IGFA Will Consider Mac Weakley's Bass

[Rattletrap]

If you look at the photos side by side, Dickerson's bass appears bigger.

[RoLo]

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......

I'm not matt, but it goes without saying, any fish that is not legal must be released immediately

back into the water (A little thing called "discipline", now apparently on the endangered list).

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.

It really doesn't matter what you or I "think". To validate a state record and certainly a world record,

the scales must have been calibrated in the recent past. I live on a lake that has the potential

to break the Florida state record. Right now, before ever setting the hook, I know the whereabouts

of 5 "certified" scales nearest to my home lake. I see know reason to make excuses for anglers

who were feverishly pitching treble hooks at a visible cow? I see no heros either.

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".

It works both ways. How many of us can say, merely by looking at a photograph

that this bass is definitely over 22-lbs 4oz? This is beginning to get silly.

Roger

[Vermonster]

[quote author=RoLo link=1142978655/40#51 date=1143042637

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.

It really doesn't matter what you or I "think". To validate a state record and certainly a world record,

the scales must have been calibrated in the recent past. I live on a lake that has the potential

to break the Florida state record. Right now, before ever setting the hook, I know the whereabouts

of 5 "certified" scales, nearest to my home lake. I see know reason to make excuses for these guys?

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".

It works both ways. How many of us can say, merely by looking at a photograph

that this bass is definitely over 22-lbs 4oz? This is beginning to get silly.

Roger

[Rattletrap]

What were they discussing on there little get together on their boat. Removing the weights, or doctoring up the snag marks. ;D

[Valascus]

What scales can IGFA certify? IGFA can certify scales up to 100 lb. This means that all hand-held spring

scales and digital scales can be submitted for certification. Dial-face scales in the lower ranges can be

certified as well. Those in the higher ranges can be certified by state agencies. Heavy-duty digital scales can be certified (and adjusted) by the manufacturers.

How does IGFA certify a scale? Every scale goes through a test where known weights are hung on the scale, and the readouts are noted. I usually test each scale at 5-lb intervals. To be certified, a scale must not be off by more than one increment. Spring scales and dial-face scales pass this test for the most part. If the scale does not pass the test, it is usually because of age rather than poor quality.

Hand-held digital scales get a 2nd test. The scale is zeroed out, a mid-range weight is placed on it and a

reading is taken. This is done three times. These three tests must match the reading in the first test, meaning all four tests must be the same. If there are any differences from one test to another, then the scale cannot be certified due to inconsistencies. A large portion of hand-held digital scales is not certifiable due to a failure in one or both of these tests.

What scales can IGFA recommend? IGFA cannot recommend any particular brand of scale, but we can

recommend a style to give an idea of what is available and what to look for. What works best for anglers

depends on how they will be using the scale. Individuals going out to catch and release fish for potential world records should use hand-held spring scales. They are portable, they are accurate and they are sturdy. It is up to the anglers to determine which scale would work best. They would want to get a scale that is big enough to weigh the fish they are attempting to catch. Using a 100-lb scale (with 1-lb increments) to weigh 5-lb fish would not benefit the angler. Remember estimated weights are not permitted. If the scale reading is between two marks, the angler must round down to the heaviest known weight. On a scale with 1-lb increments, the angler could lose up to 15 oz. Using a scale

that has 1 or 2 oz increments would be the best option for that particular angler. Marinas or weigh stations would want to get either a dial-face scale, or a heavy-duty digital scale, depending on the species and weights of fish they expect to weigh at that location. These scales would be permanent, to an extent, since they are not easily portable. If the marina expects to weigh fish in the 100-200

lb range, then a dial-face scale would be the best bet. If the marina expects billfish and shark, etc., then the heavy-duty digital scales would be the ones to get.

Certification information:

1. Only IGFA members can have their personal scales certified. This includes Associate members,

Regular members, Junior members and Lifetime members. Certified Guides and Captains and Certified

Weigh Stations can have their scales certified. Of course, it must be no larger than 100 lb.

2. The cost is $30 per scale. If they include a FedEx or UPS number, then the return postage fee is waived. Certified Weigh Stations pay no certification fee- it is covered in their yearly membership fee. Certified Guides and Captains pay a discounted fee of $24.60.

3. If a member brings in the scale in person, it takes about 5 minutes to certify a scale. If they drop it off, it can be shipped to them or they can pick it up the next time they visit. If a scale is sent in to IGFA, the scale will be on its way back within one or two weeks.

[Captain Cali]

rattletrap, all that stuff is rumors right now. Every hour it's changing so hold tight before you come to any conclusions. What I don't understand is how some witnesses are more credible than these anglers to some people. What makes a witness any more credible than the guys who caught her? There is so much motivation from both sides it's hard to tell what is what.

[Rattletrap]

rattletrap, all that stuff is rumors right now. Every hour it's changing so hold tight before you come to any conclusions. What I don't understand is how some witnesses are more credible than these anglers to some people. What makes a witness any more credible than the guys who caught her? There is so much motivation from both sides it's hard to tell what is what.

:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X

[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.

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.

You don't think you're getting technical here? Technically the law was broken, but I also drove 75mph on the freeway last night. The speed limit is 65mph. I broke the law too. :

Here is a quote from a DFG warden from the article Vermonster provided:

By the letter of the law, it's a violation because it's been illegally taken and not supposed to be in possession. But in the spirit of the law, a fish that big, it's human nature to want to document that catch. I don't know if I would have written a ticket for that even if I was watching it.  

[Rattletrap]

Hmmmm. So, if accidently foul hook a bass. Could I get busted for possession during the time I'm trying to get the hook out to release the bass? Nope. Possession is not the issue because they released the bass. The mistakes made in not properly certfying the bass is what amazes me. I would have liked to have had certified proof that I released an illegal, foul hooked, WR bass. That would be my bragging rights.  

[RoLo]

What makes a witness any more credible than the guys who caught her?

They are only more credible in that the uninvolved person has nothing to gain by being dishonest.

Third party witnesses are more inclined to tell it like it was, which represents THEIR moment of glory.

Technically the law was broken, but I also drove 75mph on the freeway last night.

The speed limit is 65mph

That's par for the course. However, if you had just applied for "World's Most Disciplined Driver",

you should be denied that record, because your driving is no better than mine :-[

Action speaks louder than words.

IMO, releasing the evidence speaks volumes. This whole event gives rise to a Big Question:

"What would possess three record-hungry mongers to release the most unique bass in the world,

the bass of their fondest dreams??"

A. Retaining that bass would provide evidence that it was in fact a new world-record

B. Releasing that bass would destroy evidence that in fact it was not a new-world record

Roger

[roadwarrior]

or...

C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

[Captain Cali]

Technically the law was broken, but I also drove 75mph on the freeway last night.

The speed limit is 65mph

That's par for the course. However, if you had just applied for "World's Most Disciplined Driver",

you should be denied that record, because your driving is no better than mine :-[

That was good!! I'm not going to debate that!! But at least my insurance company thinks I'm a good driver.  ;D

I'm with roadwarrior and pick C.

[Rattletrap]

or...

C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

It's not a fact that it was a new WR. No certified scale to confirm that, and no measurements. A picture and a video does not prove the weight. If you bring up that the digital scale cannot be off by 3lbs. It can be off that much if it's broken, or gets stuck. And it's most definitely not a IGFA certified scale. What were they doing out on the water alone with the bass? They also could have been out on the boat removing the weights. Who knows. The bottom line is that is not certified or verified. Everybody is guessing that it is a WR that's all. It is a big fish though. Just like all of those other 20lb plus Cali bass. No proof guys. Until next time. Keep on fishing!!!

[Captain Cali]

Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

[Rattletrap]

Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

This is not the George Perry era where camera's were rare. He did officially weigh his on certified scales, and met the requirements of the time. Those requirements have changed since then. We have to follow the new rules now. Sorry....It's still a big 20lb plus bass though.

[Vermonster]

Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

This is not the George Perry era where camera's were rare. He did officially weigh his on certified scales, and met the requirements of the time. Those requirements have changed since then. We have to follow the new rules now. Sorry....It's still a big 20lb plus bass though.

But was his scale appropriately calibrated and certified by the IGFA BEFORE he weighed his fish on it?????  

Look, I think it's obvious (Should be to most) it's a 25 pound fish or there abouts.  What's not clear is the way it was caught, etc.  So, it shouldn't be considered for a record.  

[roadwarrior]

I was NOT stating  "it was in fact the new World Record," that was just an "Option C." relating to RoLo's post. I have no more information than anyone else, I have only seen the same coverage you all have. Regarding pictures and video recordings, well no one can judge an exact weight from that. No doubt it's a HUGE bass, but unless there is some specific documentation or proof as to the accuracy of the scale, the true weight will always be in question.

Regardless of whatever additional information is revealed, the fish is not being submitted for certification and evertything else is just conjecture. George Perry's record is intact, but it seems plausible that it can be broken.

[KU_Bassmaster.]

or...

C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

It's not a fact that it was a new WR. No certified scale to confirm that, and no measurements. A picture and a video does not prove the weight. If you bring up that the digital scale cannot be off by 3lbs. It can be off that much if it's broken, or gets stuck. And it's most definitely not a IGFA certified scale. What were they doing out on the water alone with the bass? They also could have been out on the boat removing the weights. Who knows. The bottom line is that is not certified or verified. Everybody is guessing that it is a WR that's all. It is a big fish though. Just like all of those other 20lb plus Cali bass. No proof guys. Until next time. Keep on fishing!!!

Rattletrap, I find it hard to believe you accept Perry's record with no problem, but are so critical of this "could have been" one.

