IGFA Will Consider Mac Weakley's Bass

[Captain Cali]

Like I said, we don't need the WR status to know where the bigger bass are. Debates about trout stocking are meaningless because this bass could have been killed at 20 pounds, twice, but was released to grow some and spawn some more. Who knows how many times this fish was caught as a 1 to 10 pounder and it could have been killed then also. I doubt it was caught only 3 times and as a 20+ pound fish. Catch & Release is the key here boys. Trout stocking would mean nothing if we did not C&R.

How many of you would have killed this fish if you caught her at 20 pounds? I'm willing to bet it would go 50/50 or pretty close.

Don't get me wrong, the trout do help. There is no doubt about that.

[KYbass1276]

Do they even stock trout in that lake surely they don't stock all the lakes out there do they. If it turns out theres no trout stocked there then there is no reason for that to be a issue anyway

[Captain Cali]

Do they even stock trout in that lake surely they don't stock all the lakes out there do they. If it turns out theres no trout stocked there then there is no reason for that to be a issue anyway

Yes, the lake is stocked with Rainbow Trout in the winter and spring months when water temps permit.

If this is accepted as the WR, bring on the asterik debate!

But you're right, not every lake gets stocked with trout and some big bass have been caught in lakes that don't get stocked like Hodges. A 20-5 was caught there 1985.

[roadwarrior]

C'mon.

We have over 4,000 members on the forum. It ain't 50/50, but there might be a couple of guys that would have released THE WORLD RECORD!

[Rattletrap]

I released two WR's here in Georgia. I did want to upstage George Perry.

[Captain Cali]

25/75? RW, You're probably right. 50/50 is a high number. I was just trying to make a point. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

[Cephkiller]

Sounds like to me the intentionally hooked the fish wrong and the bystanders saw it and they knew they wouldnt get away with it..If they would have been by themselves I guaranteed no controversy,they would be getting paid..there  is a difference between catching and hooking a bass intentionally like it sounds to me..

Unfortunately, that is my impression as well.  If the catch was legit, I don't think the details would be sketchy as they are now.  They would have certified the fish properly.

[Captain Cali]

read the article I posted from lake Dixon.    Those guys put her on a stringer, thats retention.

I was finally able to pull that up. I think you're getting a little technical here Matt. From my understanding these rental boats don't have livewells, which if the fish was placed in one would still be considered retention right? They did the right thing by keeping the fish in the water as much as possible. The way I read it that was the only reason for the stringer.

[abelfisher]

MattFly,

What do you suggest, throw those ol boys in jail because they "retained" a Friggin World Record bass to take some pictures and weigh it...??

[Rattletrap]

World record. That remains to be heard. It's just a big fish that people say weighed 25lbs. A photo of a big bass. That's all they have. 25lb. No way. 20-21 lbs is more like.

[KU_Bassmaster.]

World record. That remains to be heard. It's just a big fish that people say weighed 25lbs. A photo of a big bass. That's all they have. 25lb. No way. 20-21 lbs is more like.

Watch the video on Sportscenter tonight.  They have the video of the fish on the scale and the scale reads 25 something.

[abelfisher]

World record. That remains to be heard. It's just a big fish that people say weighed 25lbs. A photo of a big bass. That's all they have. 25lb. No way. 20-21 lbs is more like.

I think I am more apt to believe a digital scale actually weighing the fish than someone sitting thousands of miles away saying 20-21 pounds. But that's just me. Besides I don't get all the slamming of this guy. Hell, he's a fisherman just like we are. The guy obviously has had much success in the past and is well known fisheman in the area. Give him a break!l

[RoLo]

They may have trouble getting that scale certified. The IGFA themselves recommend against using a digital scale.

A scale is deemed "certified" only if it has been calibrated before the weigh-in.

In fact the date of re-calibration must be submitted. I have never heard of calibrating a scale

after the weigh-in. Whose is in possession of that scale???? Calibrating the scale now

would not confirm it's accuracy during the weigh-in.

Another bugbear that hasn't been addressed is the absence of a state biologist.

