World Record Loss

[retiredbosn]

Something else you can do to have easy access to a certified scale have your scale certified. There is a member here FishChris who gets his own hand held digital scaled certified every year, that way he can get the fish's weight on a certified scale the moment he takes it out of the water; now he can't submit weight only verified by himself. Every state is different some states do not require to have the weight observed by a conservation officer, and will allow weight to be certified by the angler and a couple of witnesses and pictures, the key is that the scale must be certified, and the fish must be kept for viewing by officials later. Other states allow you to have the fish weighed, measured and certified by a conservation officer and then you can release the fish. The steps for verification varies by state, if you think you may catch the next record, take the time to know the steps. There is a small public lake in my home state of WV that I feel the next state record will come from, I fished it regularly and I took the time to look up what had to be done to have a fish there certified, it was a pain because the lake is catch and release. Basically what I had to do was if I caught a fish that I thought broke the record was to call dnr, if noone was available I was to take it to the nearest certified scales, have it photographed, witnessed and then release the fish. I was told to keep it in the livewell unless it was being weighed or photographed. The conservation officer told me that I would have to have evidence that the fish was released or be fined. It all seemed a little to surreal for me.

[Loop_Dad]

Something else you can do to have easy access to a certified scale have your scale certified. There is a member here FishChris who gets his own hand held digital scaled certified every year, that way he can get the fish's weight on a certified scale the moment he takes it out of the water; now he can't submit weight only verified by himself. Every state is different some states do not require to have the weight observed by a conservation officer, and will allow weight to be certified by the angler and a couple of witnesses and pictures, the key is that the scale must be certified, and the fish must be kept for viewing by officials later. Other states allow you to have the fish weighed, measured and certified by a conservation officer and then you can release the fish. The steps for verification varies by state, if you think you may catch the next record, take the time to know the steps. There is a small public lake in my home state of WV that I feel the next state record will come from, I fished it regularly and I took the time to look up what had to be done to have a fish there certified, it was a pain because the lake is catch and release. Basically what I had to do was if I caught a fish that I thought broke the record was to call dnr, if noone was available I was to take it to the nearest certified scales, have it photographed, witnessed and then release the fish. I was told to keep it in the livewell unless it was being weighed or photographed. The conservation officer told me that I would have to have evidence that the fish was released or be fined. It all seemed a little to surreal for me.

I am not thinking I could catch the next record, but hey things happens when you are not expecting, right? I got curious as to how to get my fish certified in California. Seaching with "how to get your fish certified in California" got me bunch of hunter certification programs. What term should I look for to find this out?

[Lund Explorer]

I am not thinking I could catch the next record, but hey things happens when you are not expecting, right? I got curious as to how to get my fish certified in California. Seaching with "how to get your fish certified in California" got me bunch of hunter certification programs. What term should I look for to find this out?

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Fishing/Recognition/SIWR/

[senile1]

Wow, what a fish! Objectively, the guy did not follow the rules so he doesn't get the record. I get that, but that doesn't mean I can't empathize with the guy. We all make mistakes and miss things, whether in fishing, or some other area of our lives. It's a shame he missed the record on such a rule but those are the breaks.

Lund Explorer stated:

Somethings you just can't cure.

I assume you are referring to the statement, "You can't cure stupid." That might be a bit harsh, LE. I can say without a doubt that all, including the most intelligent among us, have made a mistake like this at some point in our lives.

[Lund Explorer]

Wow, what a fish! Objectively, the guy did not follow the rules so he doesn't get the record. I get that, but that doesn't mean I can't empathize with the guy. We all make mistakes and miss things, whether in fishing, or some other area of our lives. It's a shame he missed the record on such a rule but those are the breaks.

Lund Explorer stated:

I assume you are referring to the statement, "You can't cure stupid." That might be a bit harsh, LE. I can say without a doubt that all, including the most intelligent among us, have made a mistake like this at some point in our lives.

Yup, I guess that's what I am - Harsh!

I've listened to this same type of thing more times than I care to remember. Not just about fishing, but from all kinds of people who decided to throw their reasoning skills out the window and then complain about the consquences aftwewards. I can't see any reason to try to understand why Mr. Ply chose to do what he did, that was his choice. But I choose to say that it is rather ignorant that when he was faced with a potential record catch, he obviously didn't bother to think about what needed to be done to get credit for it. That is 100% his fault, and no amount of whining by him or others changes that fact.

