Would This Be Considered a Trophy Walleye?

[roadwarrior]

[Ogandrews]

On 5/28/2020 at 11:13 PM, TnRiver46 said:

https://www.freshwater-fishing.org/the-facts-supporting-the-harper-walleye-reinstatement/

I’ve actually read that article multiple times, that fish has a lot more evidence going for it than a lot of other world records. I’m not saying that it wasn’t a big fish, based on the size of the head that easily might have been in the 20’s. I personally just don’t really believe records from back then, as many of them from that era have had the sizes exaggerated. Look at the multiple “world record” sized muskies that came from the Hayward area from that time, and then how every one of those fish has been proven to be faked. People didn’t take the record keeping process as seriously, a lot saw it as a way to bring tourism to their areas so there was a lot of incentive to “break records”. If you want a good history lesson on musky records specifically, look into Larry ramsel he put out a great video with today’s angler debunking all of the musky records, as well as having his own record keeping agency called the modern day musky record. There’s no way to know if that walleye actually was the size it was, just like there’s no way to know if the smallmouth or largemouth records from that era are true. I don’t really believe them, but then again there’s no way for me to really prove them false.

[TnRiver46]

5 hours ago, Ogandrews said:

I’ve actually read that article multiple times, that fish has a lot more evidence going for it than a lot of other world records. I’m not saying that it wasn’t a big fish, based on the size of the head that easily might have been in the 20’s. I personally just don’t really believe records from back then, as many of them from that era have had the sizes exaggerated. Look at the multiple “world record” sized muskies that came from the Hayward area from that time, and then how every one of those fish has been proven to be faked. People didn’t take the record keeping process as seriously, a lot saw it as a way to bring tourism to their areas so there was a lot of incentive to “break records”. If you want a good history lesson on musky records specifically, look into Larry ramsel he put out a great video with today’s angler debunking all of the musky records, as well as having his own record keeping agency called the modern day musky record. There’s no way to know if that walleye actually was the size it was, just like there’s no way to know if the smallmouth or largemouth records from that era are true. I don’t really believe them, but then again there’s no way for me to really prove them false.

The guy that broke the smallmouth record wishes he never turned it in because of all the hate he got. When you first construct a dam, fish size booms big time, before everything eventually levels off. As reservoirs age they become less fertile, that why I believe most record were set in newish reservoirs. I have no doubt there’s some records currently swimming the Great Lakes but I’m also sure catching them is not easy 

[Vilas15]

5 hours ago, Ogandrews said:

I’ve actually read that article multiple times, that fish has a lot more evidence going for it than a lot of other world records. I’m not saying that it wasn’t a big fish, based on the size of the head that easily might have been in the 20’s. I personally just don’t really believe records from back then, as many of them from that era have had the sizes exaggerated. Look at the multiple “world record” sized muskies that came from the Hayward area from that time, and then how every one of those fish has been proven to be faked. People didn’t take the record keeping process as seriously, a lot saw it as a way to bring tourism to their areas so there was a lot of incentive to “break records”. If you want a good history lesson on musky records specifically, look into Larry ramsel he put out a great video with today’s angler debunking all of the musky records, as well as having his own record keeping agency called the modern day musky record. There’s no way to know if that walleye actually was the size it was, just like there’s no way to know if the smallmouth or largemouth records from that era are true. I don’t really believe them, but then again there’s no way for me to really prove them false.

Good info. I hate to derail the thread even further but there is absolutely no way that Tennessee walleye is 41 inches ??? i wouldve guessed 33 inches and 15 lbs!

[Tennessee Boy]

18 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

The guy that broke the smallmouth record wishes he never turned it in because of all the hate he got. When you first construct a dam, fish size booms big time, before everything eventually levels off. As reservoirs age they become less fertile, that why I believe most record were set in newish reservoirs. I have no doubt there’s some records currently swimming the Great Lakes but I’m also sure catching them is not easy 

I've heard this point made by more than one fisheries biologist and I've heard it from old timers as well.  Smallmouth world record was caught 12 years after Dale Hollow was impounded.  Walleye world record was caught 6 years after Old Hickory was impounded.

[TnRiver46]

1 hour ago, Vilas15 said:

Good info. I hate to derail the thread even further but there is absolutely no way that Tennessee walleye is 41 inches ??? i wouldve guessed 33 inches and 15 lbs!

They had accurate scales and measuring tapes in the 60s, it wasn’t the 1860s

1 hour ago, Tennessee Boy said:

I've heard this point made by more than one fisheries biologist and I've heard it from old timers as well.  Smallmouth world record was caught 12 years after Dale Hollow was impounded.  Walleye world record was caught 6 years after Old Hickory was impounded.

I’m not a fisheries biologist by trade but I am by education. And I stayed in a Kelty tent last night as opposed to a holiday inn express. Just look at lake fork, built in mid 80s. Then 17 lb bass started showing up!  Tellico was built in 1976 and I have personally  talked to folks that fished it days after it flooded. They caught huge bass easily compared to how it is today. Then you look at Norris lake, built in 1929. Infertile clear water and not much black bass over 7 lb 

[Vilas15]

17 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

They had accurate scales and measuring tapes in the 60s, it wasn’t the 1860s.

People have lied since the beginning of time, especially fishermen! And I don't see them stopping anytime soon. Id love for my home state to claim the musky record, but I know the top few records are faked. Same story, came from the chippewa flowage, newly dammed. They were monster fish but not quite what they were claimed to be.

