STATE RECORD BASS IS DEAD!!!

[FlipR70]

I actually talked with Al Linder on Saturday and asked him if the fish was doing OK. He said that he gave it about a 60% chance of living on Saturday.

Today, the StarTrib is reporting that the fish died. If you go to their HSOforum and search for 'Bass' you'll find the story.

Regardless, the DNR apparently wouldn't bend on some of their regulations which didn't help matters too much with the fish's survival. In fact, the story in the Star Trib states that they didn't want to certify the fish unless Raveling KILLED it.

CONSERVATION??????

In Texas, bass over 10lbs can be donated to the DNR for breeding purposes and I believe that the fisherman receives a replica.

Why can't the DNR here in MN can't see the value of a state record fish for breeding or at least display. If they can't, they need to re-evaluate their goals.

Fuming,

FlipR70

[Chris Haley]

Record bass dies after being kept alive for possible display

State Wire

October 11, 2005 1011BC-MN--RECORDBAS

?

?

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - A record-setting largemouth that was caught last week has died of unknown causes, after it had been kept alive in a tank in Brainerd for possible display.

The 8-pound, 15-ounce fish caught by Mark Raveling died Sunday.

"I felt sick about it,'' said Raveling, 54, of Spring Park. "I wanted the fish to survive.'' He now plans to have it mounted.

Raveling, a tournament bass angler for 20 years, could have been cited for illegally transporting the fish while it was alive. State regulations prohibit the transportation of live fish, except minnows, from lakes. The regulations are intended to protect fisheries from other species, especially invasive ones.

Mike Hamm, DNR enforcement chief, said the regulations conflict with a state statute, which appears to allow the transportation of "wild animals.'' He said there are no plans to cite Raveling, and DNR officials will re-examine the statutes and regulations.

When Raveling told DNR officials that he wanted to register his record fish alive, he was first told he must kill it. He kept it alive in a tank and it was certified as a state record fish.

Ron Payer, DNR fisheries chief, said Raveling apparently violated DNR regulations when he transported his bass to the DNR area fishery office in Montrose for identification.

Raveling eventually took the fish to Brainerd, apparently another violation. He put the fish in a large tank owned by Al and Ron Lindner of Lindner Media Productions, who have a permit to keep some native Minnesota fish species on display for photographic purposes.

DNR officials were puzzled by another issue: The fish couldn't be sold, because regulations prevent the sale of game fish, but Raveling wanted to display it alive for profit.

"Do we commercialize our fish, and what do we do with other wildlife?'' asked Payer. "It opens up a lot of intriguing questions.''

And money has become a factor. Millions of dollars in prizes are awarded at pro fishing tournaments annually, and a record fish could translate into big bucks in the form of endorsements or advertising.

"Fishing is my living,'' Raveling said. "This is something that doesn't happen very often,'' he said.

"It's been great.''

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[carlcmc]

I would be in favor of a DNR sponsored program for taking in high lb bass (say 6-7lb bass) for reproduction.

[smallie_hawgin]

Hey guys before you get all in a huff....

The fish was given permission to transport to be certified and then to Cabelas THAT day. Cabelas wouldn't give Raveling any money AND DNR statute states the angler can't have personal gain from a natural resource (like this one. Then it was brought to Brainerd...

As far as a DNR "breeding" program... TX does that because they have introduced Florida strain LMB into most lakes... The f1 or f2 generations are the ones with the most hybrid vigor... selecting for this through successive pairings is what they were trying to accomplish.... Overall... a PR campaign. No real biological gain. There is plenty of evidence that suggests you will have an awefully tough time changing genetic make-up of an entire population. Besides, MN stocks very, very, very few bass, for a good reason... we don't need it.... Just a few thoughts for ya!

[Tom Wilson]

You are partially correct...In Texas any fish caught over 13 lbs can be donated (urged to be donated actually) to the Lone Star Lunker Program. They have a number to call and they send a special truck out to get the fish. The angler making the donation does receive a replica, and his name in a record book (donation record book). It's a cool deal. It is their belief that any fish that makes it to 13 plus lbs. has a genetic disposition to be larger than most and they have learned to capitalize on this. These fish are then used to obtain their stock that they return to the lakes for future generations to pursue. We don't get Bass that large here in Minnesota, but I'd bet my dollar that for the differences between the strains of bass, that a Northern strain Bass here in Minnesota that grows to over 6-7 lbs has the same types of genetic strengths that their 13lb'ers have. Something maybe someone here will consider one day...

[smallie_hawgin]

OK Tom and others here goes...

I used to work for TPWD for 5 yrs as a biologist. We collected liver samples annually from fish for Florida strain identification. In all cases where "lunkers" were brought in, they turned up being either the original Florida strain that was stocked or the first set of offspring from the Florida Strain (f1), and rarely the f2 generation. The lunker program is great for the angler, the fish stays alive... yada, yada.... Heck, a lake I originally stocked in 1993 is putting out 13-15 lb fish.... all of which were florida strain. Look up most recent "share a Lunker" info....

But as far as genetic manipulation of populations??? There is no literature that suggests having any significant impact once those genes are dilluted in the general population. Just think about the odds... A few hundred, or thousand fish changing the genetic potential of a whole lakes' population... C'mon? Is that really what we want to be doing... I can think of plenty of projects that would benefit the entire lake population as opposed to attempting to manipulate genes for trophy potential for ONE species. At the time I enjoyed it in TX, but honestly, MN fisheries folks and the DNR as a whole are far ahead of most other states in the country. Maybe with the exception of some traditions (walleye opener, other seasonal closures and limited consideration of regulations in some cases).

Sorry.... had to clarify..

BTW... The star trib never called the office that certified the state record after the transport issue was brought up.... Sometimes I think the media gets a bit hyped up...Imagine that?

[carlcmc]

thanks for some well reasoned scientific thought.

[river rat316]

There goes SH acting like he knows what he's talking about

[HawgTide]

Quote:

---

There goes SH acting like he knows what he's talking about

---

Careful, or you might have some visitors following you in your new boat this weekend. He has connections you know...

[FlipR70]

Tom & Smallie Hawgin',

I guess I should have been more clear with my post. The idea was NOT that I wanted the DNR to start a program similar to that of TX with the breeding program.

The idea was to make the point the difference in the conservation-mindedness (if that's a word) of the two states. In one state, the DNR sends out a special truck to take the fish into 'custody' whereas the other state wants you to kill the fish to have a state record certified (hence, the conservation comment).

My $0.02

FlipR70