Researchers have shown that vulnerability to angling is a heritable trait. They have demonstrated that selection of low vulnerability to angling lessens vulnerability with each successive generation (to date up to 4 generations that I am aware). Here are a couple references demonstrating those findings.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...nerability_to_Angling_in_Largemouth_Basshttps://www.researchgate.net/public...rgemouth_Bass_Through_Selective_BreedingIt is interesting that selection can do more to lower vulnerability than it can to increase it. In the first paper this is depicted nicely on page 194 (journal page). They express total catch rate (TCR) in (catches per hour) per (fish density). Their fish density is individuals per hectare. And the value for the parental population is .0136 fish/hour/(individuals/hectare). So one could multiply this number by the fish density to understand the average catch rate. In a balanced pond with 123 LMB/hectare (50 LMB/acre), the expected fish catch rate is 1.67 fish/hour or an effort of 35 minutes per fish. The TCR for density in acres is .03332.
They were able to improve the catch rate by selection in successive generations by selecting fish caught more than 3 times to be parents of the next generation. The first generation change was pretty dog gone good but the second and third generations had much more muted effect. Fishing catch rates for a density of 50 LMB/acre for the Parent, 1st Gen, 2nd Gen, and 3rd Gen were 1.67 fish/hr, 1.84 fish/hr, 1.89 fish/hr, 1.93 fish/hour, respectively. So after 3 generations the catch rate improved by 15%.
On the other hand, selecting for low vulnerability to angling has an opposing more profound effect. Low vulnerability was selected on the basis of having never been caught. Fishing catch rates for a density of 50 LMB/acre for the Parent, 1st Gen, 2nd Gen, and 3rd Gen were 1.67 fish/hr, 1.30 fish/hr, 1.09 fish/hr, .85 fish/hour, respectively. So after 3 generations the catch rate worsens by 49%.
I have once read that catch rates of 1 fish/hour are considered good fishing by most people and all of these numbers are in the neighborhood of that number with a balanced population density of 50 LMB. We are talking vulnerability to artificial baits and these studies do not test or consider vulnerability to live baits. I can tell you from experience that LMB in our local intensely fished community lakes and ponds are vulnerable to live bait but are much more difficult to catch on artificial bait. In as much as that is true, live bait is an option for removing fish that may never be caught on artificial bait. Such may help with efforts to select for high vulnerability.
In the first paper above they had a good practical method of marking captures. They would clip the top 1/3 of a dorsal spine beginning with the second spine and moving posterior with each succeeding capture. I consider this a quick and dirty way record catches so that one could select for easier to catch individuals. Perhaps the best sizes to record captures are for LMB in 8" to 12" range. As they become adults >12" one could select for spine clips of 3 or more and do a different kind of fin clip to mark that fish as selected for the adult population.
On the other hand, selecting for high vulnerability does not improve catch rates much above the parent population. So it might be a whole lot easier to buy recruits which are not selected on the basis of vulnerability. IOWs you may not notice the difference 15% improvement makes and it would be a practical source of adult recruits with acceptable catch rates. Just seems to be an option. So one could fin clip those recruits and remove any fish >12" that isn't fin clipped making some effort to use live bait to catch low vulnerability recruits produced in-situ by natural reproduction. I guess which approach a person might take would depend on personal preference but the cost of 12" recruits is low enough in relation to time and other costs to be a non factor for most.
