Possible new record

[plowboy]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-06 AT 11:08PM (EST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-06 AT 11:03 PM (EST)[/font]

I don't doubt that there is a world record largemouth swimming in California. But this is the third or fourth fish that has claimed to have broken the record but they never weigh it on an official scale and always let it go. I'm sure they could have kept it alive until it was verified by a game warden or something. Put it in a bait tank or tie it to the dock with braided line until it is verified. The man saying he did not care about money is B.S. If he really didn't care about money he could have gave it to the poor. A bass that big isn't going to live much longer anyway. Very impressive picture though. It sure looks big enough to weigh 25 lbs. How could it have hurt the bass to tie it up to something and let it swim around while the authorities arrive. Something is fishy about this story!!!!!!! Pun intented. But I wish it were true and hope I'm wrong. Also it is reported that there was a cerified scale at the dock and that these anglers were after a record fish. Yet they didn't use the certified scales and didn't take measurements that are required.

[VMAXX]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-06 AT 09:43AM (EST)[/font][p]Nevermind

[smljaw]

What an absolute TOAD!!! This is the same kind of story that comes out every year or 2. If that fish was 25+ why in SAM HILL would he release it??? That's nuts!!!

If I regularly fished Dixon, or any of those other Southern California trout-filled jewels, I would know exactly what to do if I caught a 20+ pound LM. These guys fish Dixon 4X a week and don't know how to correctly, legally treat a possible world record LM??? I would memorize that routine every which way in case I caught a PIG like that fish.

I've read about Dixon in the past. How unreal for a 70 acre lake to hold such BIG BASS... And the WORLD RECORD BASS saga continues. How much longer will George Perry hold the record???

[fishbum]

1. World record can not be foul hooked. That is part of the rules of the IGFA. For a fish to be a record it must be caught legally. Foul Hooked fish are SUPPOSED to be returned to the water according to most state laws including I BELIEVE and I am sure if I am wrong someone will correct me... Kentucky.

2. I am suspicious of this fish since it is VERY old and VERY old fish have problems with spawning I have heard... anyone else want to chime in on this?

3. Still NICE fish.. there is a picture at:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fields...175441,00.html

and a story too.
Jim Dicken

[easy_13]

If the events in the Field and Stream article are true, I think the fish would have been classified the world record if they had measured and had it weighed on certified scales.

In the F&S article, Weakley said they let the fish go because it was foul hooked: "At that point, since it was foul-hooked, I just said let’s weigh it and let it go," he says. "There is no doubt in my mind that this is the biggest bass that anyone has ever seen. It is the world record. And me and Mike and Jed got to hold a 25-pound bass. No one else has ever done that."

The IGFA rule book, however, (http://www.igfa.org/BookRule2004.pdf) says your catch will be disqualified only if the fish is INTENTIONALLY foul hooked.

[VMAXX]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-06 AT 02:00AM (EST)[/font][p]

Plowboy I'm not mad and can agree to disagree,anyhow like the above post said it's not over yet the media says that their going to submit it for the record:

Jim the IGFA will consider a foul hooked fish it just cant be intentional

"The IGFA will consider certifying a scale after the fact.
It will disqualify any fish determined to have been intentionally foul-hooked.
A staff of three to five reviews all applications for record status. "We treat every record the same, whether it's a 1-pound bluegill or the all-tackle largemouth bass," he said.
An official decision on record status usually is reached one month after the application is received. "


Their turning in their scales,line,video tape and pics.

Also wearing(lol) certified scales around your neck would do you no good the IGFA will not recognize any weights that are taken on the water they must be taken on land..thats why they went back to the dock to weigh it

The funny part to all this is everyone joking around about I caught a world record also...These guys have pics,videotape and a long (recorded)history of catching big fish and yet all believe George Perrys record stands and he just ate his LOL
Bob Crupis 22.01 in my humble opinion is or was probably the verifiable world record


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vmaxx >)))^((">

[Dave Stewart]

It is my understanding they did not weigh the fish on a certified scale....that is why I would have two sets hanging around my neck...a primary and backup...believe it or not certified hand scales hanging around your neck work on land too...LOL

[easy_13]

The more I read about this, I think there are only two possiblities here:

1. These guys did really catch a record, but were too stupid to know what to do with it

2. They know the fish isn't 25+, but are trying to "back door" their way into the record books by only turning in videotape, still photos and having it weighed on their own scales, which could be easily manipulated.

I'm leaning to No. 2. I just find it hard to believe that three guys who are this experienced at catching large fish (2 of the top 15 recorded LM of all-time; have supposedly caught this same fish multiple times) went to this much trouble (camping permit, trying to bribe other anglers) for an opportunity to catch this fish -- then don't know what to do with it when they have it in their possession.

[apb]

3) They figured there would be some contriversy over foul hooking the record bass, so they let it go hoping to catch it in the mouth next time. What kind of tackle endorsement could you get "this jig fould hooked a record and could foul hook one for you too!" I think if they had kept it, used a certified scale, and turned in the paper work, even if it was certified as the world record, there would always be the "it was foul hooked" associated with it. Sort of like the * that goes along with records that are broken by someone who is known to use steriods.

Andrew

[easy_13]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-06 AT 11:58AM (EST)[/font][p]>3) They figured there would be
>some contriversy over foul hooking
>the record bass, so they
>let it go hoping to
>catch it in the mouth
>next time. What kind of
>tackle endorsement could you get
>"this jig fould hooked a
>record and could foul hook
>one for you too!" I
>think if they had kept
>it, used a certified scale,
>and turned in the paper
>work, even if it was
>certified as the world record,
>there would always be the
>"it was foul hooked" associated
>with it. Sort of like
>the * that goes along
>with records that are broken
>by someone who is known
>to use steriods.
>
>Andrew

Like I said earlier, the IGFA does not disqualify foul-hooked fish unless they are INTENTIONALLY foul-hooked.

Foul-hooked world record > no world record > tainted world record

These guys are trophy hunters. They know every inch of the IGFA rule book, IMO. I think this whole thing is a just a way to get around having the fish measured and weighed on certified scales.

[trentonc2000]

The whole thing was filmed on a set in a secret Air Force base in New Mexico.

What a hog!!

[plowboy]

I agree with smljaw. Record hunters would have known all the rules and had a certified scale. It's not illegal to snag a fish while angling (my understanding of California law). If it had been a legitimate record all they had to do was call the local fish and wildlife, game warden etc. and find out before releasing it. Fishy.