Potential World Record PIC......what a fish!

[Rattletrap]

That's a big fish but, Georgia will maintain the record. Nobody in there right mind would release a possible world record.  He blew his chances..... :'(

[flechero]

What a fish!

Let don't start the Ga thing again... please?  They still have the record and have for over 70 years... like it or not, that is an impressive stat.

[Cajun1977]

mums the word?

[abelfisher]

Where are the Georgia boys now???? i think this fish will be recognized provided it was certified.

I wonder why Mac said he foul hooked it because that seems to be a big factor in this fish actually becoming a record. Either way, at least we have a photo of this slob.

From what an eyewitness said,there were a few people around them that saw that he had foul hooked it.......could be why he 'fessed up and said something,could just be an honest guy......who knows.Who cares?What a fish!And if his scales were "ON",it went 25 even on them.

Ditto!  I am giving this guy the benefit of the coubt.  Sounds like he's an upstanding guy.  If he was not, he probably would have tried to get the fish certified.  I don't understand why so many barbs are being thrown at this guy.  I know I have fould hooked fish before without purposely trying to do it.  If the guy was a scumbag, you can bet he would trying to get this receognized as the WR.  My thoughts anyway.  But then I try to look at the good in people first.

[Mikey40]

HOLY ...its got a bigger belly than I do!!!

[fishingrulz]

how could you not foul hook it!!?!??!!??! that thing is a friggin space shuttlle!!!!

[fishingrulz]

its fin..its fin...its fin is bigger than my friggin PB!?!?!

[Nick_Barr]

That thing truly looks like it ate a basketball!

[njoynlfe]

That is the most beautiful fish I have ever seen.

Actually I think it's quite ugly!!!! ;D ;D

That thing would scare the $&*# out of me!!!!!

[FALCON]

IT MUST BE A WHALE DRESSED LIKE A BASS.

[Valascus]

Ditto! I am giving this guy the benefit of the coubt. Sounds like he's an upstanding guy. If he was not, he probably would have tried to get the fish certified. I don't understand why so many barbs are being thrown at this guy. I know I have fould hooked fish before without purposely trying to do it. If the guy was a scumbag, you can bet he would trying to get this receognized as the WR. My thoughts anyway. But then I try to look at the good in people first.

He is trying to get the fish certified. There is an article on ESPN.com in their outdoor section under fishing that says he is going through with the application process.

[ball_coach_1]

I can't read enough about the subject....I hope to keep getting details here.

That picture makes me feel good about giving the guy the benefit of the doubt to start with, but all the stuff from the story makes me feel it is not going to be upheld as a record.

[Vermonster]

Just curious..... On our local Salt water fishing board out here, we have a local IGFA representative that claims the foul-hooking does not necessarily disqualify a fish from being a record.  He said if it wasn't intentional, it can still be submitted.  Anyone know if it's true?????

Also, I'll drive by Lake Dixon on Saturday to see how packed it is and take some photos.  Should be pretty stacked with boats......  ;D

[Valascus]

That is indeed true. If the fish was INTENTIONALLY foul hooked then it is disqualified. If the hok is set out of instinct and you happen to foul hook the fish it still has a chance at being considered a world record. It is kind of a grey area in the IGFA Rulebook.

[grahamb]

Is that the World Record largemouth? I think so.

Will it be certified - I originally thought yes, knowing nothing about certifying fish, but after reading the rules I don't see how it can be, which is unfortunate.

The IGFA rules for certifying a world record fish can be found at -

http://www.igfa.org/BookRule2004.pdf

A few rules that stand out to me that don't look like they were followed -

• The fish must be weighed by an official weighmaster (if one is available) or by an IGFA official or by a recognized local person familiar with the scale. Disinterested witnesses to the weight should be used whenever possible.
  

• No estimated weights will be accepted. Fish weighed only at sea or on other bodies of water will not be accepted.
  

I've only seen that one photo of it, but I wonder if he followed this -

• In all cases, photographs should be taken of the fish in a hanging position and also lying on a flat surface on its side. The fish should be broadside to the camera and no part of the fish should be obscured. The fins must be fully extended and not obscured with the hands, and the jaw or bill clearly shown. Avoid obscuring the keels of sharks and tunas with a tail rope.
  When photographing a fish lying on its side, the surface beneath the fish should be smooth and a ruler or marked tape place beside the fish if possible. Photographs from various angles are most helpful. An additional photograph of the fish on the scale with actual weight visible helps to expedite the application.
  

It's a shame. That lake is only 70 acres, now someone else knows the world record is in there and will get the proper credit for it.

Another thought - even if it does get certified, it's out there still eating. Someone else will catch it and take it away from the lake and it will stand for another 70 years.

[Zenmind]

Here is another report,

here is a quote from another site

its how it all unfolded... it wont be approved

"World record catch? 3/20/2006

(Editor's note: Ed Zieralski of the San Diego Union-Tribune broke this story earlier this morning. Currently, his story includes the only published photo of the fish. To see it, click here.)

Numerous sources reported the catch of a potential world-record largemouth bass this morning at California's Lake Dixon. Angler Mac Weakley one of three friends who record-hunt together in San Diego-area lakes was credited with the catch.

Caught on a white jig and weighed on a handheld scale, the fish was reported to weigh 25-01, which would far eclipse the current 22-04 all-tackle world record set in 1932 by George Perry. Weakley then released the fish because it was foul-hooked in the dorsal fin.