In Florida at least, a state official "must" confirm the species in-person as an eye-witness.

Many state records have been denied due to this infraction alone. Also, I seriously doubt

that the IGFA would allow a photograph to substitute for the corpse. I've read too many instances

where the IGFA failed to sanction record fish with fewer breaches than this fish.

Not to mention that this fish was also foul-hooked!! If the IGFA sanctions this bass,

my attention would turn to the "IGFA", not the bass (ain't gonna happen).

Roger

[fishbonz]

You should hear the witness's story and I think you will have a different view of these guys catch.

Dock Watcher

Weakley's Catch As

Barnett Witnessed It

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Photo: Mac Weakley

Mac Weakley's monster, held here by friend Mike Winn, was released from the dock at Lake Dixon.

Yesterday (Mon., March 20, 2006), California angler Mac Weakley caught a largemouth bass from Lake Dixon that could have been the new all-tackle world record.

On a handheld scale, shown through videotape evidence, the fish weighed 25-01, which was nearly 3 pounds heavier than the previous record of 22-04 set by George Perry of Georgia in 1932.

Weakley released the fish before it could be weighed on a certified scale, and without measuring the fish. The reason? It was foul-hooked.

Various news sources have printed differing accounts of what transpired yesterday morning. another site has yet to speak with Weakley, but what follows in an eyewitness account from 18-year-old Steve Barnett of Rancho Bernardo, Calif.

Sunday Spotting

The story begins not yesterday, but the day before, when the behemoth was found by a young angler. Barnett said his brother Dan was a witness that day.

"My brother Dan was there with his friend Boon and they were fishing and saw Kyle on the fish," Barnett said. "Jed (Dickerson) and Mac (Weakley) and possibly Mike Winn were there. I guess they were out on the docks talking and Mac pulled out $1,000 cash and said he'd give it to Kyle, who was originally on the fish.

"Dan and Boon were standing right next to him, and Dan told me, 'Mac pulled $1,000 cash out, and said it's for Kyle if he gets off the fish.'"

So to recap, according to Barnett, his brother Dan was at Dixon on Sunday, where he saw the young angler Kyle (last name unknown) fishing to the potential world record, after which Weakley offered $1,000 to Kyle if he'd get off the fish.

Monday Morning

Barnett and his brother started high school at 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning, which gave them plenty of time to fish the first hour at Dixon.

"So we got up there super early we were the first in line, ready to go in the lake," Barnett said. "Once the ranger opened the gate, we drove down to the lake and Dan jumped right out of the car with his rod the fish was almost fishable from the dock.

"We got there and then Jed and Mac and Mike were already there. We thought, 'What the heck? What's going on?' We were kind of bummed out. Apparently they did it with some kind of camping pass, which lets you go before everybody else.

"All we could do was sit there and watch."

The Connection

From the dock, Barnett said he had a clear view of Weakley's presentation, hookset and landing. Note that the fish was bedding in clear water.

"After less than an hour, Mac swung for the first time," Barnett said. "He ended up swinging a total of five times, and on the fifth swing he got it. (The swings) were on separate casts. He'd do a flip here, a flip there, then a swing.

"I was counting. And he was using the same bait, which is really rare for a fish to be so interested in the same bait.

"(Dickerson) did throw his Mission Fish in there once, but didn't swing."

According to Barnett, Weakley connected on his fifth swing. "They got the fish and it went straight out to deep water like a tow truck. They yelled, 'Get the net! Get the net!'

"Right before they netted it, Dan and I saw the fish. It was foul-hooked down the left side of the fish, right next to the dorsal fin."

The trio netted the fish about 10 feet away from the dock. "They were flipping out," Barnett said. "Then they said, 'We have to go talk to our lawyer.' So they went out to the middle of the lake.

"After 15 minutes they came back. I was talking with I believe it was Mac, but I can't say I'm positive. It was either Mac or Jed. One of the two came up it's the only blurry memory and they were standing with me and Dan, and (Mac or Jed) said something like, 'Yeah, there's a weird mark on its side.'

