Thread on record walleye??

[PierBridge]

Not to mention he was using 4 pound test on the Rainey in the spring...yeah right.

Speaking of apology's this guy owes us all a very LARGE one!

[ozzie]

well he was "actually" using 5lb test but it qualified for the 4lb test class........either way light line for the Rainy or any river in fact

[magnum mike]

Easy fellas. I don't believe the "fish story" either but I fished the Rainy and LOW many times and used 6 pound test every time. That is what I always use for walleyes and have taken many 25"+ walleyes to the boat with nothing more. Don't Horse 'em!

I do call B as in B, S as in S on the "fish story".

[mnviking28]

Absolutely no way that is a 35" fish. As stated in other posts, that fish is a "long arm photo". I am going to say 28", 29", maybe 30"- tops. I don't believe a "guide" would not have a ruler in the boat or know what to do with it when he caught it. Lump me into the "hater" crowd as well. Trophy-yes, over 17 lbs-not a chance.

[mrklean]

Someones guide business must be slow for opener

[ozzie]

6lb yes under 6lb though??? I don't know many people that would go up to Rainy and fish for trophies with anything under 6lb... 5lb test isn't far from 6lb but then again it is a world of difference when you think about the conditions on the river and fishing for fish in the 10lb+ range

[IcePro]

So how long is 35.1 inches?

How many people actual have a tape that measures in .1 increments?

Maybe the next record will be 35.11 inches.

[IcePro]

I did some home work 0.1

5/64 = .0781

3/32 = .0938

7/64 = .1094

1/8 = .1250

Did he round up or down

Sure hope he was wearing his glasses to split the hairs on that tape

[Nick Kuhn]

So how long is 35.1 inches?

How many people actual have a tape that measures in .1 increments?

Maybe the next record will be 35.11 inches.

I have one at work the measures 50ths of inches. It's only 6 inches long though, and I have yet to find a practical use for it.

[c0untryf1sh3r]

Its a machinists rule. If you were Tool & Die guy you would use that thing everyday. Never seen one in 50th's thought.

[IcePro]

Its a machinists rule. If you were Tool & Die guy you would use that thing everyday. Never seen one in 50th's thought.

So who has a 35+ inch machinist rule and brings it in the boat?

[pushbutton]

Have you seen the new video this guy has put out?

[bobbymalone]

here's a tip. if you catch a monster fish, take two pics. the one of you holding it up and another one with the tape measure. otherwise it's just a tall tale. whatever, i'm sure whatever somebody caught was a nice fish. congrats.

[Chris Haley]

How can you use 5lb line and qualify for a 4lb record???? That doesn't make sense.

[CANOPY SAM]

I am also in the camp that says this fish doesn't come close to the 35 inch mark. Not a "hater", just genuinely concerned about the validity of the story. It does look probable that it makes the girth measurement though.

In contrast to what the newspaper stories, and others here in posts say, I actually love to see other fisherman successful, especially with really big fish. But to make up a story just for the sake of making the record books is just cheating.

This guy obviously had a good tape measure in his boat. What really makes me curious is how someone could even qualify for a line class record without any "official" weight, measurement, or witness of the catch???

I mean if I can simply take one picture and tell everyone I caught a 51 lb. channel catfish in my back yard on 6 lb. test, submit "a line sample", again without any witness or proof this was actually the line I was using, and be automatically put in the record books, then why wouldn't everyone and his brother be doing this? To steal another phrase, "the math doesn't work".

I think that's why this story has gone cold so fast. No indisputable evidence. Beautiful fish, but record book fish? Probably not.

[tisosy11]

An engineer's rule measures in tenths...but still pretty skeptical on the actual size...

[Gordie]

An engineer's rule measures in tenths

Yep it sure does but this guy is a guide and I'll bet most all guides use the rule that is by the inch along with almost all fishermen.

Well enough from me as I'm going to get ready for opener and try and catch those "19.'875 eyes that are under the slot.

[DTro]

It does look probable that it makes the girth measurement though.

Really?? if anything the girth is what I would question the most. For example last fall we took a trip to lockport and caught about 100 sumo channel cats...big beefy 25lb+ fish and not once did we hit 24". I have pics floating around here somewhere

[Scott K]

Here is a 24" girth fish. There is no way that walleye was anywhere near it. I have caught many walleyes 10+ pound, and none had anywhere near a 24" girth. Sorry, the lenght, or girth is nowhere near believable.