And about the measurements ....... I think they are worthless.  Go to the Texas Share-a-Lunker website and put those fish in the weight calculator.  And as far as the digital scale (the scale was brand new), couldn't they get it certified now meaning at the time they weighed the fish, the scale was certified.

[Rattletrap]

I was NOT stating "it was in fact the new World Record," that was just an "Option C." relating to RoLo's post. I have no more information than anyone else, I have only seen the same coverage you all have. Regarding pictures and video recordings, well no one can judge an exact weight from that. No doubt it's a HUGE bass, but unless there is some specific documentation or proof as to the accuracy of the scale, the true weight will always be in question.

Regardless of whatever additional information is revealed, the fish is not being submitted for certification and evertything else is just conjecture. George Perry's record is intact, but it seems plausible that it can be broken.

my mistake..............

[Rattletrap]

or...

C. Although it was in fact the new World Record, they concluded that because of the hook-up and prevailing California State Law, the fish could not be recognized by the IGFA under their governing rules.

It's not a fact that it was a new WR. No certified scale to confirm that, and no measurements. A picture and a video does not prove the weight. If you bring up that the digital scale cannot be off by 3lbs. It can be off that much if it's broken, or gets stuck. And it's most definitely not a IGFA certified scale. What were they doing out on the water alone with the bass? They also could have been out on the boat removing the weights. Who knows. The bottom line is that is not certified or verified. Everybody is guessing that it is a WR that's all. It is a big fish though. Just like all of those other 20lb plus Cali bass. No proof guys. Until next time. Keep on fishing!!!

Rattletrap, I find it hard to believe you accept Perry's record with no problem, but are so critical of this "could have been" one.

And about the measurements ....... I think they are worthless. Go to the Texas Share-a-Lunker website and put those fish in the weight calculator. And as far as the digital scale (the scale was brand new), couldn't they get it certified now meaning at the time they weighed the fish, the scale was certified.

I have to except it because it was so long ago and under different requirements. And that's all we have as a guide. We go by the new rules so we don't have the controversies like we are having now. The IGFA requirements are in place to avoid the what if's that are happening now. That bass has not met with IGFA requirements. There is no argument.......

[Rattletrap]

Where is the proof of the bass George Perry caught? And don't bring up the record book. I want solid proof dude!!

This is not the George Perry era where camera's were rare. He did officially weigh his on certified scales, and met the requirements of the time. Those requirements have changed since then. We have to follow the new rules now. Sorry....It's still a big 20lb plus bass though.

But was his scale appropriately calibrated and certified by the IGFA BEFORE he weighed his fish on it?????

Look, I think it's obvious (Should be to most) it's a 25 pound fish or there abouts. What's not clear is the way it was caught, etc. So, it shouldn't be considered for a record.

It does not matter. George Perry met with all reqirements of his era. The IGFA was formed and improved to avoid what's happening now. You have to stick by the IGFA requirements that are in place. That bass did not meet those requirements, and it is not recognized as a 25.1 lb or a new world record. If he had done what is required, we would have really known if he had to release the new WR because of a foul hook. Stay with the IGFA standards guys to avoid losing arguments and all other issues. They are there for that purpose. It also helps at weeding out the possible cheaters. People will do anything for that money. Keep on fishing!!!!

[JayDub]

It doesn't matter if the scale and everything IS legit and the bass really IS the biggest in the world... it SHOULD NOT and will not be a "World Record" because no one caught it. (legally that is) We know there are bigger bass out there SOMEWHERE but if not caught legally they are not considered World Records.  World Records are those fish that are "Caught" legally by a person.  If a bass was caught then kept in captivity, say at a fisheries aquarium and grew to be the biggest bass, that's all it would be.  It wouldn't be the "World Record" because it was not caught at 24 pounds or however big it would be.

[Bassmar]

The three fishermen in question are seasoned record hunters. They have by their own admission spent many years fishing for the sole purpose of breaking the world record. Do you seriously believe that all 3 of them would have made so many "mistakes" in following the correct procedures. Do you not think that they know every single requirement for WR certification? Did they all loose their heads in the heat of the moment? Not likely. More likely they realised that the fish had not been legally caught and no matter what would therefore not be recognised as a WR. So they did the next best thing. Instead of unneccessarily stressing the fish and risking her dying on them while measuring etc. they released her. She was a spawner so in all likelihood will return to her nest. As they seem to have an inside line on getting on the water before others they will no doubt give it a second shot and this time ensure they hook the fish legitimatly. Lets see what transpires in the next week or so.

[Pond-Pro]

    Well one thing this proves is that largemouth bass can grow to over 22lbs. The pick of that fish was enough proof for me. I dont expect Perry's record to stand too much longer.

[Master_Hunter_1977]

all I have to say about that fish is that it didn't look real.  I know it was but it is just so huge that it blows my mind.  I have been fishing for bass for nearly my whole life and can't imagine seeing one that big in real life.  ITs just AMAZING.

Scott