[Sean H]

Just got the newest issue of the IGFA monthly...a pending record on Large Mouth caught by a Mom fishing with her son on spring Lake in Ca. It was brought to shore for a quick weigh and measurements... 29" length...25" girth....weight on a boga grip just over 22 pounds 6 ounces. Now the REALLY BIG news....this sow was released unharmed!

It ws caught on a Stormwildeye 7" jerk bait on 8lb.

IGFA has recieved the record aplicaton and is investigating it as a potential record.

 

[Wild Bill]

While everything that I have heard about this is second hand, I do NOT believe this record will be allowed due to it not being weighed on a CERTIFIED scale, or so I have heard so far.
While I commend that angler for releasing that JUMBO, unfortunatley, it may have cost her much, in both money, and in recogintion, as CERTIFIED scales are necessary to document ANY potential records....but what a great story, anfd it springs hope eternal to all of us anglers that the new record is STILL out there....

 

[Sean H]

The IGFA dose not require a certified scale.

FOr those who do not know, the IGFA, International Game Fish Association, is the sanctioning body that keeps all the records for all record fish fresh and salt, All tackle and line class.

The IGFA rules state that if a fish is weighed on an uncertified scale than the scale used it should be checked and certified as soon as possible.

THere are ways to determin actual weight. Especially since many fih records are caught in parts of the world that have no scale certification.

There is a mathematical equation for finding weight of a fish from measurements

Girth squared x length divided by 800

This is amazingly acurate for Most fish species except Flat type fish and I believs some TUna species.

Also to replace a record, the weighing fish, under 25 pounds, must beat the old record by 2 ounces.

HOw do I know this??? My Father is the local IGFA rep and we see alot of potential record fish here.

Anyone interested can check out the IGFA at

www.igfa.org

 

[Rob J in WNY]

I checked out the official IGFA site, but found no information other than the record being a pending matter. Hard to believe, but we shall see what comes of it. I think that it will be hard to make it an official record without it having been weighed on a certified scale, though.

Here's a link:

http://www.igfa.org/records/records.cfm

Tight Lines...

 

[acstech]

Up to speed

Weight cannot be guessed at: There is no formula that comes close to reality expect in a specific weight area. If you want it IGFA Certified that you need to follow IGFA rules.

WEIGHING REQUIREMENTS

1. The fish must be weighed by an official weighmaster (if one is available) or by an IGFA official or by a recognized local person familiar with the scale. Disinterested witnesses to the weight should be used whenever possible.

2. The weight of the sling, platform, or rope (if one is used to secure the fish on the scales) must be determined and deducted from the total weight.

3. At the time of weighing, the actual tackle used by the angler to catch the fish must be exhibited to the weighmaster and weight witness.

4. No estimated weights will be accepted. Fish weighed only at sea or on other bodies of water will not be accepted.

5. Only weights indicated by the graduations on the scale will be accepted. Visual fractionalizing of these graduations is not allowed. Any weights that fall between two graduations on the scale must be rounded to the lower of the two.

6. All record fish should be weighed on scales that have been checked and certified for accuracy by government agencies or other qualified and accredited organizations. All scales must be regularly checked for accuracy and certified in accordance with applicable government regulations at least once every twelve months. If at the time of weighing the fish, the scale has not been properly certified within twelve months, it should be checked and certified for accuracy as quickly as possible, and an official report stating the findings of the inspection prior to any adjustment of the scale must be included with the record application.

SCALE CERTIFICATION

1. If there is no official government inspector or accredited commercial scales representative available in the area where the fish is weighed, the scales must be checked by weighing objects of recognized and proven weight. Objects weighed must be at least equal to the weight of the fish. Substantiation of the correct weight of these objects must be submitted to IGFA along with the names and complete addresses of accredited witnesses to the entire procedure.

2. In extremely remote areas where no weighing scales are available, it will be permissible for the angler to use his own scales providing that they are of a quality type and have been properly certified both before and after returning from the fishing trip.

3. IGFA reserves the right to require any scale to be re-certified for accuracy if there are any indications that the scale might not have weighed correctly.


This is why everytime my clients bring a fish on board that is big we weigh it on an IGFA certified Boga Grip. Measuring and than guessing the weight is as bogus as you can get. You may dispute that, but IGFA doesn't.

 

[Scott E.]

I don't understand

Sean,

How can they accept that fish when Paul Duclos' 24 lb bass from the very same lake was not, his scale was tested although it was a bathroom scale. His fish was also released back into the lake.

Here is Paul's story:World Record Bass - Paul Duclos

 

[ChenBassHead]

She let that fish go? Holy moly, if I caught a fish like that, the first thing I'd do is have it weighed on a certified scale. Then, I'd bring it straight to the taxidermist! Why throw back a potential world record, when someone else might catch it when it's bigger? No sir, that hawg would be riding with me! I don't understand how Paul Duclos and her could do that?! It's insane! I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that. C'mmon guys, 'fess up!

Zach

 

[puddlejumper]

Chenbasshead...

Yeah, I'd keep it too. I would do as you said, and have it mounted on the wall in my den. The last fish I kept was in 1992. puddlejumper.

 

[JOHN G]

I know it sounds crazy....but I would think of nothing but releasing it......I couldn't care less about a world record or any money or whatever I might get from that fish....all I would care is that a magnificent speciment like that would be returned to the water to breed and make more or be caught by someone else....

when I caught the 9 pounder last year, I had to settle for Jeff's camera, which took a horrible shot, because my digital was in my car and it would have meant at least another 10 minutes that fish wouldn't have been returned to the water if I went to get the camera.......never considered for a moment stuffing it, as that is not something I would ever want to get into.....

 

[acstech]

advocacy

I am an extreme advocate of catch and release. If you fish on my boat, irregardless of where, you will release the bass caught back to the water.