I can also assure you that my type of harsh would be nothing compared to the what the current record holder would display if he lost the record to someone who decided not to bother with the rules.

[stkbassn]

if he had knowledge or hopes of breaking any records then he should have known the rules. if he didn't have the expectations and just had a $1M slip thru his fingers then I'd like to be the first guy to buy him a beer...or 10. and he should DEFINITELY get the Mustad $100K.

I agree, I think Mustad should step up here. If not with the 100K, they should do something VERY nice for this guy. He bought and used their hooks in hopes of being one of the lucky few to catch a state record fish and guess what, he did.....

[senile1]

Yup, I guess that's what I am - Harsh!

I've listened to this same type of thing more times than I care to remember. Not just about fishing, but from all kinds of people who decided to throw their reasoning skills out the window and then complain about the consquences aftwewards. I can't see any reason to try to understand why Mr. Ply chose to do what he did, that was his choice. But I choose to say that it is rather ignorant that when he was faced with a potential record catch, he obviously didn't bother to think about what needed to be done to get credit for it. That is 100% his fault, and no amount of whining by him or others changes that fact.

I can also assure you that my type of harsh would be nothing compared to the what the current record holder would display if he lost the record to someone who decided not to bother with the rules.

I agree with you about the record. He didn't abide by the rules so he shouldn't get the record. All I am saying is I can empathize with his frustration but that doesn't mean he should get the record. I disagree with you for implying he is stupid. I guess you have never accidentally broken a rule of which you were not aware?

[WRB]

There is nothing about this catch that meets records fish requirements, other than the fish. The reason the fish must be examed is to eliminate cheating by adding weight, wounds from being illegally taken and to verify the fish specie, weight, length and girth measurements.

Whenever there is money for a catch, there always a few who intentionally cheat and those who simply think rules and regulations don't apply to them. Must anglers simply don't take the time read the small print. Others like ChrisFish and me are fully prepared to certify a potential record catch, we all learn from our mistakes, and carry certified scales, measuring tapes, camera, local fish & game phone numbers, etc.

I don't believe any rewards will be offered for this catch, which is unfortunate.

Tom

[smalljaw67]

The IGFA did verify his scale but it is still the alabama rig so it would have been disallowed. I bet anyone who has read that article will make a mental note that if they catch a fish that maybe a possible record they will not tell them the lure was an a-rig even if it was. A Largemouth record was scratched earlier this year because the guy caught it without a license, imagine that.

[Dwight Hottle]

The IGFA did verify his scale but it is still the alabama rig so it would have been disallowed. I bet anyone who has read that article will make a mental note that if they catch a fish that maybe a possible record they will not tell them the lure was an a-rig even if it was. A Largemouth record was scratched earlier this year because the guy caught it without a license, imagine that.

Lying to the IGFA would result in even more heartbreak. Think polygraph test.

[WRB]

The IGFA did verify his scale but it is still the alabama rig so it would have been disallowed. I bet anyone who has read that article will make a mental note that if they catch a fish that maybe a possible record they will not tell them the lure was an a-rig even if it was. A Largemouth record was scratched earlier this year because the guy caught it without a license, imagine that.

Just because the scale sent to the IGFA was accurate it doesn't resolve the lack examination at the time the fish was weighed. For example it is common for anglers to add a few fish down the gullet or bag of ice, sand etc. The A-rig falls under umbrella rigs with multiple trap hooks and it's common to foul hook fish with umbrella/spreaders/A-rigs and the IGFA will not recognize fish caught on them. Each state has there own set of rules, should also look into those.

The state record bass you mention was disallowed for other conflicting statements, the license was a slam dunk.

I am not saying this striper guy intentionally cheated or did anything at all, the problem is who will ever know? And a potential record fish ends up as a foot note somewhere.

Tom

[A-Jay]

Clearly, the current record holder was subjected to / followed all the standing regulations in order to certify his/her catch as the New Record (at the time).

If you were that person, you certainly would be proud of your accomplishment.

More importantly, you have every right to expect that any & all catches entered to challenge your catch are held to the same standards that you upheld in order to process your catch as The Record.

That didn't happen here.

A-Jay

[Loop_Dad]

Others like ChrisFish and me are fully prepared to certify a potential record catch, we all learn from our mistakes, and carry certified scales, measuring tapes, camera, local fish & game phone numbers, etc.

The process of getting your scale certified appears to be pretty simple for IGFA http://www.igfa.org/...IFICATION-.aspx The cost is $30. I found it interesting that you can ask for certification after you catch fish.