It's believed the fish is the same specimen caught twice by big-bass hunter Mike Long (at 18 pounds and 20 pounds), and by Weakley's friend Jed Dickerson in 2003 (21-11).

That's what's known. But as the day progressed, other issues came to light.

An anonymous but trusted source told another site that the fish was spotted yesterday on a bed, and two young anglers were unsuccessful in catching it. The same source indicated that Weakley asked the young duo to leave the fish, but the offer was refused.

Access to the lake is controlled, and this morning the height of the spawning season in gin-clear Dixon a long line of anglers waited at first light to launch. The source indicated that Weakley launched before the lineup and said he had a camping permit, which does ensure first access.

Then, again according to the source, Weakley reached the fish first and hooked her. Anglers watching from the dock saw the fish surface, with a white jig hooked in its dorsal fin. Weakley brought the fish to the dock, at which point the foul-hook was questioned.

The source said Weakley and his friends then conferred and took their boat out in the lake to speak further, after which they returned to the dock and decided to release the fish.

It's unlikely the fish will be granted world-record status by the International Game Fish Association, since anglers must obey local regulations to qualify for a record with the organization. Additionally, the fish was not weighed on a certified scale, which is present at Dixon, nor were measurements taken both of which are also strong requirements for record status.

California does prohibit the possession of a foul-hooked fish. The California regulations define angling as: "To take fish by hook and line with the line held in the hand, or with the line attached to a pole or rod held in the hand or closely attended in such manner that the fish voluntarily takes the bait or lure in its mouth."

The regulations also state that, "All fish may be taken only by angling..."

It's unclear right now whether Weakley will pursue world-record status for the fish, but another site will continue to report. "

:-/

[Matt Fly]

Just curious..... On our local Salt water fishing board out here, we have a local IGFA representative that claims the foul-hooking does not necessarily disqualify a fish from being a record. He said if it wasn't intentional, it can still be submitted. Anyone know if it's true?????

Also, I'll drive by Lake Dixon on Saturday to see how packed it is and take some photos. Should be pretty stacked with boats...... ;D

Better get there early, they only allow certain amout of boats on the water, or used to.    One guy said they only rent boats and thats why the quick release no livewells.   Used to be length rule and horse power ratings when i lived there.  

What livewell would fit that pig fit in?

[cart7t]

This is starting to sound pretty fishy.  ;D  

No Carcass, no record.  Nice try fella's.  After being confronted by witnesses who saw the fish caught foul hooked, leaving the dock, going out into the lake to confer and then returning only to release the fish.    hmmm.......

[Vermonster]

I love the "anonymous" source.  For all we know, it could be some disgruntled person calling in a tip from 3,000 miles away who just doesn't want the record broken.  Everyone jumps to call the angler a liar, but what about this "anonymous" source.

That being said, if it did go down like this, then that's pretty lame on his part, and it shouldn't be in the record books.

However, the fact still remains, it WAS a 25 pound bass or there abouts, and even though it won't be in the official books, it's a world record fish, that is satill swimming........  

[Rattletrap]

Access to the lake is controlled, and this morning the height of the spawning season in gin-clear Dixon a long line of anglers waited at first light to launch. The source indicated that Weakley launched before the lineup and said he had a camping permit, which does ensure first access.  

Hmmmm......Cheating the other fishermen out of a chance at a WR. That's sad.  :-[ It's still a big fish though.  

[Vermonster]

Access to the lake is controlled, and this morning the height of the spawning season in gin-clear Dixon a long line of anglers waited at first light to launch. The source indicated that Weakley launched before the lineup and said he had a camping permit, which does ensure first access.

Hmmmm......Cheating the other fishermen out of a chance at a WR. That's sad. :-[ It's still a big fish though.

Well, not really.  It says right there that his camping permit ensures first access.  

[Raul]

Vermonster, the fact is that unless it 's weighted in a certified scale the fish is not 25 pounds.

The fish is behemoth ? oh sir yes it is, there 's no doubt of that; would it qualify for the world record ? I don 't think it will.

Now, what would you have done in case you caught it ?

Me ? I would take the fish to a certified scale, have it measured, weighted, photographed and the do the right thing, return it to the water let everybody know that the fish was foul hooked and not apply for the world record.

[Rattletrap]

Access to the lake is controlled, and this morning the height of the spawning season in gin-clear Dixon a long line of anglers waited at first light to launch. The source indicated that Weakley launched before the lineup and said he had a camping permit, which does ensure first access.

Hmmmm......Cheating the other fishermen out of a chance at a WR. That's sad. :-[ It's still a big fish though.

Well, not really. It says right there that his camping permit ensures first access.

my mistake.  I thought I saw a not after does. I read it wrong.....

[Matt Fly]

Dixon has certified scales at the consession stand, which is on the lake also.

[Vermonster]

Vermonster, the fact is that unless it 's weighted in a certified scale the fish is not 25 pounds.

The fish is behemoth ? oh sir yes it is, there 's no doubt of that; would it qualify for the world record ? I don 't think it will.

Now, what would you have done in case you caught it ?

Me ? I would take the fish to a certified scale, have it measured, weighted, photographed and the do the right thing, return it to the water let everybody know that the fish was foul hooked and not apply for the world record.

That's a very reasonable way to do it.  About the weight, even though it wasn't a certified scale, it would have to be off by more than 3 pounds to put this below the record.  Verey unlikely, therefore I believe the fish was a record fish, but won't count.