Thread on record walleye??

[pushbutton]

Doubt Dtro's fish is even 35....probably just a hair over 31

[DTro]

OK, so Don obviously cared about the size of this fish as he called the DNR about it being a possible record and also submitted to the IGFA for a line class record.

Given that fact, he needed to be more responsible in documenting the size of he fish. A semi decent picture with a pinkie swear story isn't good enough TO BE CONSIDERED A RECORD.

Fish stories are fish stories and that is a very nice (fish of a lifetime) walleye. But, if he really wants the recognition of a record he needed ruler shots, plain and simple. With the technology we have today, it's so very easy to document your catch.

[DTro]

Am I even in the ballpark?

Not even close

[chris63]

This is just an estimate from the information given.I realize it isn't exact science but an estimate.What else do we have to estimate the reference point?A persons hand is hard to judge length.Again this isn't exact,just a reference point. c63

[harvey lee]

OK, so Don obviously cared about the size of this fish as he called the DNR about it being a possible record and also submitted to the IGFA for a line class record.

Given that fact, he needed to be more responsible in documenting the size of he fish. A semi decent picture with a pinkie swear story isn't good enough TO BE CONSIDERED A RECORD.

Fish stories are fish stories and that is a very nice (fish of a lifetime) walleye. But, if he really wants the recognition of a record he needed ruler shots, plain and simple. With the technology we have today, it's so very easy to document your catch.

I agree with that 100% but, it does not mean that his fish was not what he reported. It only means he did not meausre it with enough proof to have it recorded as a record.

I realize some will stretch the truth about fish size but who is going to be the one to know for sure and call him a liar?

[chris63]

What was the cats length?

[DTro]

Here's a better way to do it. Again if documentation is important

Here's the same fish

[chris63]

I was wrong thanks for the clarification.c63

[Hoffer]

C63 thats a refreshing thing to hear on this site. You dont hear "I was wrong" very much.

Thanks.

[Hoffer]

PS

Dtro,

I postt this in fun. And I will just stir the pot a bit.

But I dont think the pic of the fish on the ruler is the same fish that is in the earlier pic where you are holding it.

On the first picture the bottom half of the tail either has some "nodules" or growths on the tail...quite a few. OR it could be sand or something sticking on the tail. But it looks to me like some kind of "growths".

In any case on the close up shot - the bottom half of the tail (same side showing as well) looks super clean. There is nothing there. So, either it was sand and you slipped the fish in the water and it washed off before the 2nd pic....or the nodules somehow disappeared or somethings not right

Again, I post this as fun...just a little pot stirring!!

[DTro]

I think the bottom line is that a picture holding a fish can only be a reference as to the size of it. Angles of photos play a huge role in how it appears. The only people that know 100% are the people that were there to see it first hand.

When you make a claim as to it being the biggest walleye ever caught in MN then you should not only be prepared for scrutiny, you should also have something other than "your word" to back up your claim.

[DTro]

Do you think I placed that tree seed perfectly in both pics? It's simple crop of the first pic

Oh I see what you mean different fish.

Hmmm, well I can tell you it was the only fish I caught in 12 hours (3 of that in the pouring rain). So that is all I have to go by.

[Hoffer]

Additionally, on a catfish where the meaty portion of the tail ends and the back fins starts there is a little ridge that goes down. After that ridge there is a "half moon" of lighter colored area that extends into the fin where it then turns darker for the rest of the fin. In the first pic - particularly on the bottom half of the fin that "half moon" lighter colored area is much larger than on the close up picture.

Just having some fun...I would never make it on the CSI team!!!

[Hoffer]

PS

When I say "first pic"...I mean the first pic where you are holding the fish...compared to the 2nd and 3rd pics of the fish on the ruler.

Not trying to be a jerk or anything...it just kind of goes to the point that from pic to pic and fish to fish its just hard to tell much.

Thats why this dude should have put his fish on the ruler...no questions then. Oh well...its an awesome fish either way. BTW, does anyone know that when they say the fish was caught on the "rainy river" where are they generally fishing? is it like way down by the Baudette area or further up by Fort Frances or what?

[DTro]

It's rainy and this is fun

I understand it's all in good fun

Here's a close up of the adipose fin, on both pics.