Also I noticed digital scales are harder to get certified because they have to read the exactly the same when they test three times. With analog ones, a little variation would not show up.

Not sure how state one works, but I am guessing somewhat similar. I wonder one must get certified twice if you are going for both State and World record...

[Dwight Hottle]

The process of getting your scale certified appears to be pretty simple for IGFA http://www.igfa.org/...IFICATION-.aspx The cost is $30. I found it interesting that you can ask for certification after you catch fish.

Also I noticed digital scales are harder to get certified because they have to read the exactly the same when they test three times. With analog ones, a little variation would not show up.

Not sure how state one works, but I am guessing somewhat similar. I wonder one must get certified twice if you are going for both State and World record...

The scale certification for $30.00 is only for members. I took some line in for breakage testing & talked to one of the staff members. I asked him what spring scale is the most reliable for getting certified & he answered that the boga was probably the easiest to certify. I then asked him which digital scale is the most reliable for getting certified & he answered Salter Brecknell was the easiest to certify. There you are from the horses mouth. Just remember all IGFA records must be weighed from land not in the boat.

[WRB]

Your local Weights & Measures can certify your scale free; get the number off the local gasoline pump.

Most recreational scales are within 2% of the weight, lab scales 1% . 68 # bass @ 2% = 1.76 # allowable variance; 66.24 to 69.76 #. Digital scales rely on accurate battery voltage, spring scales vary little over years of use.

Tom

[james 14]

I wonder if George Perry jumped through so many hoops?

[MrRazorback]

Heck no, I'd give it to a bucket fisherman to take home to eat!

Now seriously, I guess I'd feel a little stupid/unlucky/whatever for not knowing the rules. After about ten seconds, I would simply accept the fact that rules are rules.

And I have not only read stories about record setting catches, but knew what needed to be done to establish a claim for a state record catch. In the 1960's this state added a whole bunch of new salmon species swimming in our Great Lakes. A lot of people dreamed of catching a state record King, Coho, or Atlantic Salmon. A#1 on that list was a certified scale had to be used, which with a little thought should be easy to find if you have ever visited a meat market as their scales MUST be certified by the State Dept of Agriculture. As far as a witness from the state, there's a conservation officer in every county, many of whom would gladly come to help out.

The Bottom Line - The things this fisherman did wrong far outweighed (no pun intended) an IGFA rule that was in effect long before he ever hit the water that day. If he or anyone else wants to take it personally, then I can't cure that either.

I was reading this thread and just wanted to clear things up with you. First of all Rodney did everything he was supposed to do after catching the fish. He called the AGFC multiple times trying to get them to come to him to witness the weight of the fish (on a scale which was certified by the IGFA to be working 100% accurately) but they told him that was a no can do he would have to meet them at a local grocery store. So against his will he went to the grocery store, come to find out they did NOT have a scale large enough to weigh the fish. Well long story short they traveled over a multiple county area trying to find a scale that could weigh the fish. Finally almost 6 hours later (after much regurgitation) they found a scale that wasn't even certified that would weigh the fish. There are pictures of the fish hanging over the side of the scale because the scale was so small. Now tell me how could that have been an accurate weight? However, since it fell short of the record AGFC wouldn't certify the bass as a record. Now tell me who was wrong? And IGFA was fine with the sworn statements of the witnesses to the 68 lbs. on the scale at the boat dock that Rodney weighed the fish at first. The IGFA didn't give him the record because of the bait he used (A homemade spinner bait with 2 hooks). Rodney got caught up in the alabama rig controversy when the bait he was using was not an alabama rig or umbrella rig. The IGFA also has NO rule against the use of alabama rigs anyways. They were actually just made legal by the IGFA in Australia. And since IGFA is a world organization then why shouldn't they be in the rule books as legal here? But there is still no ruling on them here in the U.S. And to make matters worse the reason for not certifying the record was because the IGFA considered Rodney's bait to be a spreader bar and because it wasn't hooked up like a spreader bar should be the record was denied. Now if you are familiar with spreader bars they look nothing like a spinner bait, also they are only used for salt water trolling. You can't tell me that something political isn't going on here. Rodney followed the book but was told that he didn't. Also how many people do you know that made a bait of their own and then caught a world record fish on it? Isn't that how fishing started and is about? But thats beside the point. This is the story exactly how everything happened..there are news articles everywhere that can verify everything I just told you. I would encourage everyone who would like to help to sign Rodney's petition to the IGFA to reconsider his bass for the freshwater world record. Just go to google and search "Rodney Ply Petition" and you'll see the link. He's gotten a lot of support so far.

