Glad that it interested you FishingRod. I looked at all of the relationships I could plot in the Texas Top 50 data. Most displayed R^2 less than 0.01 and none displayed this level of correlation. It was not expected. I just couldn't rest until I resolved why. What I found is this. The function the distribution regresses to is the RW corresponding to the average weight of the distribution (16.2 LBS). This is the weight where growth of Texas LMB stall. Keep in mind, however, that Lake Fork (responsible for most of the Top 50) hasn't produced a fish > than that average weight since 1996. So this wall of 16.2 pounds is the past for Lake Fork. The number is lower now due to population differences and such. Its wall is lower than that now.

FishingRod, after seeing how tight the relationship was and how RW favored shorter fish ... the first thing I wondered was this. "Could selecting fish on the basis of high RW and removing fish on the basis of low RW select for slow growing offspring?" Here is the answer I arrived at. Yes, but this would be especially prevalent when the population biomass is at or near carrying capacity. IOWs the risks are greater when populations are experiencing forage limitation which would impact the those at the very top of the food chain the most (larger fish that were also the fastest growing).

It is possible to keep fish growing maximally and maintain high RW. But for this to occur, forage availability cannot limit their growth or prevent them from reaching satiation. Under this condition, I do not know if fast growers would have lower or greater RW than slower growers. It is conceivable, that fast growers grow faster because they are more apt to consume when their RW is high. There could be a tendency inherent to the individual genetics that governs when a fish is satiated or is inclined to stop/slow consumption even when prey is abundant. One fish may stop eating when its RW reaches 140, while another 160, while another 180. I don't know but if a fish begins to consume less when its RW reaches a threshold like 120, then you will never get that fish to a RW of 160. Could this be difference between slow growers and fast growers? I don't know ... but it would be an interesting program of research especially if that "consuming at high RW" were a genetic trait that could be selected for. Even so, fish are still limited by their environment. A fish with such promising genetics can only do as well as its consumption of forage will allow. Deprive her of food? She isn't much different than any other fish unless she is a very determined competitor who can take more than her share.

Oh I almost forgot about your last question. Before the introduction of Florida LMB, Texas produced fish <14 lbs. Florida genes have had a positive impact on ultimate weights. I suspect all of the Texas Top 50 possessed some level of Florida genes.