[CANOPY SAM]

Not to split hairs, but yep, really. It's a very thick fish.

Just taking into account the average length of his fingers, the way they're wrapped around the bottom of the fish's belly (not even at the thickest part of the fish), the width of the flank of the fish on just a flat plane alone, then taking into consideration the arc of the probable circumference...

Yes, I think it's very possible this fish could be very close, if not at least 24 inches around at the widest point.

But I still don't see 35 inches long....Maybe 31...or even 32...but not 35. JMO.

The real argument is how can you be considered for the record books at just your word, and one photograph, and perhaps your best buddies testimony? It just simply doesn't add up.

[CANOPY SAM]

If I were to take an educated and experienced guess I'd say we're looking at a poor photograph of a very ripe, ready to spawn 11.5-13.5 lb. female walleye.

30-32 inches long, and 22-24 inches in girth.

But again, JMO. I've been known to be wrong in the past.

[Heartman]

Hey, it's his fish - do you know him well enough to call him a liar? It's his call not ours, hold off on the passing of judgement on him. Big fish for sure - glad he was able to a picture and let it go - that's enough for me. Thanks!

[creepworm]

I also find it odd that his measurements were perfect to come out to beat the record by .1 lbs. The odds of breaking the record are very slim, but to beat it by .1 pounds is just unrealistic. Also his comment that his portable scale came out to 17.9 pounds, the exact same as the measurement scale makes it unrealistic. Those scales are rarely correct and neither are the length to weight conversions, much less both of them being completely in line with eachother.

[CANOPY SAM]

Another glaring issue, if this fish actually does make the record books, the only photo we're shown doesn't even show the WHOLE fish!

Heartman...I'm not bashing this guy, but you have to admit, to submit this fish for a line class, and/or state record, with extremely limited credible evidence, is pretty bold, and perhaps a little foolish.

The Minnesota State Record Walleye is an extremely prized fish, and inhabits a very special place in the hearts of every walleye angler out there. It's not something to be taken lightly, or made a "spoof" of.

[Maverick1951]

So, with all of this being said, has anyone heard any more from the guy that caught the fish. You would think that he would say something to defend his claims. I checked the Bemidji paper and there hasn't been anymore follow up that I could find. I would find it interesting for him to explain some of the issues brought up here.

He may just fade into the background and become the Rosey Ruiz of walleye fishermen. He might even find his way into Trivial Pursuit.

[DTro]

I honestly don't think the girth is more than 20".

The biggest here is 23" and most were 22"

[TruthWalleyes]

Unless that guy was a giant, it doesn't look like a record walleye. I know all my fish look terribly small in front of me, but even a record walleye in my hands would look a bit bigger...especially holding it out in front of me.

NIce Cats DTRO.

The fish in my avatar is 54" but i've seen a lot of pictures where a 42" sturgeon looks much bigger in someone elses hands than the 54" in mine.

[Heartman]

The protocol for determining records is designed to eliminate all the "possibles". Certainly agree the walleye is a highly-prized specie and such - if he hasn't the appropriate and required documentation to be recognized it will be disqualified. He caught what he thinks is a really big fish - good for him. Every time I fish with my 5 year old niece she thinks every sunfish she catches is a state record - good for her too.

Bottom line - I'm no expert at determining determining state records, and am in no position to challenge him. It's his call and his decision to pursue the certification. To each his own.

[Comit 2]

Quote:

Yep, not being a hater, it's just that what are the odds the same guy who holds the world record for hand size also caught the new Minnesota record walleye wink

You just gotta love it.

This couldn't help his business in any way could it?

[CANOPY SAM]

Those are some great catfish pics. Gotta love Selkirk! Wonder what tore up that fish with the ragged bloody tail flank?

Not sure it's entirely fair to compare a catfish to a walleye. They're somewhat anatomically different, and will show radically different weight to measurement ratios depending on the time of year. That's why I don't put a lot of faith in the length to weight charts at any given time.

Interestingly, I have a friend that caught a genuine 33-inch walleye mid-summer on Lake of the Woods a few years back. Mid-July that very long, skinny fish only weighed 11.5 lbs. Can't be certain, but I'd guess when she was bulging with eggs just before spawning, and fattened by pre-spawn feeding, she would've been pushing 15 lbs., and it's wide open as to what her actual girth measurement would've been at the time.

Either way, it's all subjective now. This "alleged" record book fish is swimming somewhere in Lake of the Woods, and hopefully I'll catch her when the season is actually open!