Would you reveal untouched honey hole for a state record?

[gim]

1 hour ago, Dwight Hottle said:

I would not have a problem revealing I caught a state record out of Lake Erie. 

I was gonna say, maybe it's dependent on where one caught it.  Simply naming a Great Lake probably wouldn't change much in terms of fishing pressure because of the size.

[MN Fisher]

1 hour ago, gimruis said:

I was gonna say, maybe it's dependent on where one caught it.  Simply naming a Great Lake probably wouldn't change much in terms of fishing pressure because of the size.

From what I've heard - for a number of years after the state record bass was caught in 2005, Auburn Lake in Carver Park Reserve was 'pounded'.

[Further North]

1 hour ago, KSanford33 said:

I could definitely see the issue with additional pressure on a body of water, so that I understand. 
 

But I’m as incognito as they come, so I can’t imagine privacy becoming an issue. I just don’t think there would be an easy way to contact me. 

Everyone is easy to find...'specially when they stick their name on a record.

[Kirtley Howe]

For me it is a solid NO. I only care about beating my own records, so I would have no interest in filing for a state or national record of any kind. Therefor I would not have to worry about giving away a honey hole.

[Further North]

To put it in perspective:  I wouldn't reveal a spot for a world record.

[Deleted account]

No.

[Skunkmaster-k]

I’ve already caught the world record, but nobody knows about it. 

[Spankey]

On a Great Lake I believe I would. A monster on the river and lakes I fish that would not happen. I would not even report it to local FC person. I won’t flat out lie to locals when asked how I’m doing but I certainly downplay what’s going on. I don’t post many pics because of the trolls. 

[ironbjorn]

I would never ruin a great fishery, a place I'm in paradise doing what I love and having the time of my life each time, to get my name in a dumb book. It's not that remarkable, nobody cares except for people like us who love fishing and we're a serious minority. I'd take pics of the fish and the scale but that's it.

[T-Billy]

On 7/20/2019 at 12:57 AM, Bluebasser86 said:

I caught a world record brown bullhead when I was a teenager but just thought it was a funny shaped flathead and turned it loose. It was an ounce shy of 8 pounds, didn't even take a picture of it because that's a baby for a flathead. Wouldn't have been that big of deal since it was just a bullhead but it still would have been kind of cool. 

At least you have the satisfaction of knowing you caught it.

No where near a record, maybe a pound and a half, but I caught a bullhead when I was a kid that was coal black like they are when they're babies. Guess it just never lost that pigment.

To answer the OP's question, yep. The only records I have a realistic shot at are muskie and saugeye. Both are stocked fish in our lakes, and the lakes are HEAVILY pressured anyway so revealing the location wouldn't matter.

[Catt]