[TnRiver46]

20 minutes ago, Vilas15 said:

People have lied since the beginning of time, especially fishermen! And I don't see them stopping anytime soon. Id love for my home state to claim the musky record, but I know the top few records are faked. Same story, came from the chippewa flowage, newly dammed. They were monster fish but not quite what they were claimed to be.

Yes people are stupid but the guy that got the world record smallmouth had literally nothing to gain, his life was ruined by the fish. People lie and people are also jealous. Tennessee and Arkansas are about as far south as you will find a walleye, makes sense that a fish at the warmest edge of its habitat range would be biggest. We have a whole lot of massive musky in TN also but I could care less where the records come from 

[Vilas15]

11 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

Tennessee and Arkansas are about as far south as you will find a walleye, makes sense that a fish at the warmest edge of its habitat range would be biggest.

Youre right about that. The fish get too old up here and especially in canada and die before they get too big. A big smallmouth in Rainy Lake Ontario is 15+ years old. I figure the first musky i caught was 9 years old and only 38". And all the way back around to the original topic, Lake erie has great growth rates which makes for monster walleyes and smallies.

[Tennessee Boy]

2 hours ago, Vilas15 said:

People have lied since the beginning of time, especially fishermen! And I don't see them stopping anytime soon. Id love for my home state to claim the musky record, but I know the top few records are faked. Same story, came from the chippewa flowage, newly dammed. They were monster fish but not quite what they were claimed to be.

A game warden watched the fish being weighted on certified scales then he returned later and checked the scales for accuracy.  They were found to be four ounces heavy so they deducted four ounces from the record.  The guy made no effort to long arm the fish in the photos and experts have examined the photos.  The fish does look small compared to modern photos where all you can see is the fish with the angler in the background with about an 1/4 of his little finger shown supporting the fish.   Is it possible that the angler and the game warden conspired to steal a world record?  Yes.  Is there any evidence that they did?  No.  

[TnRiver46]

Regardless of where I’m at, I would have a heart attack if I caught a 10 lb walleye. Congrats to the OP

[Lucky Craft Man]

2 hours ago, TnRiver46 said:

Regardless of where I’m at, I would have a heart attack if I caught a 10 lb walleye. Congrats to the OP

Thanks and I have to say, I enjoyed the side banter about world records.  

[Ogandrews]

6 hours ago, TnRiver46 said:

Yes people are stupid but the guy that got the world record smallmouth had literally nothing to gain, his life was ruined by the fish. People lie and people are also jealous. Tennessee and Arkansas are about as far south as you will find a walleye, makes sense that a fish at the warmest edge of its habitat range would be biggest. We have a whole lot of massive musky in TN also but I could care less where the records come from 

If walleye are anything like muskies than warmer weather and longer growing seasons do not automatically mean bigger fish. They do grow faster for sure, but the almost get burned out at a certain point. TN has some monster muskies in it, bigger than Wisconsin besides the Great Lakes in my opinion actually, but never get to the size of the fish in northern MN, Ontario, and a couple places in Michigan that live over 20 years and get to world record potential size due to incredible amounts of forage and a life span long enough to grow to that top .01% size. I can’t guarantee that walleye are the same as muskies in this aspect but it would make sense to me. The fish down south will grow much faster but will die off before they have the potential to get to that record size. Look where the biggest walleye consistently come from nowadays, the Great Lakes, Columbia River, lake Winnipeg/red river, even the rainy river in northern mn and lower Mississippi here in southern mn. They are all in a much colder environment where the fish grow at a much slower rate but the fish still get to that trophy size on a consistent basis. If there wasn’t any negative effect (shorter lifespan) on cold water fish like walleye and musky growing faster in southern waters than the fish down there would be significantly bigger than our northern fish on a regular basis, just like largemouth are. I could be completely wrong about this too, I’m just speculating as I know a lot more about muskies than I do walleye.

6 hours ago, Vilas15 said:

Youre right about that. The fish get too old up here and especially in canada and die before they get too big. A big smallmouth in Rainy Lake Ontario is 15+ years old. I figure the first musky i caught was 9 years old and only 38". And all the way back around to the original topic, Lake erie has great growth rates which makes for monster walleyes and smallies.

Musky strain makes a big difference as well in growth rates. I was looking at a study that was done on musky growth rates and it showed that our leech lake strain Minnesotan fish will usually be 40” or more by the time a Wisconsin fish hits 30”. Pretty crazy the difference in growth potential.

[Bluebasser86]

That's a giant walleye, just a few pounds short of the state record here. I'd love to catch one half that big.

[Tim Kelly]

On 5/26/2020 at 1:49 PM, Lucky Craft Man said:

It was on Lake Erie, which for that waterway, people certainly catch bigger ones.  However, being that I never fish for them, I may go the rest of my life without catching one larger.

Thanks A-Jay.  I'm pretty sure you know that place.  And I agree, that maybe one of my better "presentations" as there was so much belly fat, I could tuck those fingers right in to make for a "clean" hold (which consiquently makes the fish look really big...heh heh)

 

Did you have permission to fish Menderchuck south? I hear the coast guard are pretty strict on poachers.

[A-Jay]

1 hour ago, Tim Kelly said:

Did you have permission to fish Menderchuck south? I hear the coast guard are pretty strict on poachers.

Lake Menderchuck East is a wide open fishery.

But thanks for looking out.

A-Jay

[slonezp]

Nice fish

[Bankbeater]

That's a nice fish.