What if Lake Fork didn't exist? Take a trip through the past, present and future; the answers may well surprise you.
By Don Zaidle
Page 2

Fork's economic impact goes much further than that. According to a recent Texas A&M University study, in a Forkless world the state's economy would be $27 million poorer. An estimated 325,000 anglers from literally all over the world visit Fork each year.

No doubt the question on most angler's minds in a no-Fork world would be: "What is the top bass lake in the state?" To old bassing hands, the answer comes as no surprise:

Sam Rayburn.

"Based on the numbers and the habitat quality, it would be Rayburn," says TPWD Inland Fisheries Director Phil Durocher. "In making an assessment of a lake's trophy potential, the primary question is; 'What are the chances of catching one 8 pounds or better?' Second to Fork," Durocher says, "that would be at Rayburn."

Big Sam's posting only four fish on the No-Fork Top 50 list is no disqualifier for "premier fishery" designation, according to Durocher. "There's a lot more to assessing a fishery's trophy potential than the number of entries on the Top 50," Durocher says. "An awful lot of big fish are caught and released that we (TPWD) never hear about. In fact, the ones we don't know about outnumber the ones that get registered for record listings or ShareLunker participation."

Speaking of ShareLunker (the program formerly known as "Share a Lone Star Lunker" and later "Share-A-Lunker"), program director Neal Ward independently cited Rayburn as the Numero Uno understudy. He also has some interesting things to say about Fork's importance to ShareLunker.

"Without Fork, we'd still have the program, "Ward says. "But I do not think we'd have the same level of angler participation due to lack of publicity, and there wouldn't be as many fish in the program."

Since ShareLunker's 1986 inception, 283 largemouths weighing 13 or more pounds have been entered. Of those fish, more than 180 came from Fork, including the first fish ever entered in the program-Mark Stevenson's 17.67-pounder, which at the time was a new state record.

"Without Fork, we'd be averaging five to 10 fish per year instead of 15 to 25," Ward says. "Like I said, we'd still have a program, but it would be drastically changed. As Fork goes," he observes, "the program goes."

Ward made another rather astonishing observation, seconded by Durocher, that speaks volumes about Texas bass fishing.

"In any lake of reasonable size in the state, you can catch a 10-pounder. Obviously, you stand a better chance on some lakes than others, but the fish are out there. It is just a question of how hard you have to work at it."

Official TPWD optimism notwithstanding, it is conceivable, even probable, that the quality of Texas bassing would not be at its current lofty levels without Lake Fork. Fork, after all, is the archetype upon which reservoir-fisheries are now modeled. From day one, Fork has served as a laboratory for the study of fisheries management and the production of trophy-sized bass. Without these and other contributions, bass management would be way behind the current state of affairs.

So, is life worth living in a Fork-deprived world? You bet. Sure, there would be some losses, but Texas would still be a bass man's haven.

Gains? Improbably, yes. Part of the big bass mystique would be restored, the sense of mystery and adventure rejuvenated in the minds of lunker-questing anglers. Big bass would be bigger news, rarer, and 10-pounders would once again turn heads and make headlines.

One question our research did not answer is still bothering me, though.

When an angler catches and releases a trophy bass, does an angel get his wings?