Barnett added: "I don't know why he said that, because Dan asked him before what they were going to do with it because it was foul-hooked. I don't know it was trippy, a little weird."

Photo: Jed Dickerson

Weakley's fish is assumed to be the same fish Jed Dickerson caught in 2003 (pictured here).

Barnett said his brother Dan then brought attention again to the foul hook. "They said, 'I don't know about this mark what's up with that?' But Dan's like, 'Yeah, that's where you foul-hooked it."

At that point, Barnett noted there was some silence, then he remembers Mac saying, "Hey, just let the fish go get rid of it."

But there had not been a photo taken of the fish yet, nor measurements. And it hadn't been weighed on a certified scale, which would have been delivered to Dixon on request.

Barnett said: "Everybody's saying he's got to get a picture, but Mac was getting antsy to get the fish back. They even asked him to get a measurement. Mike Winn said they had to have a measurement. Mac said they didn't need it they'd already gotten one a couple years ago (see Notable)."

Barnett said of the release: "They let it go and it went straight down. It was the biggest fish I've ever seen in my life. And it was obviously the biggest one I've ever touched. I took the rope stringers off for the picture, and Mike Winn was holding the fish.

"When the thing was sitting in the water, an inch or two of its back was out of the water. When it was breathing, water was just rushing out back of its gills."

After the release, Barnett noted that he, Mac and the rest of the people on the dock "talked for a little while. It was cool. They're pretty cool guys."

Fair or Foul?

There's no doubt the fish was foul-hooked. Weakley has readily admitted that. But was it intentionally foul-hooked?

Barnett said: "Every guy I've spoken with has asked me that same question. All I can say to every person is, they were working their jigs and doing sweet stuff. They were doing some pretty enticing things with their jig shaking it pretty good.

"A lot of times they were working it into a bed, then dead-sticking it for a while, then they'd start working it again. All they told me at the end of it was, 'When you get a big fish like that, that noses up on your bait, you don't want to take the chance you have to swing."

Barnett added: "I didn't say anything to that, but I didn't agree with it. I would have felt the fish before I swung, but I don't think he tried to snag it."

[chitwnbass]

Just a question...  If this guy Weakley is such a stand up guy and supposedly caught this WR bass and had it weighed/photoed/videoed but then felt bad about foul hooking it and released it why is he applying for the record with the IGFA???  I've heard a lot of praise for him being so conservation minded for releasing it and being such an honest guy for admitting he foul hooked it and if all of this is on the level then great.  But when exactly does he deserve the consideration for catching the WR bass?  Am I missing something?  Foul hooked non-certified scale, no measurements and no examination by a biologist.  Shouldn't these three things pretty much DQ this catch?  If not I would think some underhanded person could just catch a large bass, picture it, stuff it full of lead weight, weigh it, video it and then release it only to collect the WR.  I have nothing against Weakley and think it was a great catch regardless but when it comes to the WR there have to be strict rules and regulations that need to be followed in order to keep the records righteous.

[cart7t]

Another little rule not adhered to was the witnessing of the weight (on certified scale) by a IFGA approved person, IE: biologist, Fish & Game Warden.  At least the Perry bass had that on his side and the scales used (IIRC) was a postal scale or something of better accuracy than some Walmart Chinese made digital fish scale.

I'm all for a new record but this one has too many caveats involved. I only wish these guys had legitimately caught the thing.

[cart7t]

Just a question...  If this guy Weakley is such a stand up guy and supposedly caught this WR bass and had it weighed/photoed/videoed but then felt bad about foul hooking it and released it why is he applying for the record with the IGFA???  I've heard a lot of praise for him being so conservation minded for releasing it and being such an honest guy for admitting he foul hooked it and if all of this is on the level then great.  But when exactly does he deserve the consideration for catching the WR bass?  Am I missing something?  Foul hooked non-certified scale, no measurements and no examination by a biologist.  Shouldn't these three things pretty much DQ this catch?  If not I would think some underhanded person could just catch a large bass, picture it, stuff it full of lead weight, weigh it, video it and then release it only to collect the WR.  I have nothing against Weakley and think it was a great catch regardless but when it comes to the WR there have to be strict rules and regulations that need to be followed in order to keep the records righteous.