[Hoffer]

Looks darn similar to me!!

I guess I need to post an "I am wrong" too!!

(but how do I know that the close up pic on the first fish is the same one in the other pic!! ha-ha!!! we could go back and forth all day!!)

[DTro]

Yep, I see your point. But take a look at that cable in the close up and compare it to the original, it would be tough to fake that.

Now that was a thread hijack of major proportions.

Back to walleyes...

[OnAFly]

Hold on just a second, judging by the first pic of the cat, I think you may have the world record largest helicopter seed!

[Hoffer]

Onafly - funny stuff!

But Dtro...why back to walleyes? I thought you were a cat guy?

I wish I knew how to post pics on here...I have a couple eyes i wouldnt mind posting...

[Scott K]

Click the 5th tab, then click browse, then find the picture, then add add file, then done adding files, then click submit.

[Sonicrunch]

What is on the same plane is the dude's four fingers. Let's use those four fingers one unit of measurement. Looking at the pic, I roughly estimate nine units.

So:

How long do you guys think this one unit is? I have big hands, and I jjust measured my four fingers at 3.25. This guys has really big hands. Lets giver him 3.5 inches.

So, to get a rough estimate of the length of the fish, multiply how wide you think his fingers are by nine.

That makes 31.5 inches.

[Sonicrunch]

C63 thats a refreshing thing to hear on this site. You dont hear "I was wrong" very much.

Thanks.

It takes a strong man to admit they are wrong. Kudos to C63.

[Hoffer]

I tried but it just goes to a small page with the same thing on top and no area to hit "browse" ??

I clicked on the 5th tab...tried it twice

[Nick Kuhn]

Here is a zander that is very close to the dimensions he gave:

_____________

Resized to be approximate, although based on the hand size the walleye is still closer to the camera and still appears to be well short of the zanders 35.25" length.

[lungdeflator]

Sorry didnt mean to start a ruckus on here...

I didnt believe the photo either. I dont want to be a "hater" but theres no way I can believe that.

As far as a big fish story to get name recognition....pretty stupid way to do it. A record walleye in MN is a very big deal to alot of people, he should've known it would have been checked over and scrutinized. All he will get now is recognition for being one of those guys that posts fake fish stories.

Also if it was a record, there would be a heck of alot more photos than just one. Lets see 'em

[Sota2Florida]

I don't want to be a critic but... This is a skinny eye that measured just under 29". That would make it 6" shorter than the fish this thread is talking about.

[vexi]

This is a lagit 30.25 caught on the Rainy River this spring. To me it looks smaller in the pic that it was in my hands. But there is no way that this other fish is 35"

[traveler]

Vexi; that looks like a 30" er to me...the other one I'm not buying.

[Scott M]

Kudos to dtro for saying what most of us are thinking, and backing it up with good solid examples. Just as an FYI, dtro has some insight into the importance of good solid documentation and scrutiny. He runs a catfish contest that relies on documentation and he has caught or been an in-the-boat witness to a mooneye and a (golden was it?) redhorse that were very close, but ultimately not exceeding the state record. In the cases of the record fish, his party was prepared to take pictures of the measurements to document the fish, although unlike the walleye situation, the fish could have been harvested (walleyes on the Rainy have to be released beyond April 14). As a guide, to not take pictures of the fish on board seems kind of hooky. Photographic ratio dimensions have been used to examine old photos and some have been thrown out as a result. The same test applied to this fish would be interesting; as someone else said, what are the chances this guy also has state record large hands I can't think of a fish that would be more scrutinized in this state than a new state record walleye; I guess you can throw me in with the rest of the jealous haters. A trophy fish? Yes. A new state record? No chance.

[ozzie]

The funny part of this story is the guy is a "guide" fishing on the Rainy in the spring and calls the DNR to ask what to do with a big fish!!! He most certainly knows the limits and rules of the spring river fishing and should have known that the fish goes back no matter how big of a fish it is!!! What do I do with a state record....put it back as it is out of season!!!!!!! duh sucks but that is the way the game goes just like sturgeon fishing...How many times has the sturgeon record been broken but out of harvesting season so it had to be releases? Oh and I am confident in saying this guy is spewing a bunch of talk on his claim!!! 35" and 17+lbs!?! no way not the walleye pictured