[RobertBG]

I stumbled upon a state record worthy perch fishing a senko in the pads.It was so big I thought it was a walleye at first 3lbs 2oz I tossed it in a bucket someone left and began making calls,after a ton of calls followed by dead ends I was quite frustrated.The closest official was nearly 3 hours away,I ended up snapping a few pics,took measurements for a mount and tossed it back in.

[bassmaster3541]

Yup, I guess that's what I am - Harsh!

I've listened to this same type of thing more times than I care to remember. Not just about fishing, but from all kinds of people who decided to throw their reasoning skills out the window and then complain about the consquences aftwewards. I can't see any reason to try to understand why Mr. Ply chose to do what he did, that was his choice. But I choose to say that it is rather ignorant that when he was faced with a potential record catch, he obviously didn't bother to think about what needed to be done to get credit for it. That is 100% his fault, and no amount of whining by him or others changes that fact.

I can also assure you that my type of harsh would be nothing compared to the what the current record holder would display if he lost the record to someone who decided not to bother with the rules.

You should get your facts straight before calling out others on being stupid...

This is all straight from the Bassmaster article:

"called multiple times to get Arkansas Game and Fish to come to us” and "went through two counties trying to find a scale that was big enough to weigh it....”

Bottom line is that the fish was weighed in front of witnesses but not the folks specified, and the marina scale – which was big enough to weigh the fish – was certified after the fact as accurate.

Because of that, Arkansas would not certify the state record – even though it apparently recently certified other records under the same, similar or sketchier circumstances.

Arkansas is okay with the bait but not okay with the way the fish was weighed even though it apparently has sanctioned records weighed like that in the recent past.

The lure I used is nothing more than a spinnerbait using two hooks and weighing 1.4 ounces.

IGFA rules state] two-hook lures are legal, and I was told [by the IGFA] my lure did not inhibit the fight of the fish or give me an unfair advantage in landing it, no more than any other lure

nothing more than a spinnerbait with two hooks and five blades

[WRB]

The lure in the photo is a umbrella rig and the 2 hooks are not on 1 lure. The rig should be legal in Arkansas, but may not be a legal rig according to the IGFA, under the trap hook rule.

It is very frustrating trying to get a certified weight, when a certified scale isn't available at the marina or a nearby market or postal service that has large enough scales. At least the angler was willing to kill the fish to get it weighed, although stripers die easily after being caught.

For the record I am a former line class world record holder, botched at least 2 LMB potential line class records and know exactly what is required by the IGFA and it's not an easy task!

Sounds like a lot of people made honest mistakes and I hope common sense prevails and Arkansas comes around and validates this striped bass as a state record. The IGFA will need to rewrite a new rule regarding multiple lure / Umbrella rigged and make it retroactive for this catch to become certified.

Good luck with the effort.

Tom

[retiredbosn]

I followed the links provided and KATV who orginally did a story on this has a copy of the letter from the AGFC to the angler. Several hours past and the fish did regurgitate "a large quantity of shad" possibly up to five pounds of shad but the exact amount is uknown, and when weighed in was 58pounds 3 ounces. I know fish will dry out and loose weight, but is it possible to loose between 5-10lbs in a few hours?

[WRB]

Fish can loose up to 10-% of their body weight when dieing and dehydrating. The proper way to handle a potential world record is to weight it alive and get it examined immediately by a local official This can be very difficult task to accomplish, but with cell phone a lot easier today then in the past. A potential world record fish should be wrapped in a wert towel, placed in a cooler or box and packed in ice to reduce dehydration, body fluids and stomack contents as it dies. This gives you the needed time to have it weighed and certified properly. As bass anglers we tend to be wired to catch and release bass and focus our efforts on keeping the fish alive until it can be certified, this really complicates things. If I had only practiced my own advice years ago! IGFA record fish must die, unless everything is in place at the marina when you arrive.

I carry a certified scale and have a camera, but often fish alone, so 2 witnesses and a biologist to examin the fish must be pre arranged. The witnesses can be anyone that verifies the weight and measurements, you need the phone number of the local fish & game biologist or official to validate the catch, look at the tackle, check your liense etc, before releasing the bass.

Tom

[OK Bass Hunter]

Ouch, ouch and more ouch.