All very legitimate questions.

[roadwarrior]

Mac Wealley and his bass just made the CBS Morning News!

"And howd' it taste? He threw it back."

[Rattletrap]

It's awesome that he caught a big bass. I just wish he had not made so many rookie mistakes at getting this fish ceritified. He was supposed to be a seasoned, Big Bass hunting veteran, who you would have thought would have had every IGFA certified tool to qualify a possible WR. It's just ashame that he blew his chances at a possible certfied top 3 ranking or better.  :'(

[Rattletrap]

Mac Wealley and his bass just made the CBS Morning News!

"And howd' it taste? He threw it back."

I would have filleted it and fried up the egg roe. Mmmm, Mmmm goooood.  

[Rattletrap]

Watch the video on Sportscenter tonight.  They have the video of the fish on the scale and the scale reads 25 something.

Now we have video proof that he caught a big bass. Now we have video proof of him blowing his chances at a WR. Poor guy.... :'(

[Rattletrap]

Ray Scott, the founder of BASS and an advisor to the IGFA, says they shouldn't even bother. Nobody wants to see the record broken more than I do. I'm as enthralled with the record pursuit as anyone. But there are certain things you have to do to certify the record. These guysespecially these guys who've been after the record for a whileknew what those steps were and they didn't do it, referring to the lack of measurements and failure to use an IGFA-certified scale.

Scott, known as the godfather of catch-and-release fishing, makes an exception to his philosophy for the most venerable world records, like that for the largemouth bass. If you catch the record bass, you have to have the corpse, he says. Without it, we'll never know for sure. Now only God knows.

I agree...........

[Matt Fly]

read the article I posted from lake Dixon. Those guys put her on a stringer, thats retention.

I was finally able to pull that up. I think you're getting a little technical here Matt. From my understanding these rental boats don't have livewells, which if the fish was placed in one would still be considered retention right? They did the right thing by keeping the fish in the water as much as possible. The way I read it that was the only reason for the stringer.

I was asked a simple question as to what retention would be considered as.

I answered it.     And Yes, the Cali Dept of Fish and Game laws were broken by catching this fish outside the mouth.  And retaining said fish.   And the hook wasn't close to the mouth as it was the dorsal according to the article of the guy who caught fish.  Which I posted the article and picture of scales yesterday.

[Rattletrap]

I have foul hooked a few bass in my time. A single hook white jig in the Dorsal fin. Hmmmm....There might be some snagging off the beds going on in Cali. I sure hope that's not the case. Did they go out in the boat to discuss if there was a visible hook mark in the Dorsal fin, hoping the IGFA guys would not notice it? It gets fishier by the minute.  : IMO. I believe that if there was nothing illegal going on that they would have cerified that Bass the IGFA way.  :-?

[Vermonster]

First of all, I think this guy DID NOT intentionally try to snag the fish, but I could believe he could have been trying to pass it off as legally caught. I DO NOT think it should be certified. However, a few responses....

Matt, Can you cut and paste the CA DFG section that says the foul hooked fish must be IMMEDIATELY released. I read the fishing regs yesterday, and only found where it defined a proper catch (In the mouth), but saw nothing about releasing it......

Second, gimme a break about this "Must be certified BEFORE". I agree that you have to get a scale calibrated before to qualify as official, but do you honestly think this digital scale was off by 3 pounds???? I would find it very hard to believe. Some of you guys are using the certified scale debate to go beyond the world record status to even say that the fish wasn't that big.  I think the guy caught a legit 25 pounder, but probably will miss out on the record and financial windfall because of his mistakes and some bad luck.....

And how many of you guys have caught a 20 pound bass, and are able to say with certainty the from a photo on the internet you can say "20-21, maybe, but not 25". I sure as heck know I can't. All I know is that it's a huge fish.