 (per my chart). The data suggested that to have a good chance of making the Top 50, an LMB needs to be a minimum length of 25" and a RW >110. Now a 25" LMB at 110 RW will definitely NOT make the list. Takes a fatter LMB of smaller length in order to weigh enough. Plotted RW vs Ranking and Length vs Ranking the data showed that ranking is not tightly correlated with either RW or Length. IOWs one may not use Length as a predictor of ranking or RW as a predictor of Ranking. Even so, regression shows that ranking favor longer fish and fish of higher relative weight.

Notice that the limit of RW is around 180 just like it is in CA. There is no trout forage to support the larger fish and so only a small minority of the Texas fish have enjoyed such high RW as 180.



On the other hand, in Texas lakes, the RW of the top 50 LMB depended a lot on Length. In fact, Length explained 89.34% of the variation of RW. This must be environmental and represents the effects of competition and forage supply. Likely forage availability is most favorable to fish =< 25" in length. This contrasts with Dixon Lake where Dottie at ~ 28" had a RW in the neighborhood of 178. There in Dixon, forage availability doesn't seem to diminish for longer LMB like Dottie. One should keep in mind that it may be possible that none of the fish in Dixon have genetics as good as any that made the Texas Top 50 (which are the extreme examples of a much larger population undergoing less advantageous environmental conditions). Just saying ...