However, that being said, if you were to catch such a gal that she beat the world record, I would be the first to tell you to document her and keep her. This is a gal that would have to be at just about her peak age, and just the exhaustion of the fight is probably going to put her under after the release. Of course, once released no one would ever know for sure, but odds are severely against her offering much to the worlds bass populations.

I wouldn't say keep her to stuff her, but rather to actually prove your catch through all of the controversy that would ensue until the catch was actually certified. Fiberglass mounts outlast and look better than stuffed mounts.

 

[Bass Rat]

I know it sounds crazy....but I would think of nothing but releasing it......I couldn't care less about a world record or any money or whatever I might get from that fish....all I would care is that a magnificent speciment like that would be returned to the water to breed and make more or be caught by someone else....

when I caught the 9 pounder last year, I had to settle for Jeff's camera, which took a horrible shot, because my digital was in my car and it would have meant at least another 10 minutes that fish wouldn't have been returned to the water if I went to get the camera.......never considered for a moment stuffing it, as that is not something I would ever want to get into.....

John, first off a 9 pounder, although a beauty is NO world record candidate. And secondly, a fish of world record status is closer to the end of its life span then the begining and has had ample time to spread its genetics. I don't think anyone should have a problem with some one keeping a potential world record largemouth.

 

[wnybassman]

I would keep a fish of that size.

At that size and age, that fish has already spread its genes more than most fish do. And like said before, it may not live due to the stress of being caught (especially on light line like it was)

 

[JPBass]

My rule is I release everything under 22 1/2 pounds .......A world record I'd keep. That lady probably would have too if she knew what she had.

I also must admit I'm not nearly as noble as the good doctor. I'd be very interested to know how much money might be coming my way.

I understand Trilene offers a tidy sum (or used to) just for having caught it on their line..................Which I of course would have.

 

[Rob J in WNY]

Depending on the circumstances, I would probably keep a World Record bass. That would be THE fish of a lifetime, but it hinges more on how I'd feel at the time of catching it. Lugging it around to find a certified scale would not be the greatest treatment of an old sow who lived a long life like that.

I admire Paul Duclos more for his attitude about releasing his Spring Lake "record" than the actual releasing of the fish. I would never have held it against him if he had kept it.

Certainly, there are a lot of feelings involved because of the way we view our interest in bass fishing. Feelings that those without our level of exposure to it can fully and deeply understand.

Hmmmmmm.....I may be tempted to keep a State Record bass, but again, it would depend on the circumstances. A ten pound Smallie would be incredible to behold, and there have to be at least a few of them roaming the New York State depths of Lake Erie. Perhaps an eleven pounder or, quite possibly, a twelve pound world record bronzeback there. Can you imagine that?

I'm okay........really. I'm okay......

Tight Lines...

 

[ChenBassHead]

I feel the same way about catch-and-release. I always let everything go. But, like I said, a world record would be goin' home with me. I would have a fiberglass mount, also. As for the fish, if I could keep it alive, I would try and donate it to a program similar to the Lone Star Lunker program in Texas. Or to a freshwater aquarium( a good one, such as Cabelas). As far as money goes, I would have to think that any company whos product was used in the catching of the fish would pay some money for endorsments(lure, line, rod, reel). Also, you would get royalties from any magazine, and TV show which showed your fish.

John G- In all respect, your 9 lb. fish is a helluva fish. But I think that you might change your mind if you caught a fish of this magnitude. Then again, what do I know?

Let 'em all go(unless they're W.R.'s of course )

Zach

 

[earthworm77]

I agree with JP....everything under 22-04 goes back into the water. The $$$ potential of a World record largemouth would allow me to retire very early so I would be bringing that one home with me.....sorry!

 

[bass 64]

Definetely keeping a world record bass and I'd even go as far as keeping a state record bass. Like some have already said, Those bass would have reproduced many times already and I think I actually remember a discussion from about a year or two ago on the board that said older female bass eggs may be sterile and they change consistency so releasing could be pointless. Just my 2 cents............

 

[Scott E.]

Let me play the devil's advocate

Oh how greedy some of you guys sound, you would sacrafice the fish for you own fame and fortune with the rationalization that the fish was to old to reproduce or would die soon. Well let me tell you guys, that fish may have been less than ten years old, what southern and western fisheries biologists call F-1 can reach weights up to 15 pounds in 5 to 7 years, sort of a hybrid mix between a Florida strain and northern strain largemouth, they also believe that George Perry's world record fish was an micropterus salmoides floridanus or F-1 that was naturally hybridized.

So knowing that possibly this bass maybe could have lived another 5 years or so and help populate the lake with possibly its genetic duplicate, would you let this fish go or would your greed and the possibility of 15 minutes of fame allow you to kill this fish???

Also if you read the story of Paul Duclos, from the time he got the fish to the time his wife got there to weigh the fish with the bathroom scale, the fish must have been within his possesion well over half an hour and it still lived to fight another day.

Also just because Leaha Trey the woman who caught this possible new record, caught this fish with 8lb test does not mean she had to fight the fish for very long, she may have caught this fish close to shore with very little fight. We do not have many details on this catch yet so lets not speculate.

Ok so here is a little trivia, what was the biggest bass caught in the northeast and where???

 

[wnybassman]

I'd still keep it...

the fish must have been within his possesion well over half an hour and it still lived to fight another day.

It may have swam away, but was it alive 2 weeks later? We must not speculate...

 

[bass 64]

Scott I think I have the answer to the trivia question. Massachusetts state record bass caught throught the ice weighing in at a freakish 17+ pounds. Pure Northern strain baby! And no I did not look this up right after you put up the question.Just some general knowledge of mine. -Joe